• Jknaraa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    The thing I can never get behind is that this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer

      Maybe because it’s about economical efficiency. The old ways were abandoned in favor of new methods, because the new approach was cheaper / yielded higher profits.

      Yes, we could produce meat like we did in pre-industrial times, but that would mean higher prices or lower volume. Either way, it would mean less people could afford to eat meat. Like in pre-industrial times.

      • Jknaraa@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe because it’s about economical efficiency

        Exactly. It’s not about “saving the planet” at all. It is, once again, about making more money.

        • Spzi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh, that’s not what I meant to describe. There are differences in ecological impact of various foods and production methods, obviously. Choosing the smaller options helps to do less harm, to “save the planet”.

          I meant to point out that we moved from pre-industrial methods to modern methods because they make more sense in economic terms, in capitalism. And that just going back might lead to unwanted consequences like lots of people with much less access to meat.