You're viewing part of a thread.
those are impacts from production. once it's produced, drinking it has no impact at all.
High speed doesn't kill anyone, it's the sudden deceleration that does.
if we stop drinking milk, and it continues to be produced, the environmental impacts will not cease. if we stop production, it will.
Because if we don't, milk farmers will just continue producing milk for what reason exactly?
farmers choose every day whether to continue production, and for fickle and irrational reasons. ceasing consumption cannot cause them to make any decision. they have free will, so only their will can be said to cause their actions.
This must be a parody account or something. I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to actually believe farmers will produce milk to rot ad infinitum without it ever being purchased. They couldn't maintain production level without consumption even if they wanted to.
you talk about it as though there are only two people, and each only needs to make one decision: the farmer whether to produce, and a milk drinker whether to buy it. there are dozens of actors and factors.
If people stopped buying milk at current levels, then it would not be produced at current levels. The dozens of actors and factors would all be a part of that decrease. The market would shrink, not dissappear necessarily.
If people stopped buying milk at current levels, then it would not be produced at current levels.
how can we test this?
Every decreased market that ever existed should be sufficient. Fondue pots and miter boxes should get you there.
what caused any of those declines? could those events happen in the milk market? were any of those markets as ancient as milk? how else might they differ?
that's not a test. it's a survey. I'm looking for a test for your theory. I think it is undisprovable.
all the people involved in those markets were making decisions distinct from the people making decisions in the milk market. I dont think we can find anything so conclusive.