I agree that there's no way around petrochemicals, and we'll have to offset the emissions to reach net 0.

Gas heating has an alternative though. Heat pumps are already cheaper to run compared to gas heating, even without any carbon offsetting.

The pressure to reach net 0 is only gonna grow as the impacts of climate change get worse. To reach net 0 we'll have to offset all significant emissions. When the offsets are priced in, using gas heaters becomes insanely expensive in comparison to heat pumps.

It's just a matter of time until gas heating is essentially dead. It might be in 10 years or 20 years, but there's no way around it.

Read the second paragraph again. I explicitly said that I'm not happy about their suffering, regardless of their political opinions.

It's just disingenuous to claim that people merely take issue with their opinions when it's the actions that are the real problem, although that still doesn't justify schadenfreude.

This is "people with a different political opinion are suffering, yaaaaaay!"

To be fair, the issue isn't that they have "a different political opinion", the issue is that they will cause insane amounts of suffering and deaths down the line if they get their way. Climate change will kill millions of people, and trump and his supporters seek to make it even worse for short term political gain (aside from the attempts to install an authoritarian dictatorship and all that stuff).

That being said, I'm also not happy when indoctrinated people suffer, regardless of their murderous ideologies. Imo it's more of a cultural issue, and nobody has any direct control over the culture/social environment that they grow up in.

But the majority of us loves our animals

And when the milk production drops, the vast majority of dairy cows get their throat slit and their bodies sold for profit. I surely wouldn't treat those that I love that way, but I guess animal farmers just have a very different concept of "loving animals" compared to people who have pets, for example.

Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides

What makes you think that? Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals, for example?

The NSDAP had no issues working with Russia, as long as it was in their interest.

Forced IVF would certainly be considered rape

I guess we should start barbequing pet dogs then. At least that's less cruel than factory farms, fwiw.

This one isn't human to human transmittable. It jumped to one human, but can't infect other humans from there, so unless it mutates in a bad way it won't start a pandemic. That's very unlikely with one infection, but there will be more if it stays on animal farms.

It would take away breeding ground for human transmittable mutations. With literally billions of animals, mainly in filthy conditions, we just keep rolling the dice every day for a strain that starts a pandemic. We can either try to abolish factory farming, or just hope that the next pandemic won't be much worse than covid.

With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren't sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That's what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.

If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it's inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.

You wouldn't need to sterilize more deer for population control than with hunting, obviously. You'd need to sterilize less in total because they'd still compete for food and habitat, just have no offspring. How is that unfeasible? I never said that you'd have to sterilize every single one lol, just enough to impact the fertility of their population in regions where its necessary due to human influence.

If you have to choose between killing a crying child or killing an adult deer, which would you think is the more moral choice?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course killing a human is worse, but that doesn't mean that killing a deer isn't cruel.

Why don't we spay entire wild populations of deer? :DD

Well, we do this with hundreds of millions of pets and BILLIONS of livestock animals just to improve taste, and hunters already go around shooting them, surely there would be a practical way to tranquilize them and do a snip or something. This is an issue we're responsible for after all, as you said. But yeah, there's no profit and no tasty corpses to be gained so it's not an option, I get it.

Thanks for the laughs though, young city dweller

I'm not sure why you felt the need to be a condescending prick by the way. Maybe basic decency and manners aren't valued in your culture, so I'll try not to judge your character based on that. Have a nice day anyways.

When it is necessary. Humans have replaced the apex predators in a lot of places. If population control isn't done with deer, the population skyrockets, gets out of control, and destroys the ecology, taking several species and the environment with it

But all that applies to humans, and much more so. The harm done by deer overpopulation is completely and utterly dwarfed by the habitat destruction, pollution and climate change that our overpopulation causes. Based on your argumentation, hunting humans for population control is necessary and ethical.

But of course nobody will apply the logic consistently because of how cruel it would be.

Why don't we implement more humane population control measures for deer, like spaying/neutering? It might have something to do with humans liking the taste of their dead bodies...

(game meaf from necessary population control = ethical imo)

At what point do you consider population control necessary? The inconvenient truth is that the worst instance of unsustainable overpopulation is us humans. No other species could come close to the harm and destruction we cause. Making special exceptions for ourselves while we are the worst offenders by far would be very hypocritical. If you consider population control ethical, you ought to consider school shootings, murder, etc. ethical as well.

I think we need to find better solutions than going on killing sprees.

Those Russian speaking separatists got heavily influenced by Russian disinformation and propaganda for years in preparation of the invasion, and supported by the Russian armed forces, precisely to have this justification. This is like saying Putin got 88% in the election, so clearly that's the will of the people. Assuming that authoritarian regimes lead by secret service agents play by the rules of democracy is dangerous.

Imo it's remarkable how successful they are at spreading their twisted narratives, even in western countries.

Payments were also reportedly made to politicians from other European countries. Without providing further details, sources stated that apart from Germany, the countries included France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary.

Damn, I wish they shared the parties and politicians involved.

I wouldn't say they're equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn't as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.

That's probably because you criticized their behavior (in a rather provocative way), which is often perceived as hostile and leads to downvotes.

Haven't you been told that we don't talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn't lead to anything bad in history, so it's not at all problematic.

Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!