I’m going to horribly oversimply this. For example. Say I am wearing a shirt a cheap one for Wal-Mart.

This shirt was produced in a sweat shop. That sweat shop has .0005 deaths per day. Thus by wearing this shirt and supporting the mechanisms that brought it to me. I have a killcount for today a number substantially smaller then .0005 and obviously there’s a tonne of subjectivity on what that number might be.

Now include the dye factory that made the shirt green, the shoes I am wearing, the bus I am riding in, the coffee I drink. All these luxuries and that number may go up a little.

I am wondering if this is somthing that is being considered anywhere is somone building a calculation to determine our daily kill counts.

I’m sure most of us probably don’t what to know what ours might be, but knowing what parts of our daily lives have the highest values we might work harder to change for the better.

  • FediFuckerFantastico@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    a year ago

    While you are correct that suffering is a better metric, there would be many in our society that would gravitate towards higher rated suffering items in the same way they want real fur coats and real leather in their Ferraris. That would backfire quickly.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      a year ago

      As someone that looks for real leather jackets (they last longer in my experience) which means less garbage in the landfill, it also means less money out of my pocket. I sadly wouldn’t care about the kill count when to my jacket.

      The jacket was just one example of many.

      • drewx0r@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        a year ago

        Leather is an interesting case, though, because regardless of whether or not people buy it, the cows will still be killed for meat (unless there’s a drastic change in food consumption habits).

        You could make the argument that, at least in the current landscape, the purchase of leather doesn’t increase animal suffering or suffering due to the many deleterious effects of large scale beef production (deforestation for feed, the carbon output, etc.).

        The only way to reduce the suffering created by a cow economy is to hit the main product driving it: beef. There are three times more beef cows than dairy cows in the U.S., so dairy consumption has an effect but it’s dwarfed by beef consumption.

        Thanks for coming to my TED talk.