Let's say I enjoy trading crypto. What puts that enjoyment as lesser to an equivalent amount of meat consumption that creates the same GHG emissions compared to alternative?
This time without appeal to the naturalism fallacy.
Admittedly not my greatest comment, and my point was lost in the shuffle. But since we're shifting the goalposts now and comparing activities to commodities, let's say the only meat I choose to eat is sourced by hunting wild game. Let's say I did the hunting myself with my own bow.
Will you at least acknowledge the value of meat as a basic form of sustenance?
Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby (or crypto itself) is equivalent somehow?
> Will you at least acknowledge the value of meat as a basic form of sustenance?
Given that you can sustain yourself with alternatives that are less GHG emitting, you are basically trading GHG for your own personal satisfaction/enjoyment. How is that different from me trading an equivalent GHG to get some enjoyment out of my hypothetical crypto hobby?
> Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby is equivalent somehow?
Both things that you only do because they make you happy and something you want, not something you need to survive.
What makes a unit of enjoyment gained from trading crypto somehow a less worthy preference than the unit of enjoyment gained from eating a steak rather than a plant-based alternative?
This time without appeal to the naturalism fallacy.