RE: You Can't Be A Vegetarian
(completely inefficient by the way, produces 30% of food consumed but contributes to 70% of the pollution from agriculture, in comparison to basically the complete opposite from small scale farms, (Shiva, 2015))
not true for all farms. Still, pollution is part of civilization. You don't see people go crazy about airplane travel so should we impose to people what to eat? why they should even bother? different people, different lifestyles.
But again the argument of displacement and destruction because of vegetable and plants being grown is highly flawed when you compare it to industrial animal farming and then take into account that a lot of those vegetables being grown are then fed to the animals using much more land and creating far more destruction. People moving to a plant based diet, or at least more of it and less meat, should no doubt be welcomed.
again. the point is not "more or less". the point is that it happens. one might eat 3 steaks a week and not travel by planet and a vegan can travel 5 times a year with airplane plus having 4 kids, adding massively to the carbon footprint. You can't just advocate for food when each person has a different lifestyle. THAT's the point. we all kills animals. we all pollute for having to eat. less is more is nothing more but douchebaggery and moral show off.
that's the rational way.
the point is definitely more or less!! If one industry or dietary choice is highly more polluting than another, far more inefficient, causes way more health problems etc etc then we definitely have to try to tackle that. this is exactly the problem with our individualistic mindsets in the west. we have become so obsessed with 'ourselves' and ohh this is my choice this is MY lifestyle that when ever anyone tries to take a look at the bigger picture we see them as being some sort of chairman Mao admirer. This is also completely ironic by the way because the way in which we live our lifestyles in the west is due to the pretty totalitarian practices of the corporations, western states, and then global institutions like the WTO, IMF, WB. Just to relate this point to the topic at hand you can look at Monsanto and the way in which they treat small farmers, suicide amongst farmers is ridiculous (almost 300,000 in India since 1995) and this is because corporations drain them of their profits whilst making it ever more expensive for the inputs into farming putting farmers in a destitute situation (same book as referenced in earlier comment).
I take your point about airplane travel but I'm pretty sure theres plenty of people who are still arguing for ways we can make air travel more efficient?? or make trains much better so that we are less reliant on planes, this is certainly feasible for shorter distances.
Also you have to accept the fact that we are all located in a specific culture or society with norms and values and beliefs etc. our lifestyle 'choices' do not operate freely in some free market far far away outside of these. they are deeply imbedded in these. therefore, if we change our culture our society our way of thinking then we change our lifestyles. stop seeing it as an attack on individual 'freedoms' and rather see it as firstly people exercising their free speech and then with that free speech trying to create a system of human organisation whereby we live more harmoniously with each other and with nature.
no because there is no such thing as "We". some people die from smoking, or drugs, or booze or extreme sports. A house cat lives longer than an outdoor cat but I still want to be an outdoor cat. It is not "our" choice but mine alone. The playground, earth, does not belong to anyone.
if we start deciding who gets to do what based on sheer numbers then we are no better than the animals of the jungle.
your philosophy makes no sense at all and has no coherence, it seems pretty self serving. your last sentence implies that you think we are 'better' than animals in the jungle but the whole point of your article above is that life is cyclical rather than linear? Now your implying life is linear and we are at the top of the food chain because we are better than the animals in the jungle.
Few points to finish. There is a 'we' whether you choose to see it or not is irrelevant and unfortunately as well 'sheer numbers' already do decide things. Unfortunately the numbers thus far have generally been undemocratic (military force, economic and political power, control of resources both often in the hands of a small group of people etc).
If you read history honestly you will see that we are no better than the animals in the jungle, and its actually that idea of human exceptionalism that is a central issue!!
And actually your arguments are suggesting that earth does belong to us and we can treat her how the fuck we want without any care about the damage we cause.
no we are not better than other animals. we are the same. we have needs and desires, only in a different sense.
I specifically say that our society is jungle 2.0.
dude. read the article