epskionline’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What about the slaughter

  I am amazed at how the argument here, there, and everywhere seems to be regarding evolution, which is a rather minor quibble in the face of the brutal, wholesale slaughter of dolphins in Japan that led to this discovery.

  "The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan

  On So says a dumb article posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Vegans and fish

  Curse you! I was ready to take you task until you responded to Pandu. As you probably figured, organic agriculture can find other inputs after the fish are gone, but none of us wants to see our oceans emptied, whether we care about fish or, in your case, simply want to eat them.

  Seeing as how we don't need to eat fish (despite their many health benefits, regardless of mercury contamination), it seems to me quitting fish is a good idea. Get those Omega 3's from canola, walnuts, flax seed, or even supplements. I looked up NuTru's Omega 3 supplement, and one of those pills, while expensive, is way cheaper than fish flesh.

  "The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan

  On Worldwatch releases a hopeful plan for saving the world's fish. posted 3 years ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I don't understand the desire to shun...

  ...environmentalism if it intermingles with animal protection. What gives? What is so morally repugnant about treating non-human animals with the compassion we can so easily give. What Jason calls for is far from unreasonable, yet the criticism of his post suggests that he recommends the impossible. Come again?

  I'd like to understand better what makes environmentalists who don't care about the welfare of animals tick. It seems to me that if it's all about conservation -- having some pretty animals and plants for future generations to look at, or to preserve our oxygen and food supply -- then environmentalism would be a morally bankrupt "ism." Talk about a means to an end.

  But a truly healthy planet is one in which we care for all its inhabitants. As all of us here know, the environment is one big biosphere. Our fate is intertwined. Compassion for other creatures is compassion for us and our world.

  But we have broken the equilibrium. We have exploded our population in the last 100 years, wreaking havoc on the environment with our industrialism and waste. We have wiped out countless important species in order to feed and accommodate our own, though we can feed and house ourselves without destroying those species.

  It's simply inhumane to continue expanding and taking everything from every other species -- whether orangutans endangered due to palm oil plantations or unknown Amazonian species succumbing to clearing of the Amazon for soybean plantations to feed Brazilian cattle for export -- when the results include not only harming our non-human animal cousins, but also the pillaging of a planet that is not without limits.

  We would be wise -- and compassionate -- to recognize our own limits.

  "The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan

  On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 1 month ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More for global warming

  I seem to remember hearing that at a Sundance Q&A for that film, though perhaps he's learned the limitations of a film campaign over the past several months and realizes now that world leaders can do something very key to this issue: Lead.

  I'd vote for Gore over any of the proposed candidates so far.

  "The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan

  On But he still understates the case posted 3 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Vegan environmentalist

  I do think ARA's and environmentalists have a lot in common.

  In fact, I consider myself both. I have a hard time separating the two. My interest in protecting the environment came before my interest in protecting animals. When I found out that CAFOs and other modern animal exploitation (over-fishing of the oceans, anyone?) were wreaking havoc on our environment, it was clear to me that I could no longer eat the way I had been.

  I probably could have found a slightly more environmentally sustainable way to continue eating animals, but seeing them treated as commodities at CAFOs opened my eyes to the notion that these are thinking, feeling creatures mankind was exploiting. I knew that, if I could be vibrant and healthy without them or their eggs or milk, then I had to stop consuming them.

  You can say it was for the animals, but I also like to think it was for myself. Over these past four and a half years of living and advocating vegan ethics, I have become a more aware and active person all around. See, when I stopped supporting an industry based around killing, I started embracing life, and that has strengthened my interpersonal relationships, my citizenship, my humanitarianism, and my environmentalism.

  "The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan

  On The activists among us should remember that there's plenty to do together posted 3 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses