Comments Survival has made
Not Sexist
Alicia is a confident, healthy, intelligent woman who is in good shape. This is empowering, not degrading.
Do you think any piece of art with a naked woman is inherently sexist? Where's the context?On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses
extreme and radical
Tai Haku wrote:
"...the real issue I have with this whole Brouhaha is the lack of middle ground people are showing..."
The term "middle ground" is just as subjective as "extreme" or "radical".
Is industrial civilization neutral? Is it "extreme" in comparison to healthy, functioning ecosystems?
If so, how can you complain about a lack of middle ground when the context of the argument is not a middle ground in itself.
This type of argument is useless and only delays the change that is crucially needed, and makes excuses to continue destructive behavior.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses
Duh
Thanks for clearing that up. Now what?On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses
VEGAN PARENTING
watch this short documentary hat was featured on Al Gore's CurrentTV:
http://www.current.tv/studio/media/2683042
wow! I never knew vegan children were so healthy.On A Grist special series on parenting and health posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses
Thanks
Thanks for writing this article. Very articulate.
One thing we shouldn't forget is that animal advocacy is a social justice issue - not a personal preference.
If I say "I can kick my dog if I want to", I disregard the dog's interests (and luckily there are anti-cruelty laws). It's the same as saying "I can eat meat if I want to". Well sure I can, but I have to admit that I'm ignoring and disregarding an sentient individual's interests in order to accommodate my taste preferences.
Also, did you know that anti-cruelty laws do not protect farm animals? See this article:
http://www.satyamag.com/may97/farm_animals.html
There are 3 basic questions I asked of myself when I considered going veg:
1 - Do I need it to survive? No.
2 - Does it's production often result in suffering? Yes.
3 - Does it's production have a negative impact on ecosystems and biodiversity? Yes.
The only excuse I could find to continue animals was that they tasted good - but then I found seitan. :)
On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 ResponsesDaniel Quinn
I have read most of Daniel Quinn's work, and if anything, it strengthened my resolution to adopt a vegan lifestyle. What are you talking about? How does Daniel Quinn's anti-industrial civilization vision foster a world-view in which huge agribusiness and factory farming is justified?
Comparing a human eating a hamburger to an eagle eating a fish is a hugely flawed comparison for many reasons:
- Context. While the Eagle eats the fish for survival and the two animals function as important components to their healthy ecosystems, most industrialized people do not need to eat meat to survive or be healthy - nor is the relationship symbiotic and beneficial as a whole to the ecosystems affected. Eating commercial meat is a choice, not a need. PETA and other AR organizations and individuals have no qualms with humans who eat meat as a means of sustenance. I don't have a problem with an Eskimo who eats a fish or even a Uru who eats a monkey.
- Wild fish and factory farms are not equivalent. Not only is the consumer (in this case the the industrialized human as opposed to the fish) not present for the killing, in many cases the cow (or pig or chicken or farmed fish) is subjected to an entire lifetime of confinement and suffering and ultimately a messy death.
- This is a social justice issue, not a personal choice issue. There are animals with brains and nervous systems who, given the opportunity, remove themselves from situations of pain. To say "it's your choice to eat meat" is like saying "its your choice to beat your child" disregarding the interests of the animal or the child in favor of YOUR personal preference.
- Context. While the Eagle eats the fish for survival and the two animals function as important components to their healthy ecosystems, most industrialized people do not need to eat meat to survive or be healthy - nor is the relationship symbiotic and beneficial as a whole to the ecosystems affected. Eating commercial meat is a choice, not a need. PETA and other AR organizations and individuals have no qualms with humans who eat meat as a means of sustenance. I don't have a problem with an Eskimo who eats a fish or even a Uru who eats a monkey.
Clarity
Of course, most of us carnivorous environmentalists do sometimes eat factory-farmed meat, just as vegans sometimes eat products made from industrial soybeans. In a nation where more than 85 percent of soybeans are genetically modified, while none of them are labeled as such, it's hard to avoid.
Comparing factory farmed meat to soybeans is erronous on two levels:
- What do you think factory farmed animals are eating? Duh! Industrial soybeans & corn. Mostly grown in clearcut Rain Forests. Even if we ate the Industrial soybeans (many veg products use organic non-GMO soy) at least the energy ratio has less negative impact on the environment.
- On an ethical level (GASP!), being an environmentalist who wants to live in a more compassionate world, comparing what a factory farmed animal goes through in it's life to what a soybean goes through - as if they are equal - is insulting and dizzying.
It seems only logical for people who are able to make the decision to eat less meat, to do so if they agree with at least 2 of these facts.On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses
- What do you think factory farmed animals are eating? Duh! Industrial soybeans & corn. Mostly grown in clearcut Rain Forests. Even if we ate the Industrial soybeans (many veg products use organic non-GMO soy) at least the energy ratio has less negative impact on the environment.
Clarity
[quote]Of course, most of us carnivorous environmentalists do sometimes eat factory-farmed meat, just as vegans sometimes eat products made from industrial soybeans. In a nation where more than 85 percent of soybeans are genetically modified, while none of them are labeled as such, it's hard to avoid.[/quote]
Comparing factory farmed meat to soybeans is erronous on two levels:
- What do you think factory farmed animals are eating? Duh! Industrial soybeans & corn. Mostly grown in clearcut Rain Forests. Even if we ate the Industrial soybeans (many veg products use organic non-GMO soy) at least the energy ratio has less negative impact on the environment.
- On an ethical level (GASP!), being an environmentalist who wants to live in a more compassionate world, comparing what a factory farmed animal goes through in it's life to what a soybean goes through - as if they are equal - is insulting and dizzying.
It seems only logical for people who are able to make the decision to eat less meat, to do so if they agree with at least 2 of these facts.On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses
- What do you think factory farmed animals are eating? Duh! Industrial soybeans & corn. Mostly grown in clearcut Rain Forests. Even if we ate the Industrial soybeans (many veg products use organic non-GMO soy) at least the energy ratio has less negative impact on the environment.