To the PETA...

Haesslich said:
Of course, unless they raise their own grain and fruits and veggies, grow their own flax for cloth, and are completely self-sufficient right down to water and electricity, they're as hypocritical as the meat-eaters like us that are bad for the environment.
Click to expand...

As are the self-proclaimed enviromentalists opposed to practically everything we do. After all, they want us to stop using cars because they pollute the environment, stop using oil for the same, stop cutting forests, stop mining, etc. (Of course, one would note the irony - without wood, we'd have to rely on plastics and steel, which uses oil and mines...). As do many other special-interest groups, too...

Frankly, I've stopped caring about them - until they demonstrate a way one can live according to their beliefs, without turning back the clock.
 
Worf said:
(Of course, one would note the irony - without wood, we'd have to rely on plastics and steel, which uses oil and mines...)
Click to expand...
Whatever are you talking about? It all makes perfect sense. We'd simply live in caves, and dress in bears. No, not bear skins. We wouldn't kill a defenceless bear just to keep warm, now would we?
 
worf: most intelligent environmentalists (read: those who think beyond 5 years and actually care what kind of world their kids grow up in, both economicaly and evironmentally) would not say "dont cut down trees" they would say, "dont cut down trees unnecessarily and wherever possible use younger trees that you can regrow faster" ie use a tree that grows to decent size in 20-30 years rather than say 300. Or dont use trees for paper as there are considerably more efficient and better plants to use to make paper (hemp for one, an acre of hemp is equal to something like 5 acres of trees in making paper and the hemp you can grow once every 2 months in the growing season, makes stronger, thinner, and cheaper paper as well. Kanaf also works just as well if not a tad better than hemp). Likewise an intelligent environmentalist doesnt have a problem with cars, but does want us to try to find less damaging ways of moving asap, ie buying a hybrid rather than a normal car, or less extreme than that, not buying an SUV if you are a suburban family person with no plans to do serious offroading; and having money spent in researching better batteries and fuelcells and hydrogen engines. Likewise for plastics, recycle as much of the material as possible and try to use other products when they are available, use a paper bag in the supermarket rather than the plastic one.

Intelligent Environmentalism is all about balancing the costs to society in the long term. It doesnt require any serious changing of a way of life, just a different and better kind of paper (which isnt used purely because the plant it comes from can be used as an intoxicant, though there are strains that are without THC and thus not an issue though they are still illegal in the US for some truely mind blowing reason, then again the reasons that cannabis is illegal are truely in themselves mindblowing), and not buying a car that gets bad gas mileage just because it is bigger (and a road hazard/death trap at that) if you dont plan on going off road more than a couple of times a year. IF you go off road often, then of course get a jeep, but if you are a typical suburbanite who never purposefully leaves the road then dont buy a freaking suv. and i seriously doubt anyone is really going to have to go that far out of their way to use a brown bag rather than a white plastic one at the supermarket.
 
There are environmentalists that don't rely on broad "we must do something!" hand-wringing and apocalyptic proclamations requiring Immediate Action To Save The Earth. Unfortunately for the environmental "movement" in general, it's the irrational whackjobs that use environmentalism as their "tool" to engage in Ludditeism or to bash capitalism in general (and the US in particular, especially for US-based "environmentalists") that get all the airtime on the news.

I suspect, personally, that Earth First!* is no more appreciated by rational environmentalists than NOW screaming is appreciated by rational feminists, or at least those of either rational group that I've had personal contact with over time.





[* writer's note: yeah, we'll pave the other planets later]
 
Preacher said:
-- Very few animals "do" what?... I was classing humans here as a higher lifeform than the rest of the animals (not that the PETA types would agree, but so what...). Thus, my point was that the lower animals eat other animals; if we were to do likewise it would be somewhat analogous to cannibalism.
Click to expand...

Do eath its own kind. This isn't about morality either, its pure and simply not exactly healthy.

Preacher said:
-- Good point; wish I'd thought of it originally... Although I think your point would be equally valid w/ PETA folx, too (not all of whom are necessarily vegetarians).
Click to expand...

I don't really know all that much about PETA being an European. And each any all extremist group is in a way doubtful. But lets just say that I agree whith their general POV.

Preacher said:
-- Also, we could challenge 'em about eating eggs, consuming dairy products, hanging bug strips on their patios ("hey, insects are animals too!"), etc. etc. etc....
Click to expand...

On the first two you could argue. After all no animals have to die for that.

Preacher said:
...btw, what's the diff between a vegetarian & a vegan? IS there any difference?...
Click to expand...

Vegetarians are all people who do not eat any meat (no, people that still eat fish are _NOT_ vegetarians).
In the group of vegetarians there are many subgroubs. The most 'evil' ones still are the "ovo-lacto vegetarians". They still eat eggs and milk. Vegans don't use any animal products. There are also others I don't know the (English) name of. Like some don't allow coking of meals. Others don't even eat plants, if the plant is harmed in the process. So no salad for that guys as well. They may only eat 'fruits' (in the wider sense) that fall from the trees themself (no, no taking of the fruits of the trees).

Now you may guess why I know rather much about it ;)
 
Worf said:
As are the self-proclaimed enviromentalists opposed to practically everything we do. After all, they want us to stop using cars because they pollute the environment, stop using oil for the same, stop cutting forests, stop mining, etc. (Of course, one would note the irony - without wood, we'd have to rely on plastics and steel, which uses oil and mines...). As do many other special-interest groups, too...
Frankly, I've stopped caring about them - until they demonstrate a way one can live according to their beliefs, without turning back the clock.
Click to expand...

While stop using cars of course would be optimal, no doubt, that isn't exactly the point. OTOH why the hell do people drive a SUV that takes 30 liters or more in the city (Americans are especially bad when it comes to this and other kind of pollution BTW - think Kyoto protocol. They are even _HARMING_ their economy by this ignore environment stance). Why are you driving a 4 seater when you are a single?
As to forests. You can very well cut down trees and rep with young ones. If done responsibly there is no danger at all to need more wood then grows back. Of course abusing 1000 year old trees for toilet paper is .....
Then there is of course recycling. Not only does it save a lot of ol/wood/... It also save a whole lot of space on the trash yards.
I am not a bio-hippy, but there is a whole lot of stuff that can easily be done without all that many restrictions on the individual. That is the point. To overexaggerate - If you could save 100 people just by driving one kilometer less why not do it?!
To get a bit back to the PETA stuff. You can raise animals for most profit. You can pump them full of hormones (which is unhealty for us anyway) and give them a cruel life.
Or you could raise them fairly like they used to live before we humans took over. Animals raised that way even taste better. Also note that we destroy tons and tons of meat every year due to overproduction. So if anything it would be a good idea to revert to a less producing method of meat that gives more quality.
 
Napoleon said:
and i seriously doubt anyone is really going to have to go that far out of their way to use a brown bag rather than a white plastic one at the supermarket.
Click to expand...
Actually it would probably be better to use the plastic bags. Just reuse tham dammit. How much problem is it to take the used ones at home, squeeze them together, and take them with you to use them again next shopping?!
 
No no, vegans do not use/eat anything which harmed animals in the process of its creation. So if you had organically grown food but killed a whole bunch of animals to clear the land, thats a big no no.

And vegetarians are on the whole not crazy tree huggers either. Not eating meat is simply a way of life. Its just that the crazy ones are always hounding people about eating meat. The normal ones are OK. Even I have a mostly vegetarian diet. Its good to cook without having to worry if you cleaned everything properly. But I love those kangaroo steaks mmm...

Good on Napolean for recognizing the difference between environmentalists and those crazy eco-terrorists. Environmentalists are indeed respectable scientists who take everythings well being into consideration. They are not crazy and in fact some of the best environmentalists are hunters. Yes _hunters_. Can't hunt if all the game is led to extinction by over logging now can you?
 
cff said:
To get a bit back to the PETA stuff. You can raise animals for most profit. You can pump them full of hormones (which is unhealty for us anyway) and give them a cruel life.
Or you could raise them fairly like they used to live before we humans took over. Animals raised that way even taste better. Also note that we destroy tons and tons of meat every year due to overproduction. So if anything it would be a good idea to revert to a less producing method of meat that gives more quality.
Click to expand...

Yes they do taste better. Go and try Halal chicken instead of the regular supermarket shit and see. But on that note, there's a fine line between animal rights and the whole organic thing. Treating animals OK I'm all for but totally organic farming is simply rediculous. You cannot feed the world that way. Simply not possible. What do you think is the CURRENT method of farming in 3rd world countries?
 
Funny enough, but the "intelligent enviromentalists" seem to have lost out to the ones I see everywhere. Even Greenpeace, which used to be fairly respectable, now goes on the PR move (I can think of several things they've done that are pure PR moves, without an ounce of scientific proof behind it).

Of course, I am mostly disenchanted with marketing hype and such, too - the 30-second soundbites almost always rings alarm bells in my head. Most disappointingly, though, is that trying to get more information behind those soundbites is getting increasingly difficult.

A few years ago, I would probably have agreed with several of these "conservation" groups, but these days, I say "screw it. These people paint a dismal picture of the future either way, so I might as well just go and enjoy the short existence I have." Perhaps now I should get an SUV and drive it around. Screw the environment, we'll all end up dead anyhow. Now, when there's intelligent constructive changes being offered and promoted widely, I might change my feelings. This radicalism crap just pushes me the other way.
 
The majority of SUVs on the market today aren't made to go off road. In reality they're just glorified station wagons. And yes I own one.
 
steampunk said:
Treating animals OK I'm all for but totally organic farming is simply rediculous. You cannot feed the world that way. Simply not possible. What do you think is the CURRENT method of farming in 3rd world countries?
Click to expand...

Let me counter with 2 things here:
a) We, the rich world burn/destroy/... tons of food each year. What would happen if we just shipped it to the 3rd world?! *

b) If all people would be vegans the world could easily support 10 times as many people without anyone straving! Meat needs far too many resources to produce in any case if you want to com from that angle.

* Ok, there is the factor of cost. Now destruction costs as well so all you'd need is a ceap way of transportation that costs about as much as destruction. USA might be too far away for that (but you could help South America) but for Europe-Africa it should work fine. A very cheap way of transportation would be using unmanned zeppelins. Its slow, sure, but speed isn't everything...
 
Uh oh, you know what time it is when unmanned zeppelins get brought up in a PETA thread..
 
cff said:
Let me counter with 2 things here:
a) We, the rich world burn/destroy/... tons of food each year. What would happen if we just shipped it to the 3rd world?! *
Click to expand...

The majority of food is destroyed not because of oversupply but because it falls short of FDA health standards (it is contaminated, infected, or whatever).
 
steampunk said:
Yes they do taste better. Go and try Halal chicken instead of the regular supermarket shit and see...
Click to expand...
Can we assume it "tastes like chicken", then?... :D

"Hah! I LOVE cat; tastes like chicken!"
-ALF
 
cff said:
Let me counter with 2 things here:
a) We, the rich world burn/destroy/... tons of food each year. What would happen if we just shipped it to the 3rd world?! *

* Ok, there is the factor of cost. Now destruction costs as well so all you'd need is a ceap way of transportation that costs about as much as destruction. USA might be too far away for that (but you could help South America) but for Europe-Africa it should work fine. A very cheap way of transportation would be using unmanned zeppelins. Its slow, sure, but speed isn't everything...
Click to expand...

Such a method of transport does not exist. Which is pretty much the entire problem of sharing surplus food. The organic approach doesn't work because the yields would never feed a whole country.

Halal chicken tastes like how chicken is supposed to taste. Super market chicken is very chemical by comparison.
 
Actually, the third world *can* support feeding itself. It just turns out because of the way the first world is handling things, it causes the famine.

Many places can grow enough food to feed their people - they don't because (a) it's often exported to first world nations first, (b) monocultural crops because of (a), and (c) farm subsidies in the first world make third-world production uncompetitive.

Some countries are in a true famine, while others simply starve in order to get money, even though otherwise they really can feed themselves. And yet other countries (zimbabwe in particular) have goverments so corrupt that through their actions, destroyed much farmland.

And also, the likes of enviromentalists don't help. Zimbabwe said "no" to a vital shipment of corn because a bunch of enviromentalists told them GM-modified foods is bad (same food we can get here - the surplus was offered as food aid). Yet again, another famine caused by political measures. (I'm sure the starving families wouldn't have cared about GM foods, good or bad. At least it was something to eat...).

As for cost, it's been done - it's often figured into the foreign aid budgets. But it's easy to resolve much of the world's famine because they aren't caused by natural problems, but by political/social ones. Farm subsidies are easy in theory to get rid of, but no one will do it because it's politically bad (causes prices to go up to their natural economic levels (bad for consumer), and causes farmers to either lay different crops (risky), or go deep into debt (bad for economy)). Political grandstanding is much more difficult...
 
Worf said:
Farm subsidies are easy in theory to get rid of, but no one will do it because it's politically bad (causes prices to go up to their natural economic levels (bad for consumer), and causes farmers to either lay different crops (risky), or go deep into debt (bad for economy)). Political grandstanding is much more difficult...
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a major problem, particularly in Europe. Attempts to do something about farm subsidies invariably meet with protests from farmers, who have the numbers and equipment to make a major nuisance of themselves (blocking major roads and such). And governments can't do much, because public opinion is much more affected by images of local farmers fighting the police than people starving in some other place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top