The environmental impact of meat eating

[redcannon]

i don't eat meat, but not because of loving animals. i mean, they're great, and i hate to see animals suffer, but mostly its because of how much it hurts the earth. i don't eat meat for the same reason i don't drive a hummer. the amount of land and water needed to keep those animals alive long enough to slaughter them is disgusting, when you consider that that's enough food to end world hunger. and the deep sea trawling that is used to catch fish absolutely destroys marine ecosystems.
if i grew my own grains to support a cow, i'd eat the cow.
if i caught my own fish with a fishing line, i'd eat the fish.
no problems.

[Sentinel]

It is capitalism that makes mankind manage resources shortsightedly, and waste them. Ending it globally would be more than enough to both end world hunger and decisively hinder any malicious environmental impact.

There's no need to stop farming and fishing -- that would be totally illogical -- just to do it in a planned way ie to the degree we need to, no more. Instead of chasing profits and so causing overproduction and waste.

In order to live sustainably we are not to stop using any of the resources this planet offers us, but to start using it them a smart way, for a change..

[bretty]

It is capitalism that makes mankind manage resources shortsightedly, and waste them. Ending it globally would be more than enough to both end world hunger and decisively hinder any malicious environmental impact.


Even in a socialist living condition the amount of waste going into the factory farming industry is completely illogical. And the environmental impact would remain regardless of our economic system. You might decrease it if the amount of meat is decreased, thats a given correlation, however the environmental effects would still be disastrous and completely counter-productive to ending hunger.


There's no need to stop farming and fishing -- that would be totally illogical -- just to do it in a planned way ie to the degree we need to, no more. Instead of chasing profits and so causing overproduction and waste.

Factory farming and free ranged etc. are all overproduction and waste regardless of the striving for surplus in capitalist economics.


In order to live sustainably we are not to stop using any of the resources this planet offers us, but to start using it them a smart way, for a change..

I'm not trying to say that as a vegan I am in a position to judge others anymore then someone who eats meat would judge me. But I am saying that sustenance and factory farming are contrasting objectives in a society. They simply feed the flames of world hunger, capitalist profits, etc.

The smart way would be to end meat production. Although I won't suggest it is unnatural for us to eat meat, but given our common objectives and the socio-political and economic context we live in it is hard not to take the ill effects of this industry very seriously.

[Sentinel]

Unfortunately you don't seem to realise the enormous differences between a planned mode of production and the capitalist one. Yet you are on the right track here:


You might decrease it if the amount of meat is decreased, thats a given correlation

Only to fall back into baseless assuming in the very same sentence:


however the environmental effects would still be disastrous and completely counter-productive to ending hunger.

No. If instead of producing huge amounts of meat for the first world market where it's either sold for large profits or dumped if people can't afford it, the global need for it to feed the hungry was calculated and the farming was adjusted and the meat produced and distributed in accordance, how could farming be 'counter-productive to ending hunger'?

Research has also revealed that genetic engineering (of both plants to feed us and the animals, as well as the animals themselves,) is also going to save huge resources and space for us in the future.

Transgenic Animals (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60593&st=0&#entry1292235209)


But I am saying that sustenance and factory farming are contrasting objectives in a society. They simply feed the flames of world hunger, capitalist profits, etc.
Under capitalism, everything feeds capitalist profits.. it doesn't by any means necessarily make anything bad in itself. It's really sad how so many don't see that only because industrialisation, factory farming, etc have emerged under capitalism they aren't part of it. Instead they are developments brought forth by capitalism, a progressive system compared to it's precessor, feudalism. It'll be the task of the next system, the first truly rational one, to make progress sustainable. Something it'll do simply by it's very nature.

[bretty]

No. If instead of producing huge amounts of meat for the first world market where it's either sold for large profits or dumped if people can't afford it, the global need for it to feed the hungry was calculated and the farming was adjusted and the meat produced and distributed in accordance, how could farming be 'counter-productive to ending hunger'?

Research has also revealed that genetic engineering (of both plants to feed us and the animals, as well as the animals themselves,) is also going to save huge resources and space for us in the future.

The farming is counter-productive because it eventually creates a scarcity that is not artificial like that of capitalist scarcity. In a place like Guatemala 40 million pounds of meat is exported annually which means roughly 400 million pounds of grains were used to feed the livestock. It would take alot of agricultural land to make enough food for the animals, let alone enough for the humans afterwards. If your going to talk about planned production then this is a waste of resources, especially with a growing population.

Further when I spoke of counter-production I was speaking of the environmental effects. With factory farms such as hog farming using 1 million gallons of FRESH water every single day, when there is a much needed (and often natural) want of this water in developing countries we do not have this type of water to waste.

The reason we can produce so much meat is because we destroy vast areas of rainforest and environment to produce enough food for the animals. And this is only to feed a part of the world, the truth is we would need to continue to destroy more land to make enough food for everyone if we include factory farmed meat in a globally distributed socialist diet.

Think of it this way, How much rainforest has been destroyed for places like mcdonalds? And how many people are actually seeing the fruits of this destruction i.e. the beef? add the rest of the world population and we have a new crises.

Your right about capitalism being unreasonable. The reason meat is a staple of capitalist diet is because of its unnecessary existence and production.

I hope I made myself as clear as possible. If you have any questions or concerns let me know. Although you make good points I cannot accept them based on what I've read.

[Sentinel]

You seem to assume that our technology level is going to stagnate, and that no new tools and methods will be developed. Hydroponics for instance is a great solution to the scarcity of land for growing food for animals, and the following destruction of rainforests etc, and will likely be developed further. It can be conducted anywhere since it doesn't need soil.

Again, with water, one large problem is that it is treated as a resouce and commodity by governments and companies. Large epidemics due to filthy drinking water have been caused solely by privatisation of water. Communism would take care of that. Advanced pumping and water purification technology, not to mention improved seawater desalination (which is still a rare source of fresh water today due to being -- surprise -- expensive) used globally would then handle the problem completely.

You also didn't take into consideration my pointing out of the possiblities of genetic engineering of crops and animals. With such means we can maximise our benefits from both, with smaller areas affected/less individual animals used.

We are having these problems mainly for two reasons -- capitalism and a low technology level. It is these problems we have to deal with, not abandon meat-eating or otherwise regress in our development, in order to save the environment.

Trust me, the answers to our problems lie ahead of us on this track, not behind us!

[bretty]

Sorry but I don't take that as an adequate answer to the problems I pose. I've always maintained that my renunciation of meat/dairy/eggs is because of the context we are born into and must live in right now. Consumerism is unfortunately most people's only voice and yes technology will improve our ability to cope with these problems(in fact they are even making meat that is genetically grown). Your answers are looking into the future, while this is important it does not mean they will necessarily come true. On the other hand I advocate something you can do now to protest the wastefulness. Although I agree your hopeful objectives would help they would not solve all the problems.

Just because something is killing us slowly and indirectly doesn't mean it isn't a problem that needs quick and direct challenge.

Hydroponics would not solve all the deforestation issues that come around such as topsoil erosion and the creation of desert and destruction of usable residential land. And the land would eventually be useless and destroy the surrounding area. So agricultural land would become scarce and thus destroying the ability to feed the "livestock" and eventually being unable to feed every human healthily. Remember for every one pound of meat roughly 10 pounds of grain is needed, so the more factory farms we open up for the rest of the global population who is not currently eating meat or able to afford it we need 10 times the amount of meat produced from said factory to accomodate the feeding of the animals.

Factory farming also includes alot of hormones and chemicals that are put into the "livestock" and what happens to the chemicals when they go to the washroom? It is washed out into lagoons which leak into the environment and some stays in the food which causes all sorts of problems for humans. Factory farming could not ultimately exist without the use of these chemicals so inevitably the whole production of factory farms is bound for failure if we want to have healthy and environmentally sound production. Because in order to produce more milk and meat we would have to use more hormonal and chemical solutions as a catalyst for the production.

[Sentinel]

Sorry but I don't take that as an adequate answer to the problems I pose. I've always maintained that my renunciation of meat/dairy/eggs is because of the context we are born into and must live in right now. Consumerism is unfortunately most people's only voice and yes technology will improve our ability to cope with these problems(in fact they are even making meat that is genetically grown). Your answers are looking into the future, while this is important it does not mean they will necessarily come true. On the other hand I advocate something you can do now to protest the wastefulness. Although I agree your hopeful objectives would help they would not solve all the problems.

While the global overthrow of capitalism might seem like a damn hard thing to accomplish, I can assure you, Bretty, that it's a far more realistic goal than convincing mankind to go vegan. :lol:

Even to the degree it would make the tiniest difference here. That is simply not a realistic option.


Hydroponics would not solve all the deforestation issues that come around such as topsoil erosion and the creation of desert and destruction of usable residential land. And the land would eventually be useless and destroy the surrounding area. So agricultural land would become scarce and thus destroying the ability to feed the "livestock" and eventually being unable to feed every human healthily. Remember for every one pound of meat roughly 10 pounds of grain is needed, so the more factory farms we open up for the rest of the global population who is not currently eating meat or able to afford it we need 10 times the amount of meat produced from said factory to accomodate the feeding of the animals.

You do know what hydroponics are? One more time, hydroponic crop production doesn't use soil. No fucking soil at all, because the crops are grown with their roots in mineral nutrient solution instead. Therefore it can hardly contribute to the destruction of it. Here's a picture of a NASA researcher checking on his hydroponic onions:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/51/hydroponiconionsnasafu9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In the future it is likely to increasingly replace traditional crop production.


Factory farming also includes alot of hormones and chemicals that are put into the "livestock" and what happens to the chemicals when they go to the washroom? It is washed out into lagoons which leak into the environment and some stays in the food which causes all sorts of problems for humans. Factory farming could not ultimately exist without the use of these chemicals so inevitably the whole production of factory farms is bound for failure if we want to have healthy and environmentally sound production. Because in order to produce more milk and meat we would have to use more hormonal and chemical solutions as a catalyst for the production.

Well then we will have to find out a way to hinder the chemicals from leaking to the damn environment, by developing them to be less dangerous and handling them and the animals exposed to them more carefully. It's not like that would be impossible if someone actually gave a shit. Which the capitalists never will but a communist society obviously would, if that would be deemed as a serious enough problem.

[bretty]

Tiniest difference? If a majority of people stopped eating meat then the market would suffer tremendously! People would of said the same thing of methods for anyone involved in any revolution, sure one person makes very little impact but what can the masses do? Your assuming that these global solutions are going to come about quickly and the environmental damage will work itself out. Newsflash my friend: factory farming is cheap and horribly efficient for capitalism! I for one am not going to support it.

Besides there are implications of the dairy market etc. as well I'll give you a paper from one of Oxfam's websites on fair trade to show you some of the economically unstable aspects of these industries and how inevitably only the bourgeoise profit from the exportation subsidies etc. and local farmers get screwed.

Dairy Paper (http://www.maketradefair.com/en/assets/english/DairyPaper.pdf)

You dont have to read it all but I'm just proving my point. The change your looking for will be great for the future but in the meantime I'm using my consumerism in the same way your using your voice for your political advocation.

[Sentinel]

Tiniest difference? If a majority of people stopped eating meat then the market would suffer tremendously! People would of said the same thing of methods for anyone involved in any revolution, sure one person makes very little impact but what can the masses do? Your assuming that these global solutions are going to come about quickly and the environmental damage will work itself out. Newsflash my friend: factory farming is cheap and horribly efficient for capitalism! I for one am not going to support it.

Obviously you're right that the parts of the market would suffer, but most likely it'd recover soon enough by finding ways to profit from this new lifestyle, or something else.

Nonetheless, you didn't get my point, so I'll rephrase: The majority of people, or even a such a percentage that could make a difference, will never be persuaded into turning vegan, so it's irrelevant what effects such an event would have.

I do not believe that lifestylism could ever play a decisive role in the our progress away from capitalism -- it's foundations can't be shaken by individual lifestyle choices. You will allways be dependant of, and so contribute to the system your society is ruled after. And should your lifestyle become popular enough, the system will adapt to it in the best scenario, or corrupt and commercialise it in the worst and more likely one.

Only a revolutionary consciousness of the working class, resulting in a mass movement seizing power, can and will bring capitalism down. And the environment won't be safe before that happens, not as long as we have this lunatic system.

I didn't indeed read all of it, but a glance your dairy paper shows an example of the ruthlessness, shortsightedness and instability of capitalism. Those flaws of that system I already do recognise, being a communist and all. And once again, it's capitalism we must fight to change things and really make a difference, not factory farming, meat eating, or any other methods/practices that harm the environment under it's rule.

[ichneumon]

Nonetheless, you didn't get my point, so I'll rephrase: The majority of people, or even a such a percentage that could make a difference, will never be persuaded into turning vegan, so it's irrelevant what effects such an event would have.

why? and the majority of people CAN be persuaded into communism? if wishes were fishes, we'd all be at sea.

i honestly don't get what you mean by "lifestylism". is the opposing position "armchair activism" or just "hypocrisy"?

you do not need meat to live and be healthy. it takes more resources to grow meat to feed you than it does to grow the nutritional equivalent in vegetables. eating meat is a luxury no different from wearing diamonds or driving an SUV. why is this hard to understand?

"technology will save us" is the new mantra for revleft apparently. bullshit. technology ALWAYS creates new problems. why the hell would you want to invest huge amounts of scientific and physical capital into developing "good" meat when you can just EAT VEGETABLES? will the magic of technology let all 8 billion humans live with a 1st world lifestyle? you honestly believe that perfectly clean simple cheap energy in the form of Bioflavanoid Solar Fusion Microwaves is just around the corner? how realistic is that?

what technology means to you is having your cake and eating it too. to go on living like a decadent 1st worlder while ending the misery and starvation of the 3rd. no personal sacrifice at all, just wait for the right time and murder the right people and LAH, workers' paradise. this is EXACTLY what marx meant when he called religion the opiate of the people.

[Sentinel]

why? and the majority of people CAN be persuaded into communism?

They'll be 'persuaded' by the course of our development. Historical materialism. On the other hand, technologies already in existence as well as those that are under development can make meat eating perfectly sustainable, like I have shown in this very thread. There's no rational reason to abandon it.


i honestly don't get what you mean by "lifestylism"

I mean for instance that someone makes a lifestyle choice, like stops eating meat, and thinks it will bring down capitalism and save the environment.


eating meat is a luxury no different from wearing diamonds or driving an SUV. why is this hard to understand?

Because it's untrue? Eating meat is what has developed us to this point, made our brains grow (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/23/MN62659.DTL) etc, and is clearly beneficial for us.


"technology will save us" is the new mantra for revleft apparently. bullshit. technology ALWAYS creates new problems.

That's the nature of going forward -- you encounter new problems to solve, while constantly increasing your standard of living. With your logic we would still sit in caves.


why the hell would you want to invest huge amounts of scientific and physical capital into developing "good" meat when you can just EAT VEGETABLES?

Why not? Why would we not use every means possible to make our lives more comfortable here on earth?


will the magic of technology let all 8 billion humans live with a 1st world lifestyle?

A hightech global communist society will make that possible, yes. Now let me ask you, what are you proposing instead? Technological stagnation, which would leave us where we are now, destroying the environment, or an outright abolishment of technology with the horrific results it would have?


what technology means to you is having your cake and eating it too. to go on living like a decadent 1st worlder while ending the misery and starvation of the 3rd. no personal sacrifice at all, just wait for the right time and murder the right people and LAH, workers' paradise. this is EXACTLY what marx meant when he called religion the opiate of the people.

It is your approach that is semi-religious in nature, not mine. You seem to believe in the necessity of 'sacrifice' and abstainment to become virtuous and pure enough to deserve to live on earth. A secular rapture, like redstar2000 once called it, nothing more.

So, could you please tell me what you propose we do instead of securing continued technological progress? Should we abandon technology?

[ichneumon]

So, could you please tell me what you propose we do instead of securing continued technological progress? Should we abandon technology?

the possibility of technology doesn't justify overconsumption right now. i propose that we work hard, make sacrifices and do everything we can in the here and now to make the world a better place. just fyi, i'm a phd science student. technology is good - but it's not enough. not eating meat, not squandering resources and wasting energy.

consider nuclear power: the assumption is that some day there will be a way to dispose of the waste, and thus using nuclear power now is justified. nuclear power was considered a cure-all for energy needs, but, like every tech solution, it is a double edged sword. so now we have kilotons of highly poisonous waste sitting around waiting for the Fuel Rod Fairy to come and clean it up. this is the OPPOSITE of sustainability. we should continue research into nuclear power, hell, it might work well one day. there are some promising designs on the drawing board. but as is, it's dangerous nonsense.

your article about eating meat was about evolution. vegan children don't grow up to be stupider than omnivore children. we do not live like our ancestors - these people you are citing as a justification of your diet would have been delighted to eat roadkill - to them, manna from heaven. eating meat is a luxury and you are a hypocrite.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:33 pm

Tiniest difference? If a majority of people stopped eating meat then the market would suffer tremendously! People would of said the same thing of methods for anyone involved in any revolution, sure one person makes very little impact but what can the masses do? Your assuming that these global solutions are going to come about quickly and the environmental damage will work itself out. Newsflash my friend: factory farming is cheap and horribly efficient for capitalism! I for one am not going to support it.

Obviously you're right that the parts of the market would suffer, but most likely it'd recover soon enough by finding ways to profit from this new lifestyle, or something else.

Nonetheless, you didn't get my point, so I'll rephrase: The majority of people, or even a such a percentage that could make a difference, will never be persuaded into turning vegan, so it's irrelevant what effects such an event would have.

I do not believe that lifestylism could ever play a decisive role in the our progress away from capitalism -- it's foundations can't be shaken by individual lifestyle choices. You will allways be dependant of, and so contribute to the system your society is ruled after. And should your lifestyle become popular enough, the system will adapt to it in the best scenario, or corrupt and commercialise it in the worst and more likely one.

Only a revolutionary consciousness of the working class, resulting in a mass movement seizing power, can and will bring capitalism down. And the environment won't be safe before that happens, not as long as we have this lunatic system.

I didn't indeed read all of it, but a glance your dairy paper shows an example of the ruthlessness, shortsightedness and instability of capitalism. Those flaws of that system I already do recognise, being a communist and all. And once again, it's capitalism we must fight to change things and really make a difference, not factory farming, meat eating, or any other methods/practices that harm the environment under it's rule.
Sorry it took awhile for me to respond. Your arguments for the most part are based on assumptions as in the markets would "most likely recover".

Further your assuming that people could not be persuaded. This is untrue as you'll notice a growing number of Vegans and Vegetarians.

Your lifestyle is an individual choice but when it involves consumerism in a consumer based society it inevitably makes a difference to yourself and others in a very direct way. Why do you think there are things such as fair trade coffee etc.? because it makes a difference at a grassroots level that people choose these healthy products over the efficient and damaging ones.

[Vanguard1917]

And how many people are actually seeing the fruits of this destruction i.e. the beef?

What are you talking about?

Food is less and less a scarce resource throughout the world. This is due to radical improvements in agricultural production - key among them being 'factory farming', which has radically transformed food production for the better. Life expectancy has never been higher, and levels of human hunger have never been lower. And we have modern agricultural technology - a byproduct of modern, industrialised society - to thank for this.

We want the whole of humanity to benefit from the full benefits of this technology. In order for this to happen we need more modern agricultural production, not less, throughout the whole world. That's why we call for rapid mass industrial development throughout the whole world - the kind of industrial development that Green primitivists see in their worst nightmares.

God forbid people like you ever get your way. For the love of humanity.

[bretty]

I never argued against more agricultural production I was arguing against the production of livestock and dairy because of the environmental/health/economic problems it brings forth from industrial farm techniques.

If you think more more more is the answer then you have not done your homework on the subject.

[LSD]

i don't eat meat, but not because of loving animals. i mean, they're great, and i hate to see animals suffer, but mostly its because of how much it hurts the earth. i don't eat meat for the same reason i don't drive a hummer. the amount of land and water needed to keep those animals alive long enough to slaughter them is disgusting, when you consider that that's enough food to end world hunger.

What exactly do you think would happen if the first world stopped eating meat? do you honestly believe that that excess grain would be shipped to the third world?

Much more realistically, it would just stop being grown.

If the first world no longer wanted meat, it would want something else instead and all the resources currently going to feeding livestock would go into that. That's how capitalism works; it satisfies paying consumers.

Accordingly, our dietary preference in the first world is not going to seriously affect the food supply of the third. The only way that we can increase resources in underdeveloped countries is to end imperialism.

Political problems have political solutions; lifetylism is worse than useless.


Tiniest difference? If a majority of people stopped eating meat then the market would suffer tremendously!

...and would subsequently recover.

That's what markets do, they adjust and correct. And even when they can't, capitalism always finds a replacement.

That's why lifestylism cannot defeat capitalism, it can just redirect demand and enrichen a different segment of the bourgeoisie.

So even if you could convince a signifiant proportion of the population to reject meat (something which, by the way, you have basically zero chance of doing) it would have no effect on capitalism in general, and only a marginal effect on environmental damage.

'Cause it's not meat that's cutting down the rain-forrests, it's people. People desperate to survive and willing to do whatever they have to for a buck. And as long as they exist, they'll be some rich first world fucker willing to pay them to clear land.

Land, you see, is always valuable. So whether it's used for farming or for housing or just to build fucking Club Meds, as long as capitalism exists, it will continue to exploit the natural world for ever square inch of real-estate it's got.

And changing your diet isn't going to a damn thing about it.


you do not need meat to live and be healthy.

So what?

If I gave up sex, I'd probably be healthier too. Certainly a vastly decreased risk of contracting STDs, and many studies have shown that castration lenghtens lives ...but that's never going to happen.

Why would I want a longer life if I'm not enojoying it? I would much rather have 60 years that I love than 80 that I suffer through.

So I drink, I smoke, I fuck, I do drugs, I eat meat.

Puritanism may be healthier, but it's a lot less fun.


why the hell would you want to invest huge amounts of scientific and physical capital into developing "good" meat when you can just EAT VEGETABLES?

Because it tastes fucking great! :lol:

But then that's the reason why we do most voluntary things in life, because we enjoy them.

I can sure as fuck tell you that I'd take a nice plate of baby back ribs over a fucking salad any goddamn day of the week.

Sure, it'd be more "economical" to just eat fucking letuce, but it'd also be more "economical" to never smoke, drink, do drugs, or have sex.

You'll forgive me if I am somewhat "put off" by such an idea! :D

But I suppose that that kind of neopuritanistic moralism fits just fine into your antihumanist "vegan power" superstition. Your apocalypse is slightly more concrete than the typical "rapture"-peddler's, but it's no less a matter of "faith".

By your nonsensical reckoning, in order to "save the planet", we all need to become perfectly efficient little drones, going to work every morning and coming home at night to our nice little pile of "mixed greens".

Well, let me tell you, the bosses would love such a world! After all, "efficiency" is their watchword as well!

That's why modern bourgeois governments have suddenly gotten so interested in the "health of their citizens". You know, "fat taxes", smoking bans, drug prohibition, etc... There's a lot of profit to me made off of "fit" and "efficient" workers; the type who "care about their jobs" and "work for the greater good" (the "earth" or the "economy", it's all the same idealist crap).

The only really revolutionary worker is the sovereign worker. The one who stands up for himself and rejects all "masters", whether they wear a white collar or a fucking greenpeace shirt.

The revolution is not going to be for "vegan power", it's going to be for proletarian power and the society that it will create will be a humanistic one.


If your going to talk about planned production then this is a waste of resources, especially with a growing population.

So's fermenting grain to make alchohol.

Oops, there goes beer. :o

You know, I just can&#39;t wait to live in your neopuritanistic "vegan power" utopia. Sounds like it&#39;s going to be real fun... <_<


Even in a socialist living condition the amount of waste going into the factory farming industry is completely illogical. And the environmental impact would remain regardless of our economic system. You might decrease it if the amount of meat is decreased, thats a given correlation, however the environmental effects would still be disastrous and completely counter-productive to ending hunger.

That&#39;s an assumption, and one based on very little evidence.

Will the average first worlder have to put up with less meat in their diet? Probably. It depends on population levels and production levels.

After all, it is certainly concievable that we will develop more productive methods of raising stock. Certainly that&#39;s the direction we&#39;ve been heading in for over a thousand years. It&#39;s logical to predict that we will continue the trend of increased efficiency.

Furthermore, if we are talking about a hypothetically "free" world in which equality of diet is no longer an issue, then population growth will probably have leveled. Indeed slowing reproduction is probably a prerequisite for such a society.

If not, then at the very least it will be an inevitable by-product.

Either way, there&#39;s no way that a functioning socialistic world community will maintain present population conversion figures -- unless some way of accomodating it is found, of course.

All of this, of course, is moot anyways, since we&#39;re not in that society and by all indications not anywhere near it.

So the real question is can and should we eat meat now. What effect does out eating meat have on the world now.

And the answer, clearly, is a negligable one.


Think of it this way, How much rainforest has been destroyed for places like mcdonalds? And how many people are actually seeing the fruits of this destruction i.e. the beef? add the rest of the world population and we have a new crises.

You&#39;re missing the point, ecological "footprints" aren&#39;t an individual problem, they&#39;re an institutional one.

Even if all of North America stopped eating meat, it wouldn&#39;t make a difference. It would just mean that McDonalds would drop its prices and market to the third world instead. Even the whole world rejecting eating meat wouldn&#39;t help. It would only divert the resouces from one "wasteful" industry to another. All that would change would be the name on the bulldozer -- that and a whole lot more dead animals, of course.

True environmental protection is impossible under capitalism. As long as there are resources to exploit, someone will be there to exploit them. If we "ban" eating meat, some entrepeneur will just find something else to do with former grazing lands; some other reason to clearcut the rain-forrest and drain the rivers.

If demand drops in one market, it will just be inflated in another. Capitalism cannot survive a cumulative drop in demand; it requires infinite demand to function. If oversupply shuts down McDonald farms, something else will grow up in its place. Maybe a big sticker factory for all those sleak yet elegant "Vegan Power" bumper stickers.

As long as people live within the paradigm of accumlating material possessions, they will accumulate material possessions. Changing which possessions they accumulate is ultimately meaningless.

At least with meat, it actually does help people. It does provide useful nutritional value and offers genuine pleasure. That&#39;s a lot more than you can say for the vast majority of capitalist industries.

And so it seems socially masochistic to me to sacrifice a functionally useful industry only so that it can be replaced by an almost certainly less useful one.

If the rain-forrests are going to be destroyed, at the very least it should be for something helpful. It&#39;s called the lesser of two evils. It&#39;s a choice we have to make because, unfortunately, as it stands, saving them isn&#39;t an option.

...at least not through market redistribution. Tthere are ways to help the environment. But boycotting one specific industry isn&#39;t one of them.

Fighting capitalism, however, is&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

But I suppose that that kind of neopuritanistic moralism fits just fine into your antihumanist "vegan power" superstition. Your apocalypse is slightly more concrete than the typical "rapture"-peddler&#39;s, but it&#39;s no less a matter of "faith".

Ideological themes which we would normally associate with puritanical religious movements are central to the entire Green movement - not just to obscure nutters like &#39;bretty&#39;.

We must abide by the righteous lifestyles perscribed by our all-knowing Green prophets (i.e. drive hybrid cars, buy organic vegetables and unplug our DVD players at night) or else the apocalypse - in the form of environmental catastrophe - will soon damn us all.

It is partly because of its strong moralistic, quasi-religious preachings of self-restraint that such a doctrine has been embraced by growing sections of the contemporary Western middle class.

Who the hell do these working class people think they are in the first place - driving cars, eating meat everyday and watching DVDs? They should just learn to be happy with their lot before they are truly humbled by the all-powerful force of the Almighty (&#39;Nature&#39;).

The 21st century middle class looks down its nose at ordinary people who aspire to increase their material wealth - in much the same way as the 19th century elite did. The ideological framework has changed; the instinctive snobbish attitude of middle class people towards workers has remained much the same.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:00 am

But I suppose that that kind of neopuritanistic moralism fits just fine into your antihumanist "vegan power" superstition. Your apocalypse is slightly more concrete than the typical "rapture"-peddler&#39;s, but it&#39;s no less a matter of "faith".

Ideological themes which we would normally associate with puritanical religious movements are central to the entire Green movement - not just to obscure nutters like &#39;bretty&#39;.

We must abide by the righteous lifestyles perscribed by our all-knowing Green prophets (i.e. drive hybrid cars, buy organic vegetables and unplug our DVD players at night) or else the apocalypse - in the form of environmental catastrophe - will soon damn us all.

It is partly because of its strong moralistic, quasi-religious preachings of self-restraint that such a doctrine has been embraced by growing sections of the contemporary Western middle class.

Who the hell do these working class people think they are in the first place - driving cars, eating meat everyday and watching DVDs? They should just learn to be happy with their lot before they are truly humbled by the all-powerful force of the Almighty (&#39;Nature&#39;).

The 21st century middle class looks down its nose at ordinary people who aspire to increase their material wealth - in much the same way as the 19th century elite did. The ideological framework has changed; the instinctive snobbish attitude of middle class people towards workers has remained much the same.
Listen my friend. Your sitting there telling me I&#39;m an obscurantist when scientists are advocating for radical change in the way we live because of environmental catastrophe. I am not telling you to do everything I do I&#39;m telling you to actually look at what you buy and eat because it DOES make a difference.

Your the anti-humanist my friend not I.

Call me a peddler and a man of faith but I won&#39;t stoop to your level. I&#39;ve given good facts about why I am vegan and you have given me nothing in return besides a rant about how it is similar to religious morality (which is based on blind speculation).

I haven&#39;t resorted to personal attacks on you so why bring it into the science forum?

[bretty]

What exactly do you think would happen if the first world stopped eating meat? do you honestly believe that that excess grain would be shipped to the third world?

Much more realistically, it would just stop being grown.

If the first world no longer wanted meat, it would want something else instead and all the resources currently going to feeding livestock would go into that. That&#39;s how capitalism works; it satisfies paying consumers.

Accordingly, our dietary preference in the first world is not going to seriously affect the food supply of the third. The only way that we can increase resources in underdeveloped countries is to end imperialism.

Political problems have political solutions; lifetylism is worse than useless.

Yes I agree they would stop growing so much but there would still be an excess as you know in capitalism is consistent practice. It eliminates the illusion of artificial scarcity among production of non-animal foods. Therefore the government and other organizations couldn&#39;t hide behind illusions of over population etc. to avoid pressure from the public. If people know the facts the corporations won&#39;t be able to get away with putting a value on people&#39;s heads. Because by holding back grains and other foods this is exactly what they are doing. It would be a matter of multiplying the excess of food stock.

Your second point is merely an assumption that there is something as consuming as the industrial factory farming practice that could eat up that much excess of food supplies. I&#39;ll agree with you that the market shifts to the consumer but if the consumer is advocating for ecologically and economically healthier alternatives i.e. ending meat production then the excess would have no purpose.

Because you see, one of the main problems which is also analogous to a problem in Marx&#39;s critique of capitalism is that the local farmers in developing countries cannot afford the meat the factory farms produce by means of the local farmers agricultural practice. So inevitably the corporations colonize developing countries and then exploit the local farmers for agricultural which in turn they receive no fruits of the meat industry and consequently are paid poorly. So ultimately this connects with your last points, this industry and many others [ I won&#39;t say i&#39;ve found the solution to all problems just one part of one problem] are essentially imperialist by nature.

Further Lifestylism is not useless as we live in a consumer based society which the markets produce goods based exactly on what you feel is useless&#33; LIFESTYLE&#33;

If enough people start buying healthier alternatives then what do you think the market will do? Of course the businesses will begin to work for our favour. I&#39;m not saying it is an immediate permanent solution to economic crises however it pushes the market into healthier scopes.


...and would subsequently recover.

That&#39;s what markets do, they adjust and correct. And even when they can&#39;t, capitalism always finds a replacement.

That&#39;s why lifestylism cannot defeat capitalism, it can just redirect demand and enrichen a different segment of the bourgeoisie.

So even if you could convince a signifiant proportion of the population to reject meat (something which, by the way, you have basically zero chance of doing) it would have no effect on capitalism in general, and only a marginal effect on environmental damage.

&#39;Cause it&#39;s not meat that&#39;s cutting down the rain-forrests, it&#39;s people. People desperate to survive and willing to do whatever they have to for a buck. And as long as they exist, they&#39;ll be some rich first world fucker willing to pay them to clear land.

Land, you see, is always valuable. So whether it&#39;s used for farming or for housing or just to build fucking Club Meds, as long as capitalism exists, it will continue to exploit the natural world for ever square inch of real-estate it&#39;s got.

And changing your diet isn&#39;t going to a damn thing about it.

The market would adhere to where the public demands it adhere. Yes it wouldn&#39;t change capitalism but it would destroy a portion of the exploitation. If places like mcdonalds suffer losses because nobody buys their food do you think they will continue to cut down more rainforest to produce livestock and agriculture for the livestock? No because they would lose money. It&#39;s a matter of indirectly hindering the environmental problematic impact that will come without change.

Yes I agree that other types of companies will try to use the land but I&#39;m advocating a step in the right direction not a solution to all life&#39;s problems. My diet and others causes the market to be where its at. Don&#39;t criticize me for trying, even if it&#39;s a marginal difference.


So what?

If I gave up sex, I&#39;d probably be healthier too. Certainly a vastly decreased risk of contracting STDs, and many studies have shown that castration lenghtens lives ...but that&#39;s never going to happen.

Why would I want a longer life if I&#39;m not enojoying it? I would much rather have 60 years that I love than 80 that I suffer through.

So I drink, I smoke, I fuck, I do drugs, I eat meat.

Puritanism may be healthier, but it&#39;s a lot less fun.


Sex with one partner is different then sex with several, which i&#39;ve heard to be healthy in many ways.

Your second point is confusing, because your suggesting that you cannot enjoy life without eating meat and consequently you &#39;suffer&#39; if you do not eat meat.

I smoke herb, I drink, I fuck.. and I eat food thats healthier for you.

I rather have 80 of my lifestyle then 60 of yours. But I guess it&#39;s up to you to find the illogic in your position above.


Because it tastes fucking great&#33; laugh.gif

But then that&#39;s the reason why we do most voluntary things in life, because we enjoy them.

I can sure as fuck tell you that I&#39;d take a nice plate of baby back ribs over a fucking salad any goddamn day of the week.

Sure, it&#39;d be more "economical" to just eat fucking letuce, but it&#39;d also be more "economical" to never smoke, drink, do drugs, or have sex.

You&#39;ll forgive me if I am somewhat "put off" by such an idea&#33; biggrin.gif

But I suppose that that kind of neopuritanistic moralism fits just fine into your antihumanist "vegan power" superstition. Your apocalypse is slightly more concrete than the typical "rapture"-peddler&#39;s, but it&#39;s no less a matter of "faith".

By your nonsensical reckoning, in order to "save the planet", we all need to become perfectly efficient little drones, going to work every morning and coming home at night to our nice little pile of "mixed greens".

Well, let me tell you, the bosses would love such a world&#33; After all, "efficiency" is their watchword as well&#33;

That&#39;s why modern bourgeois governments have suddenly gotten so interested in the "health of their citizens". You know, "fat taxes", smoking bans, drug prohibition, etc... There&#39;s a lot of profit to me made off of "fit" and "efficient" workers; the type who "care about their jobs" and "work for the greater good" (the "earth" or the "economy", it&#39;s all the same idealist crap).

The only really revolutionary worker is the sovereign worker. The one who stands up for himself and rejects all "masters", whether they wear a white collar or a fucking greenpeace shirt.

The revolution is not going to be for "vegan power", it&#39;s going to be for proletarian power and the society that it will create will be a humanistic one.[QUOTE]

I understand where your coming from but you&#39;ve misunderstood my position. I don&#39;t care if you do drugs or anything like that because I do them too but what you eat makes a huge difference whether you want to see it or not. I&#39;m not giving you some rapture about the world ending i&#39;m giving you concrete things you can do everyday to work towards something.

By your logic, you rather be unhealthy as a revenge against the bourgeoise. No offense but they probably don&#39;t care about how healthy you are if you can&#39;t solder the pipe your gone. Looks like you have a bit of Dostoevsky&#39;s toothache.

Further I never said become drones etc. your starting to just make up personal attacks and envision 1984 style bullshit. So i&#39;ll stay away from your level of discussion[if it can be called that].

By the way if you think eating lettuce only is healthy for you then your sorely mistaken brother sir.

[QUOTE]So&#39;s fermenting grain to make alchohol.

Oops, there goes beer. ohmy.gif

You know, I just can&#39;t wait to live in your neopuritanistic "vegan power" utopia. Sounds like it&#39;s going to be real fun...

I never said we couldn&#39;t have pleasures. And why do you continue to suggest I have a whole system worked out for us to live in? I have only talked about problems in society and my reasons for changing my diet. You&#39;ve brought me into the light as some sort of political leader. Please its not a good position to take and it does not further the discussion at all by painting me a certain colour.


That&#39;s an assumption, and one based on very little evidence.

Will the average first worlder have to put up with less meat in their diet? Probably. It depends on population levels and production levels.

After all, it is certainly concievable that we will develop more productive methods of raising stock. Certainly that&#39;s the direction we&#39;ve been heading in for over a thousand years. It&#39;s logical to predict that we will continue the trend of increased efficiency.

Furthermore, if we are talking about a hypothetically "free" world in which equality of diet is no longer an issue, then population growth will probably have leveled. Indeed slowing reproduction is probably a prerequisite for such a society.

If not, then at the very least it will be an inevitable by-product.

Either way, there&#39;s no way that a functioning socialistic world community will maintain present population conversion figures -- unless some way of accomodating it is found, of course.

All of this, of course, is moot anyways, since we&#39;re not in that society and by all indications not anywhere near it.

So the real question is can and should we eat meat now. What effect does out eating meat have on the world now.

And the answer, clearly, is a negligable one.

Well your conclusion does not have any actual evidence to support it. However I&#39;ve given evidence to suggest that it will have at least a small effect on the environment, our health, and our economy.

What are YOU suggesting as an alternative to negate the problems that the meat industry brings about? Nothing as practical so far.

And the increased efficiency of meat production over the last 1000 years has seen within the span of present back to the creation of industrial livestock farming a HUGE environmental problem.


You&#39;re missing the point, ecological "footprints" aren&#39;t an individual problem, they&#39;re an institutional one.

Even if all of North America stopped eating meat, it wouldn&#39;t make a difference. It would just mean that McDonalds would drop its prices and market to the third world instead. Even the whole world rejecting eating meat wouldn&#39;t help. It would only divert the resouces from one "wasteful" industry to another. All that would change would be the name on the bulldozer -- that and a whole lot more dead animals, of course.

If developed countries stopped eating meat, mcdonalds would go out of business. Third world countries could never afford their prices unless they gave it away for free. A HUGE amount of the worlds population lives on under 2 dollars a day. Mcdonalds could never stay afloat like that. Developed countries ARE the market, and the developing are their real workforce.


True environmental protection is impossible under capitalism. As long as there are resources to exploit, someone will be there to exploit them. If we "ban" eating meat, some entrepeneur will just find something else to do with former grazing lands; some other reason to clearcut the rain-forrest and drain the rivers.

All your pessimism so far is based off of assumptions. If you want to argue my points give me some qualitative and quantitative research to argue them. You suggest it will be used for something else but have no actual industry in mind.

And changing what material possessions you own is not meaningless. What if you change from buying fur coats that serve no purpose besides being distastefully fashionable to buying fair trade clothing to support groups like Oxfam etc.? Is that meaningless? no because your supporting something with healthier motives.

As far as meat being at least useful, it is useful if hunted etc. otherwise you have bullshit hormones and chemicals in it that make it a hazard for your body. Plus not to mention all of the research relating it to diseases and ailments of all kinds. Further as far as nutrition, vegetables generally are a better source for vitamins because they are absorbed easier then meat.


And so it seems socially masochistic to me to sacrifice a functionally useful industry only so that it can be replaced by an almost certainly less useful one.


The industry is functionally not useful. It is food we do not need that comes with a huge pricetag riding on the backs of exploited workers all over the world.

In Guatemala, 75% of the children are malnourished. The country exports 40 million pounds of meat annually to developed countries. Do you think this is a useful industry if it does not feed the people even in its own country? Changes have to be made and I for one am not going to support this industry. And judging by the fact you post on revleft, you shouldn&#39;t either.

Look into alternatives like organic local meat. It&#39;s alot better for you and eliminates most problems. (before you say it, it would be impossible to have everyone able to eat meat ultimately through this route due to sheer lack of grazing land)


If the rain-forrests are going to be destroyed, at the very least it should be for something helpful. It&#39;s called the lesser of two evils. It&#39;s a choice we have to make because, unfortunately, as it stands, saving them isn&#39;t an option.

This is a false alternative. We can save the rainforest by destroying that which destroys them in the first place.

By this logic, your suggesting we should support the industry. Where do they stop then?

You need to TRY to stop them otherwise they will do it with everything. You can&#39;t go with the flow on this one and still be consciously sound.

Thats not a lesser of two evils. It&#39;s two evils combined. Rainforest destruction and production of unnecessary and wasteful food.



Anyways take my points as you will. This took me a long time to write.

I hope it at least broadens your horizon a little and makes some sense.

Take care.

[Vanguard1917]

Listen my friend. Your sitting there telling me I&#39;m an obscurantist when scientists are advocating for radical change in the way we live because of environmental catastrophe.

There is a lot of controversy in the scientific field concerning the claims of the environmentalists. For example, the environmentalist claim that current global warming is man-made is, in fact, extremely contentious.

In reality, our environment is improving from a human perspective. There has never been a better time in history to be alive. We&#39;re living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Humanity is better prepared to defend itself against natural threats - e.g. hunger, disease, storms and earthquakes - than it has ever been. Vast improvements in food, medicine and contruction have meant that our natural environment is becoming less and less a threat to our human existance.

Simply put, industrial development (something nowadays seen as the cause of all of humanity&#39;s problems) has greatly improved and continues to improve our environment. And if we are to face new environmental threats in the future, we will be better equiped to deal with those threats the more developed we are.

The solution to environmental threats is to increase industrial development, not to slow it down or bring it to a halt. According to the Green doctrinaires, however, humanity needs to produce less and consume less. In my book, that is outright primitivist reaction.


I am not telling you to do everything I do I&#39;m telling you to actually look at what you buy and eat because it DOES make a difference.

The problem of human hunger will not be solved through the ethical shopping habits of self-righteous, muesli-eating, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading middle class liberal snobs.

The problem of human hunger will be solved when we smash the capitalist relations of production which hinder and retard the development of human industry.

Communism requires an enormous development of the productive forces of human society, so that every single human being can have all the cars, &#39;foreign&#39; holidays and sirloin steaks that he or she requires.

[ichneumon]

There is a lot of controversy in the scientific field concerning the claims of the environmentalists. For example, the environmentalist claim that current global warming is man-made is, in fact, extremely contentious.

that global warming is happening is NOT debated. scientists who actually work in related field don&#39;t debate that humans are exacerbating the process.


In reality, our environment is improving from a human perspective. There has never been a better time in history to be alive. We&#39;re living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Humanity is better prepared to defend itself against natural threats - e.g. hunger, disease, storms and earthquakes - than it has ever been. Vast improvements in food, medicine and contruction have meant that our natural environment is becoming less and less a threat to our human existance.

from your perspective. is this so for someone in a slum in Mombai? improvements in food and medicine have lead to drastic overpopulation and global enviromental degradation, which makes the environment a MUCH greater threat than it has ever been.


Simply put, industrial development (something nowadays seen as the cause of all of humanity&#39;s problems) has greatly improved and continues to improve our environment. And if we are to face new environmental threats in the future, we will be better equiped to deal with those threats the more developed we are.

so, industrial development helped us deal with the Dust Bowl? hmm, since it CAUSED IT, it damn well ought to. get the picture?


Communism requires an enormous development of the productive forces of human society, so that every single human being can have all the cars, &#39;foreign&#39; holidays and sirloin steaks that he or she requires.

no amount of political voodoo will allow 8 billion humans to drive cars, eat steaks and live high on the hog. it can&#39;t happen.

"In other word&#39;s China&#39;s achievement of First World standards will approxiamately double the entire world&#39;s human resource use and environmental impact. But it is doubtful whether even the world&#39;s current human resource use and impact can be sustained. Something has to give way"

-Jared Diamond, Collapse

i have this bizarre mental pic of Vanguard standing outside, a category 5 hurricane approaching, and he&#39;s waving his cellphone at it "back, back ye fiend, by the magic of technology I abjure thee&#33;"

[bretty]

I agree with ichneumon on all accounts. And would like to add to vanguard that your insults don&#39;t help the discussion at all.

I never said I was a green primitivist.

Thousands of people die everyday from hunger. It is only a great time to live for developed countries.

Lastly your posts do not contribute to the factual discussion at all. I don&#39;t care if you infer I am middle class, read a newspaper called the guardian, or wear sandals. But you do NOT help the debate by not proving anything you say.

Take your rants to chit chat.

[Vanguard1917]

from your perspective. is this so for someone in a slum in Mombai?

There has been an overall rise in living standards throughout the world in the last 50 years - including the underdeveloped world. Empirical indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, levels of literacy, etc. point to this fact.

Of course, there continue to be massive problems of hunger, disease and degradation inflicting humanity, mainly in the underdeveloped world. This makes the position of Green opponents of economic growth all the more disgusting.

The problem of poverty is solved through industrial development. Hence why we call poor countries &#39;underdeveloped&#39;.


improvements in food and medicine have lead to drastic overpopulation and global enviromental degradation

Dear oh dear... I&#39;ve come across a lot of reactionary, misanthropic nonsense on Revleft, but this just about tops it. (This board has a policy of restricting primitivists BTW.)


no amount of political voodoo will allow 8 billion humans to drive cars, eat steaks and live high on the hog.

&#39;Political voodoo&#39; might not, but enormous, mass, planned industrial development will. The existence of modern communism - a society to which everyone will give according to their ability, and take according to their need - pressuposes an abundance of material wealth, which itself pressuposes a radical, mass development of society&#39;s productive forces worldwide. We&#39;re talking about a kind of economic development that humanity has not yet come close to witnessing.

Green ideology and communism are irreconcilable. Why pay lip-service to communism if your whole outlook is based on a doctrine which opposes the very thing - mass industrial development - that will one day make communist society a practical reality?

bretty:

Thousands of people die everyday from hunger. It is only a great time to live for developed countries.

I didn&#39;t say it was a &#39;great time to live&#39;. I said that there has never been a better time in history to be alive - contary to what Green miserabilists will have us believe.

[ichneumon]

Dear oh dear... I&#39;ve come across a lot of reactionary, misanthropic nonsense on Revleft, but this just about tops it. (This board has a policy of restricting primitivists BTW.)

i&#39;m a phd science student - i study the ecology of disease. i&#39;m NOT a primitivist (actually, i&#39;m transhuman, piss off). i&#39;m scientist. you know, those people who are going to make everything okay for you, give you the magic future you want. my LIFESTYLE is search for a way stop new diseases from emerging. like ebola. like HIV. like H5N1. should i stop my LIFESTYLE and wait for the revolution? i do want i do for the exact same reason that i don&#39;t eat meat - because i care.

and you don&#39;t find it ironic that it&#39;s the scientists who are the ones telling you that you can&#39;t have the magic future of techno-utopia you&#39;ve imagined? that the ONLY WAY you can even survive is you change your lifestyle? funny, huh?


Green ideology and communism are irreconcilable. Why pay lip-service to communism if your whole outlook is based on a doctrine which opposes the very thing - mass industrial development - that will one day make communist society a practical reality?

socialism is about social justice. red-green ideology states that the poor and oppressed of the world can&#39;t take care of their enviroment, that people will do whatever they have to, right now, ignoring future consequences, when it is a life-or-death decision. thus social justice before sustainability.


&#39;Political voodoo&#39; might not, but enormous, mass, planned industrial development will. The existence of modern communism - a society to which everyone will give according to their ability, and take according to their need - pressuposes an abundance of material wealth, which itself pressuposes a radical, mass development of society&#39;s productive forces worldwide. We&#39;re talking about a kind of economic development that humanity has not yet come close to witnessing.

you seem to think that technology makes material wealth out of vaccuum. if anything you say is scientifically valid, it will have references in peer-reviewed journals. that&#39;s how science works. i read Nature every week, and from that point of view, what you suggest is up there with cave-men riding dinosaur back. show me the refs.

[Vanguard1917]

i&#39;m NOT a primitivist

Oh yes you are.

You&#39;re against economic growth and you say that medical and agricultural progress has &#39;lead to drastic overpopulation and global enviromental degradation&#39;. You&#39;re hostile to modern society and all its achievements. You deny that human emancipation goes hand in hand with economic growth.


and you don&#39;t find it ironic that it&#39;s the scientists who are the ones telling you that you can&#39;t have the magic future of techno-utopia you&#39;ve imagined?

All sorts of philistines have been telling us communists that our demands are &#39;utopian&#39; for many, many years now. Nothing is new.

But if one thing is certain, it is this: industrial development has radically improved human life on earth.

The very existence of 6 billion human beings on this relatively small planet is evidence of what human beings can achieve through their industry. For me, that is cause for celebration; for people like you, it is cause for concern.


socialism is about social justice. red-green ideology states that the poor and oppressed of the world can&#39;t take care of their enviroment, that people will do whatever they have to, right now, ignoring future consequences, when it is a life-or-death decision. thus social justice before sustainability.

That sounds like jibberish to me. Please try to construct logical sentences, Mr PHd.

I don&#39;t know what &#39;red-green ideology&#39; states, but communists believe that the oppressed will not only &#39;take care of their enviroment&#39; (which you say that can&#39;t) - they will conquer it.


you seem to think that technology makes material wealth out of vaccuum.

No, i think that material wealth is created through the human exploitation of nature - through human industry. Human liberation will come about when human beings learn to not only exploit, but to fully master their natural environment.

For those like you, human beings are parasites. We should learn to live &#39;in harmony with the laws of nature&#39; - i.e. like animals, mere objects of nature, rather than as its subjects, capable of shaping it to make it better serve our ends.

[ichneumon]

references, please. please review Wikipedia on Sustainability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability) in the bibliography, then consider this: Wiki summary of &#39;Collapse&#39; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_by_Jared_Diamond)

i&#39;m aware that the wiki isn&#39;t exactly a peer reviewed journal, but i&#39;m unsure of your ability to view such, so it has to do for the moment. i will accept your rebuttal references in a similar format.

i actually looked up the wiki on primitivism, that&#39;s NOT me - the only chance we have of surviving is technological innovation. yes, industrialism and overpopulation have screwed up the world, but i fail to see how primitivism can solve this. i&#39;m starting a new thread, you will find it interesting, i think. there is a difference between not believing that technology can solve all problems (your idea, =science fiction) and the idea that undoing techonological advancement will result in some kind of utopia (primitivism, what you accuse me of). you seem deeply afflicted with dualism - if someone doesn&#39;t accept your sci-fi, that someone is a primitivist. BS. some of us like science, without the -fiction.


For those like you, human beings are parasites. We should learn to live &#39;in harmony with the laws of nature&#39; - i.e. like animals, mere objects of nature, rather than as its subjects, capable of shaping it to make it better serve our ends

some humans are parasites. some, like myself, are mutualists. some humans are poorly evolved parasites, who will kill their host and have no where left to go. the primitivists you describe i would call commensualism, which, if people want to do that, i have no problem with. i intend to continue to develop my mutualistic symbiotic relationship with the planet, by means of carefully planned and implemented technology. in the long run, we will take earthlife to the dead worlds, and make them bloom. but not now - we have to get rid of the parasites first.

[bcbm]

But if one thing is certain, it is this: industrial development has radically improved human life on earth.

For who? Industrial development has certainly not benefited all human life equally, far from it in fact.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 09:15 am

But if one thing is certain, it is this: industrial development has radically improved human life on earth.

For who? Industrial development has certainly not benefited all human life equally, far from it in fact.
Of course not. No material development in class societies benefits everyone equally. But that doesn&#39;t mean that we oppose the development. Do we oppose the development of medicine because, in capitalist society, it doesn&#39;t benefit everyone equally?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+January 13, 2007 11:11 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ January 13, 2007 11:11 am)
black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 09:15 am

But if one thing is certain, it is this: industrial development has radically improved human life on earth.

For who? Industrial development has certainly not benefited all human life equally, far from it in fact.
Of course not. No material development in class societies benefits everyone equally. But that doesn&#39;t mean that we oppose the development. Do we oppose the development of medicine because, in capitalist society, it doesn&#39;t benefit everyone equally? [/b]
Who said anything about opposing it? I&#39;m just suggesting we should not sing its praises too highly when so many still suffer from it.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:23 pm

And how many people are actually seeing the fruits of this destruction i.e. the beef?

What are you talking about?

Food is less and less a scarce resource throughout the world. This is due to radical improvements in agricultural production - key among them being &#39;factory farming&#39;, which has radically transformed food production for the better. Life expectancy has never been higher, and levels of human hunger have never been lower. And we have modern agricultural technology - a byproduct of modern, industrialised society - to thank for this.

We want the whole of humanity to benefit from the full benefits of this technology. In order for this to happen we need more modern agricultural production, not less, throughout the whole world. That&#39;s why we call for rapid mass industrial development throughout the whole world - the kind of industrial development that Green primitivists see in their worst nightmares.

God forbid people like you ever get your way. For the love of humanity.
I disagree, it is due to the use of energy and water reserves. There are less and less aquifers remaining. Cheap oil is going away too. For those who yell, desalination, where are you going to get the energy? You would need so much energy.
Going veggie will help, producing meat is wasteful.