Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
Ah, yes... beautiful. Control of the unwashed by those who know best. A wonderful philosophy. History. It's really cool. Check it out. When the few make decisions for and control the many, it never ends well.
I know.. that was incredibly condescending and snarky, which is rarely my style, and is far from being kind. However, it was my honest gut reaction to asserting that any human has the right to legislate how many kids a family may have.
|
Well, whether we are talking about having a plant-based diet or population control, there is a proactive path and a reactive path. Obviously governments and societies have laws and regulations to protect people, animals, the environment, etc, so for me to suggest we have laws in the future that further protect people, animals, the environment, etc is not profound, right? As far as population control, there are only a few paths:
1. The population will continue to grow and/or usage of resources will increase.
2. The population will stabilize or decrease and/or usage of resources will decrease.
As economies emerge more and more, we see usage go up and up, so it is highly, highly unlikely we will see a decrease in resources. That leaves population. Population will continue to increase indefinitely if we had unlimited resources like we colonized new planets, but let's say we don't have that option. Only a few things will stop or decrease population:
1. Public sentiment and family planning
2. Government laws restricting family size
3. Disease/environment deaths
4. War
5. Bottlenecks in resources, but war will come before that of course
What we actually see is that the poorer someone or country is the higher the family size is, so poverty or famine because of resource scarcity could exacerbate problems. Some of these things are reactive and some are proactive. China tried a proactive approach. India also has tried proactive penalties. Say we don't try a proactive approach, and all we do is try to focus on family planning, we will likely still see another two billion people by 2050, as discussed before. Our planet has finite resources, so we can only expect things to get worse. We can wait and see what happens. Maybe famine or wars or environmental impacts would lead to deaths naturally, but these are probably not the type of futures anyone wants, but they are inevitable unless birth rate stabilizes naturally. Limits on family size might be necessary and accepted in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
We should be good stewards of our environment, locally and globally. There is no question there. We should not take pleasure in suffering, whether animal or human. We can do better in all aspects of our lives, including decreasing the environmental impact (whether or not it's as dire as you suggest.... and it isn't) of farming animals for food, and treating the animals raised for food more humanely. Suggesting that we need to ABANDON eating meat because we are destroying the planet by doing so is just... well.... wrong on so many levels.
You believe what you wish, and live as you wish. Again, I have no issue with that. I take GREAT issue with the condescending attitude that you are correct and that those who disagree are wrong.
|
How is it not dire? I usually like to start with a position of agreement then work to bridge the gap, but I have to first know if someone is willing to change their beliefs, consider evidence, are intellectually honest, care about morality, bla, bla, bla. If I am talking to someone who wants to believe what they want to believe regardless of the possible evidence I could show them then it isn't worth investing my time in that debate because the person isn't open minded. So I have to ask, what would you consider dire like how bad does something have to get in order for you to be concerned enough to consider changing your ways or calling something dire? Like say fish populations have dropped by 50% and that coral reefs have decreased by 40% or whatever (I'm making up the numbers for the example), if those are not dire then what would be dire? Would it be 80% and 90%, respectively? What is dire to you? Like if 40% of the rainforest was destroyed, then would that be fine, and if it is then would 100% be fine or what is your number? Obviously there are many things going on like deforestation, destruction of the ocean floor/habitats/reefs, over-harvesting of sea life, pollution, methane/CO2 accumulation, etc, but without understanding your position, it is a single-sided debate where I am providing evidence, but there isn't much counter-arguments. So far, the counter-arguments for veganism were mostly covered in the video, but I can restate what was already presented or expand on any one of them if someone wants to debate the issue in this thread on the fate of the planet.
Again, you are in a thread about the prognosis of the planet, so we are discussing things that are impacting the environment. I have provided examples supporting my arguments. Do you have arguments supporting a position that the impacts that are happening around the world is not problematic? I'm not really concerned about your feelings while stating positions in an argument. I don't even know where I have been specifically condescending. If arguing against someone else in a debate by providing evidence is condescending then I am guilty.