I’m as interested in saving the planet as the next person, but I have to say this article smacks of extremism.
There are two things that I’ve noticed will kill a movement: severe nastiness (”___ is a Nazi and is destroying the universe” kind of chatter) and overwhelming amounts of change. You’ll never get people to adjust their lives 100% around global warming issues; however, you may succeed in getting everyone to make a few adjustments here and there, and in the end if that happened we’d be much better off.
Basically, give people bite-sized chunks of an issue and they’ll be more apt to process them; shove cow-sized change down their throats and they’ll just gerb it back up again. Extremism is cow-sized and is thus hard to swallow, at least by me.
Also, as with so many other things Americans tend to misunderstand (dieting in particular), everything has a good and bad side to it. For example, red wine has health benefits but it also has alcohol that can block the absorption of essential nutrients; dark chocolate has anti-oxidants but it also contains unhealthy fat; red meat has B vitamins that may be hard to get elsewhere but it contains carcinogens, trace amounts of fecal matter, etc.
Nothing is black or white. For all I know, there are plants that deplete the ozone layer as well but people look the other way because they also feed the poor, help people remain healthy, and they nourish our topsoil. What do I know? Is it that far fetched?
Sorry, long story short: I tend to discount extreme journalism. The truth of any issue always seems to lie somewhere closer to the middle, so I try to avoid the fringes.
How is that by merely mentioning the omission, I keep getting shunted to the extremity of this argument? Nowhere in the piece do I call for the abolition of animal agriculture; I merely assert that it is striking that a man who has become a champion of evidence has chosen to ignore a choice bit of it. As with energy conservation and alternatives, the world would probably benefit from a more sustainable approach to animal agriculture, but I didn’t even go that far in my post.
So I guess merely having Gore mention animal agriculture’s affect on global warming is enough? Somehow, I doubt that. By mentioning this “omission,” you’re advocating that something be done about it. You can’t change a cow’s digestion, so the solution is…what? Eating less meat? Isn’t it obvious why a vegan magazine would focus on something like that?
I have no doubt that animal agriculture has an affect on global warming. The methane from animal waste has been proven to cause environmental damage. I also have no doubt that the FAO has some credibility. I confess I have not read their report. If you have, rad. However, if you just read a brief summary that was paraphrased by a vegan publication and used it to discount Al Gore’s efforts, I would like to suggest you back up, read the report, and make sure what the vegan magazine said actually reflects the truth.
As I mentioned before, a newspaper or magazine can toot the horn about the health benefits of red wine or crap all over carbs, but the fact is both substances have pros AND cons and a simple good vs. bad assessment is not only impossible, it’s also extreme. Folks in America buy into extremism hook, line and sinker. All I have to do is look at all the folks drinking red wine because of its “health benefits” or pumping up on pork rinds because the no-carbs diet of the week said it’s okay to know that folks like simple solutions to complex problems and tend to jump at what best fits their personal ideology. More now than ever, we all have to question everything that we hear.
Yeah, even question Al Gore. But if you’re using a report to question him, make sure you’re questioning him for the right reasons. If the information you read only came from a vegan magazine, perhaps a second source would be warranted?
4 comments ↓
I’m as interested in saving the planet as the next person, but I have to say this article smacks of extremism.
There are two things that I’ve noticed will kill a movement: severe nastiness (”___ is a Nazi and is destroying the universe” kind of chatter) and overwhelming amounts of change. You’ll never get people to adjust their lives 100% around global warming issues; however, you may succeed in getting everyone to make a few adjustments here and there, and in the end if that happened we’d be much better off.
Basically, give people bite-sized chunks of an issue and they’ll be more apt to process them; shove cow-sized change down their throats and they’ll just gerb it back up again. Extremism is cow-sized and is thus hard to swallow, at least by me.
Also, as with so many other things Americans tend to misunderstand (dieting in particular), everything has a good and bad side to it. For example, red wine has health benefits but it also has alcohol that can block the absorption of essential nutrients; dark chocolate has anti-oxidants but it also contains unhealthy fat; red meat has B vitamins that may be hard to get elsewhere but it contains carcinogens, trace amounts of fecal matter, etc.
Nothing is black or white. For all I know, there are plants that deplete the ozone layer as well but people look the other way because they also feed the poor, help people remain healthy, and they nourish our topsoil. What do I know? Is it that far fetched?
Sorry, long story short: I tend to discount extreme journalism. The truth of any issue always seems to lie somewhere closer to the middle, so I try to avoid the fringes.
How is that by merely mentioning the omission, I keep getting shunted to the extremity of this argument? Nowhere in the piece do I call for the abolition of animal agriculture; I merely assert that it is striking that a man who has become a champion of evidence has chosen to ignore a choice bit of it. As with energy conservation and alternatives, the world would probably benefit from a more sustainable approach to animal agriculture, but I didn’t even go that far in my post.
So I guess merely having Gore mention animal agriculture’s affect on global warming is enough? Somehow, I doubt that. By mentioning this “omission,” you’re advocating that something be done about it. You can’t change a cow’s digestion, so the solution is…what? Eating less meat? Isn’t it obvious why a vegan magazine would focus on something like that?
I have no doubt that animal agriculture has an affect on global warming. The methane from animal waste has been proven to cause environmental damage. I also have no doubt that the FAO has some credibility. I confess I have not read their report. If you have, rad. However, if you just read a brief summary that was paraphrased by a vegan publication and used it to discount Al Gore’s efforts, I would like to suggest you back up, read the report, and make sure what the vegan magazine said actually reflects the truth.
As I mentioned before, a newspaper or magazine can toot the horn about the health benefits of red wine or crap all over carbs, but the fact is both substances have pros AND cons and a simple good vs. bad assessment is not only impossible, it’s also extreme. Folks in America buy into extremism hook, line and sinker. All I have to do is look at all the folks drinking red wine because of its “health benefits” or pumping up on pork rinds because the no-carbs diet of the week said it’s okay to know that folks like simple solutions to complex problems and tend to jump at what best fits their personal ideology. More now than ever, we all have to question everything that we hear.
Yeah, even question Al Gore. But if you’re using a report to question him, make sure you’re questioning him for the right reasons. If the information you read only came from a vegan magazine, perhaps a second source would be warranted?
Um, right, which is why I actually linked to the UN’s FAO report. It’s interesting reading regardless of the source that referred me to it.
Leave a Comment