[A recent news article (May 21, 2009) also reinforced my conviction in my analysis. I've reproduced a portion of it below, embedded in excerpts from last year's post "There's Always One" (May 23, 2008)]
My call to nuke the Chinese is an ironic device. Unfortunately, it is actually the most sane thing to do given our current situation, which is an indication of how insane our current situation is. With the consumption of the Chinese rising to meet Australian standards the global economic and environmental situation is untenable. The only result of this can be the inevitable clash of the Americans and the Australians with the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Russians, and the Africans, and every other group who wants to live like we do.Unless the Australians and Americans reduce their consumption and model a more responsible sustainable lifestyle, war with the Chinese, eventually an overt military one, caused by an economic one over the dwindling resources, is the near future of the human race.
- There's Always One, atmayogi.com, May 23, 2008
THE US has declared it "is not ceding the Pacific to anyone" in a forceful response to the rise of China and the Rudd Government's defence white paper, which last month flagged the possibility of US dominance fading in the Asia-Pacific region in the decades ahead.Asked by The Australian in a briefing with foreign journalists about Washington's response to Canberra's defence blueprint, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was emphatic that Washington was looking to deepen its ties in the region and wanted to do more with allies such as Australia.
She made it clear the US, which has a huge naval presence in the Asia-Pacific based in Hawaii, was not going anywhere.
"We want Australia as well as other nations to know the United States is not ceding the Pacific to anyone," Ms Clinton said.
She stressed that Washington was also "sending a clear message that the United States will be engaged - we are a trans-Pacific power and a trans-Atlantic power."
- Hillary Clinton firmly commits the US to Asia-Pacific security, The Australian, May 21, 2009
Being lukewarm is a cop out. Why stop at killing millions of animals? If you are going to be a killer, then you should be logical about it and kill the Chinese before they kill you. Otherwise, if you do find that idea abhorrent, then take a look at the logical consequences of where this meat-eating is taking us. The Mahabharata tells us: "There is not enough gold, grains, or women in the world to satisfy the desire of one man" - what to speak of one billion Chinese, plus 400 million Americans, plus 20 million Australians plus the rest of the world.Our irresponsibility in failing to set an example of responsible, sustainable consumption is leading the world to war over dwindling resources, and ecological and environmental disaster. Face up to it. If we don't become vegetarian now, we should drop a nuke on China. It's the only way to make our current diet and lifestyle sustainable.
So stop being so irresponsible: either push the red button, or give up the red meat.
- There's Always One, atmayogi.com, May 23, 2008
If only it were that simple!
If only it were that simple! But what about oil, gas and steel? Sadly I don't believe the global adoption of a vege diet is going to solve the many other reasons humans find to fight with one another, including divisive ideologies. However much the workings of capitalism are devastating the world over, unless their is a genuine rising of communal spirit, rather than it just being imposed politically, human beings will continue on the dangerous path we're on.
I agree with you that
I agree with you that the final solution of all problems in human interaction requires a deeper analysis of root causes (and would probably be revealed to be a theoretical utopia that cannot be implemented in practice).
However, I think that you misrepresent what I am saying here. It's not a (simplistic) prescription for a solution - it's a description of the problem. High levels of unnecessary consumption (typified here by meat-eating) are incompatible with global equity in standard of living.
To simultaneously advocate both an "artificially high standard of living" *and* global equity (development of 2nd world countries) is short-sighted and ultimately suicidal, as it leads to inevitable war over resources. As you rightly point out, meat is just the tip of the iceberg. (However, as pointed out by many [e.g.: "A Very Inconvenient Truth"] it's also a disproportionately huge contributor to resource depletion and environmental pollution, and offers the largest single harm reduction action an individual can take.)
To then also advocate "sustainability" is the height of hypocrisy. That particular, politically correct mix: 1st world standards of life (represented by a high intake of meat), Global economic equity, and sustainability, is a staple position of 1st world people today. It's a path to inevitable resource depletion, environmental disaster, and international war.
That's my point.
I didn't say that going to vege diet is going to solve all problems. What I am saying is that if we are not going to go to a vege diet (i.e: reduce consumption) then we should man up to the logical consequences. In Nyaya, the Vedic tradition of logic, this is called the "logic of half a hen" - we want the benefits, but ignore the consequences. It is like a farmer who wants the hen to lay eggs, but doesn't want to feed it.
You can't be all "Oh, I eat meat because I'm a murdering animal" *and* "oh, we should be merciful to the poor Iranians, Africans, and Asian people". Choose one and be consistent - you'll get a better result. In the English tradition of logic this is called "trying to have your cake and eat it".
I didn't intend to
I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said, I was just responding to your tongue and cheek comment: "So stop being so irresponsible: either push the red button, or give up the red meat." Of course going vege is vital if the world wants to avert ecological disaster. I just wonder how helpful it is to put things in such extreme terms. For sure, the situation is extreme, but extreme language can turn off more people than it persuades. Consider the mood of this article: http://is.gd/15fjz
BTW: I tried to raise the issue of consumerism with one of the NZ govt's chief sustainability advisers and he just looked at me blankly and totally avoided the question.
You're right that to rant on about sustainability without addressing consumerism is a nonsense. But it just a current example of how capital tries to appropriate the symbols, themes and language of its challengers to legitimate itself and to protect its power and privilege. Sustainability, is just a euphemism for cost reduction - one of the basic tenets of capitalism. It has zero to do with addressing the issue of unnecessary desire. That would require a massive global buy-in of a "theoretical utopia" which is highly unlikely unless there is some common rallying point which unites people. And it wouldn't happen without a undoubtedly violent fight from capital.
Sadly, as my psychologist friend said, unless things start to directly affect people, generally they won't change. It will require a wake up call. A 'mother bhumi' shake down. Humans have an immune system that deals with infections so we can be sure that the earth will have some way of dealing with us. Maybe that's what global warming is the beginning of. You should check out this novel called Earth Abides by George R Stewart. It's one the best sci-fi books ever written and provides a unique picture of life on earth after human civilisation.
http://is.gd/15fd7