A few weeks ago Alberto Garzón came out in The Guardian criticizing the macrogranjas, and he was over.This is regular because you had to hear quite dumb, but very well because the things that have to be removed before starting any change were removed.As Mineñique said in Game of Thrones, chaos is a staircase.The revoltijo is necessary.
The context
The posture of environmentalists in action is that not all types of meat are equal, that the reduction of consumption is necessary, consuming less rations and better quality.The one of the platform for extensive livestock and pastoralism too, so they met the other day with the consumption minister to talk about the label they are developing to differentiate extensive livestock products.Extensive livestock fulfills irreplaceable ecological functions, allows us to set population and contribute to a living rural world, and maintains cultural traditions that have linked people, animals and territories for centuries.
That said, when calculating our resource consumption, it can be considered as a general rule that an animal product consumes more resources than a vegetable.Yes, there is the Eternal Kiwi of New Zealand versus the goat of your cousin that pasta in the communal, but you have not eaten that goat in your life, Hulio.
Most of the animal products we consume come from cattle fed with feed, that is, not only uses the space that the animal occupies, but also space (and fertilizers, water, pesticides, transport, etc..) necessary for the crops with which it feeds.If a cow needs a hectare of land to obtain what he eats in a year, or he is occupying that hectare and grassing it (this would be extensive livestock), or that hectare is being grown away from the cow and then takes him infeed form (this would be intensive).In this way, that cow can be stabulated with many others, and that crop may not be in Spain but in Argentina or Brazil, where there is more space and less environmental and labor legislation.
If our cattle depend only on the territory we really have, we could have much fewer animals.So simple.As every time a level is raised in the trophic chain, 90% of the energy (hello knowledge of the environment) is lost, in most cases it is much more efficient in terms of resources to directly eat the plant food, without there being aanimal.
What are areas that cannot be grown and in which to release a goat is the best way to "collect" an energy that would otherwise be lost?Correct.What are plant foods that are ecological barbarity?Correct (pro tip: if this is important for you, do not eat them either).That urban paratroopers cannot be planted in the villages to tell people (again) what they have to do?Well, it would be fine too.
But even taking into account all this, the most consistent position with an environmental vision of the world would be to consume the less meat better (the antispecist vision would be to consume zero, for somewhat different reasons, and in which I will not enter because I do not even know how to do it or do it or I want).And the meat or other animal products that are consumed, that are the best, the better the better, of farms that depend as little as possible to bring those inputs from abroad, and that use resources that could not be used directly for human food - here would be a lack of seeingWhat do we leave for wild fauna, but that's another day—.
Pinned to wiki for armor @pinterest: How to add or change the default gateway in linux https: // t.CO/CSOWSKXPY0
— Wiki for Blind Mon Oct 03 06:49:28 +0000 2016
The excuses
As a person who has been in ecologism for about ten years and about four in a vegetarianism with many more exceptions than I would admit in front of a judge, I have extensive experience in the type of traps we do to deny this evidence.In the debate that has emerged as a result of Garzón's.
Within each person there is a part that needs to feel that we are doing things well.It is difficult to accept our incoherence and say, without more “yes, I think that the meat is loaded the planet, I also think that I do not want the planet to go to shit, and at the same time I also think that I like the ham and I goto continue eating ".This would not end climate change, but with enough personal suffering and an important part of Twitter.And perhaps the way would open to focus the problems from another side.
But instead of doing this we invented fifteen thousand types of mental acrobatics to justify the conclusion we want to reach (AKA that this is not what we seem and we continue to be beings of light).The more you put yourself in these issues, the more repertoire you have for pirouettes and argumentary acrobatics.I personally, one day I will go to the Olympics for this.
As they do not let me write so much and to review them all, I will go with my favs (there is not one, I repeat, that I have not used at any time).
“Si yo en realidad casi no como carne”, (automáticamente seguido de) “bueno, embutido sí.And some tuna with the salad, of course, and then when they put the lid in a bar because I am no longer going to tell you to take it off ”.Like the gentlemen who tell the doctor not to drink but then they count on him and the doctor ends cirrotic.If you are here, maybe the first would be to make an honest inventory and look at it clear.
“Si yo solo como la carne de mi pueblo, que es…” MENTIRA.It is a lie, it is statistically a lie what you are telling me, Jose Luis.There will be a few people in Spain for whom this is true, but I risk saying that you, that you are reading this, you are not one of them.It is like the people who say that in their village four kings are played.As in the previous point, you may not be doing an honest inventory of what you really eat.You are more likely to lying to be right in a discussion against someone who is giving you the turra.I have done the two.Fortunately, as soon as the extensive livestock seal comes out from that I have spoken before, you can stop lying (or not).
"Reducing meat is going to harm the working class above all".Look, more will harm us to die drowned or in flames (oh, when you think it could not be more demagogic ...) while the Cayetans get into a bunker or go to an island.No, seriously, in Spain we eat much more meat than is recommended for health, many of it in the form of chungos prosecuted.For "the working class" it would be much better to eat much less meat and better quality.In addition, implementing redistribution and price control mechanisms is easier than dealing with the consequences of continuing with an average of four rations of meat per person per week.Using this argument is a way to counterattack who is making you feel a bad person, implying that she is worse (for condemning suffering? To eat less meat to the working class).
“Los cambios individuales nos distraen del cambio sistémico, que es el importante”: pues sí y no. Esto me recuerda a lo de “las petroleras/multinacionales son las principales consumidoras de recursos del planeta". Claro, primo, ¿pero para quién te crees que están produciendo? ¿Que se lo quedan? Está claro que los cambios sistémicos son los más importantes. Generar otro tipo de sistemas económicos que pongan las necesidades de las personas por delante de la reproducción del capital, prohibir el 99% de la publicidad, dejar de construir infraestructuras que solo tienen sentido en un mundo adicto al petróleo, dejar de permitir a los bancos el crear dinero de la nada… Todo esto tendría millones de veces más impacto que el que tú dejes de comer pollo frito, pero en lo que el FMI te (nos) coge el teléfono, esto es algo que se puede hacer de forma paralela. En ese mundo nuevo que llevamos en nuestros corazones tiene que haber menos carne, porque tendremos que vivir con el territorio del que disponemos y no podremos externalizárselo a otros países. Así que mejor vamos ensayando. Si has usado esta, lo más probable es que veas la importancia del tema, pero te dé vertiguito ponerte y prefieras dejarlo para otro momento más adelante, para el momento perfecto. Como dejar de fumar ya cuando acabes los exámenes/termines este pico de curro/vuelvas de las vacaciones, pero a nivel global. Una especie de procrastinación ecológica. Es comprensible, pero no va a funcionar.Do not overwhelm, but neither does it deny evidence
In summary, the changes give us fear, that they question us rejection, and everything that has to do with gigantic events that escape our control is confusing in terms of their impact on our lives and, the truth, we are madequite ball.One thing you can begin with is for observing what generates all this and how we respond: are we doing any of these traps?(If you do not eat meat you may be doing them with the airplanes, with fast fashion or with another story) Is there anything in you that wants to do things differently, or do you just want to do the minimum so that your friendsEcologists leave you alone?How far does that "something" get?Maybe it has to do with leaving the meat one day a week, or with moving to oat milk, or you may want to leave everything and open a Vegan sanctuary.
Forcing us to change everything overnight does not look to generate stable changes.Crush us for not being able to do so, neither.It is clear that we need actions urgently, and at the same time, that the world is not yet prepared to undertake them in a massive way.To be able to make the transitions we need in our food systems, not only subsidies and boes are needed, or that there is tofu in the Mercadona.You also need to face the reactions caused by change, and this is a slow process and that goes beyond frozen pizza.Observe, understand, accept us, act from there.If we have urgency and at the same time we need slow processes, we may have to think about other ways of conceiving time and trusting that they serve us.Keep denying evidence, of course, it will not work.