Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nuktuk wrote

Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in by !deleted8445

I think the two most obvious issues with this are as follows:

  1. Framing "sustainable agriculture" as a solution runs us into a few problems. Solutions as a means of fighting issues is very Enlightenment in nature. Prescribing a particular alternative shuts out the possibility for other alternatives to prop up. To talk about how monoculture is an issue is very useful. It allows us to engage with the way the world around us functions, how our food is produced and how to combat the effects monoculture has. Talking of "sustainable agriculture" as a solution and not merely an avenue to experiment with prevents us from engaging with other means of acquiring food that maybe we haven't previously considered. Its very telling when OP states "I just wanted to clarify my position once and for all on the matter." OP has made up their mind on the matter.

  2. OP is reductive to the ecological reasons one might be so called "vegan" (ie. acts like abstaining from eating flesh or sabotaging slaughter houses). They made it clear they wouldn't get into the socio-economic/imperialist arguments but they fail to engage with the way the current or their proposed food system affects non-humans. So we have a solution which does little for those that live a nomadic/non-industrial life, nor those that are actually being farmed/living in these damaged ecosystems. Solutions only get in the way of the organic, rigorous, ever adapting means of living that challenge the world around us.

Apart from that I think this is mostly agreeable. I no longer refer to myself as a vegan for reasons relevant to a lot of the points raised by OP. Its nice to see more people criticising the vegan movement for its dogma and its Green Industry nonsense particularly.

2