It's worth reading.I can never be sure, when I think about the ethics of using Amazon, whether I’m allowing my desires to manipulate my reasoning. Do I just want to find a justification for doing what I enjoy doing, the same way everyone who is complicit in evil can come up with an argument for why what they’re doing is Actually Good? I know a lot of motivated reasoning occurs around animal rights, for instance—taking the issue seriously leads to very disturbing conclusions about people’s role in a horrendous atrocity, so we come up with flimsy excuses to avoid confronting the obvious.
Blue Swirl wrote:This is for environmental reasons, rather than purely ethical. Reducing the cruelty to animals that my diet causes is a nice bonus after effect to reducing my CO2 footprint, essentially.
Kow wrote:What's the problem with Dyson? I don't have anything by them, just wondering.
monkey wrote:Isn’t Nestle boycotting effectively impossible because they own so much of the supply chain even on stuff where they aren’t in the label?
Kow wrote:I do try to check where things are made, avoid known bastards, buy free range eggs etc but it's more or less impossible to be wholly ethical without going full survivalist mentalist.
WorKid wrote:A wonderful company.
See, this is one of the main issues I have with the whole concept of ethical consumerism. You try and do something right and then someone tells you that it's still wrong, and then you don't know which information is more accurate or are left doing constant research into every company and item you want to buy.Vela wrote:Is it though? The ethical reasons are well known, I have no quarrel there. But environmental claims that vegetarian diet alone is better is not entirely true. Sure, there are less CO2 emissions than cow bums, but what about the ecological impact of monocultures, pesticides, herbicides and land clearing? That has surely driven many species to the brink or beyond of extinction. Flying over hundreds of continuous kilometres of grain crop really drives home how little room is left for native flora and fauna.Blue Swirl wrote:This is for environmental reasons, rather than purely ethical. Reducing the cruelty to animals that my diet causes is a nice bonus after effect to reducing my CO2 footprint, essentially.
WorKid wrote:They had to fight to get some places to serve them!
Vela wrote:Blue Swirl wrote:This is for environmental reasons, rather than purely ethical. Reducing the cruelty to animals that my diet causes is a nice bonus after effect to reducing my CO2 footprint, essentially.
Is it though?
The ethical reasons are well known, I have no quarrel there.
But environmental claims that vegetarian diet alone is better is not entirely true. Sure, there are less CO2 emissions than cow bums, but what about the ecological impact of monocultures, pesticides, herbicides and land clearing? That has surely driven many species to the brink or beyond of extinction.
Flying over hundreds of continuous kilometres of grain crop really drives home how little room is left for native flora and fauna.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!