What is true environmentalism? What is your understanding of environmental protection?

Environmentalism, including the protection of animals and the environment, I think the focus is on a better life for people. When modern technology allows people to enjoy the better medical treatment, safer food, and healthier maintenance, the carrier of life should still be protected to benefit people’s physical and mental health from the source and the most frequent contact. The rights of nature and animals are positively related to it, and this is the foundation. If it is not for people’s health but for people to endure hunger and cold, then its meaning is of little significance.

About water and electricity.

In general, water conservation should be encouraged. Freshwater is different from other things. It should be recycled as much as possible, discharged harmlessly, and treated multiple times (it is best to reduce pollution in the production process). Using moisture levels is also an efficient way. The maintenance of natural conditions is more important, such as urban ecology and water infiltration. If the incineration of garbage can solve the problem of electricity, it is advisable to solve the problem of garbage and electricity at the same time.

At the same time, wind power, geothermal, tidal and other more environmentally friendly methods of power generation should be encouraged, especially wind power. Make use of abandoned/temporarily difficult places to become residential areas (non-protected areas) as much as possible, and sometimes create conditions (such as the tuyere narrow tube effect). Opposing large-scale hydropower stations, in addition to destroying the confluence ecology, it will also lead to unfavourable natural navigation. We are still supportive of artesian canals and long tortuous aqueducts. Besides, it is also a good way to build canals in the middle of the river to connect the artificial lagoon and reuse it. Regulate naturally).

I support replacing fuel with electricity or developing clean fuels as much as possible, but this is not out of environmental protection, but out of reducing dependence on some things or being choked by changes.

About biological protection

Animal rights that are free from suffering apply to all kinds of animals, but they cannot raise the status of animals above humans or excessively “anthropomorphize” rights. It is like improving the environment for raising animals, protecting and restoring wild animals, but not prohibiting the raising of animals. In recent years, China’s practices in combating desertification in some parts of Northwest China have been very good, and it is worth learning from the world. Also, wild animal products should be strictly prohibited and rendered invalid in value (that is, against the full market economy model).

The zoo is transformed into a nursery school, training wild species to recover their survivability, and random capture and slavery of wild animals (such as elephant shows) are prohibited in unnecessary circumstances. Besides, necessary soundproofing, culverts or naturally decorated bridges should be installed on roads and railways for wild animals to pass through and maintain the ecological integrity of both sides.

An artificial breeding system should be set up to avoid danger to humans or damage to wild animals. For example, it is okay to treat bears as pets, but they should be artificially raised rather than captured and domesticated. Another example is dog meat. A regular and healthy dog ​​meat breeding plant should be established to ensure food safety and slaughter regulations, just like other meat animals.

As for the urban stray animals, I think they should be as harmless as possible, especially to prevent the occurrence of such things as vicious dogs hurting people. For the existing ones, you can manage the quantity and health (managed by the residential community), or carry out the humanitarian elimination when the quantity poses a threat. Standardize breeding (qualification learning can be set), and avoid the invasion of alien species caused by the random release.

Attitude towards vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, but most of the meat people eat at present is artificial farms (including some fish that are also consciously farmed in the wild), not directly from nature.

What needs to be restricted is wild fishing, such as extending the fishing moratorium, increasing restrictions and using nets that should not be too dense. At the same time, aquaculture and semi-aquaculture of fixed-point large-circle nets should be encouraged. Large-scale livestock breeding can handle agricultural and sideline products well, produce some nutrients and make meat safer. If vegetarianism is based on personal wishes or religious beliefs, it should be respected and other non-vegetarians should not be blamed.

Regarding the humanity of the slaughterhouse, I think modern machinery and anaesthesia can make it painless or even unaware. If it is determined that it has pain nerves, it should be so for humanitarian reasons, and it is also for modernization. (In my opinion, the simplest slaughter can still be painless, such as using a rifle directly). The reason for opposing animal cruelty is to oppose meaningless killing and suppress sadistic perverted psychology.

Meat production does not need to be too much linked to environmental protection. A kind of artificial meat technology is currently emerging, which is manufactured with Petri dishes. It is said that the nutritional value completely covers and exceeds that of real meat, and there is no difference in taste. But the cost is still very high now (because the technology has just appeared), and it exists as a luxury for a few people. If the technology matures in the future, when it can completely replace the existing meat, it is worth promoting.

Essential question

What destroys the environment is meaningless production caused by excessive excess and uneven distribution.

For example, elites occupy more resources and distribute less to people. To satisfy people’s needs, producers will produce more (in absolute amounts), but few of them reach people’s hands. However, if the distribution is balanced and the absolute amount of production is smaller than it is now, it will still be enough to satisfy everyone’s healthy and decent life.

(If the elite takes 95%, people only have 5%. To meet the needs, they have to produce several times the number of things. At the same time, capital will destroy the sustainability of the ecology for the benefit, and overproduction will cause a shortage of some things, such as cheap and effective No drug manufacturer is willing to produce).

Therefore, the damage to the environment stems from excessive and excessive production, as well as a large amount of pollution damage carried out by capital for profit. (In fact, regardless of the market economy or the authoritative planned economy, the problem that arises is that production is not necessarily what most people need/most people cannot negotiate and decide on production distribution plans; the production cannot be given to the people and places in need/decent with people Health and a happy life are not important, but some surpluses and wastes are not needed. Environmental problems are sometimes only secondary problems and cannot be looked at separately) The most classic is the logging problem in Brazil.

Some Brazilians believe that Brazil cannot develop prosperity without logging, and they feel that the West’s “snack” is hindering the development of Brazil. But the root of the problem lies in the fact that Brazilian capitalists can only log and export to maximize their interests. In the end, a bit of residue falls on the Brazilians. Environmental destruction has brought about the deterioration of the local people’s living environment.

The optimal solution is that the Brazilians occupy factories, confiscated, plan production together, and eliminate the privileged class who occupy resources to obtain benefits so that they can still develop well without destroying the environment. In the final analysis, the key question of whether development needs to destroy the environment is “who leads and how to distribute” and “what is the pursuit”. If you pursue a happy life for people, the distribution is more balanced, and production does not need to be excessive to satisfy people (at the same time, destroying the environment will affect people’s health and mentality); if you pursue the interests of a few people and the development of their interest system, the environment will be destroyed After the development is very good, people do not necessarily have a comfortable life, still under high pace and pressure (Brazil has many slums).

For all kinds of production, the best thing that can be done is to reduce the waste of by-products and be as environmentally friendly as possible in the production process. In terms of governance, the desertification control practices in some parts of Northwest China are very good and worthy of imitation. But the most important thing is not a single environmental issue, but a distribution and possession issue.

In short, my position is that people’s well-being is the foundation. People do not need to exchange their living environment for their needs, because this is also part of a happy life, and development is not (modern people are not in a hurry to need things in the future, but they can live a better life in modern technology).

Against plastic

Our lives are full of ugly plastic bags that are not friendly to the environment.
Here will take you to recognize the aesthetics of canvas bags.

doukeibag.com is an online shopping website that provides amazing design totes which make by canvas.

We represent the art in life.