both things are everywhere because the billionaires want it to be. they want you to be complicit, to rely on it, and to not question it. and there's never a line drawn to define when it's "gone too far", or when to "stop" participating at a "given point". it's done that way on purpose.

Not surprising. The major beef and dairy industry is in bed with the U.S government.

#veganism #govegan

And because of this, I expect a broader discussion that's less superficial, and instead deeper in meaning that provokes thinking and reflection, than whatever THE FUCK I just witnessed.

Personal choice en masse makes a difference. Look at the fucking tens of millions of tons of fish being caught for supply and demand. Look at everything else.

The fact that it wasn't even a slight consideration in thw discussion is what's pissing me off. It's the exact mildest your students, who you should be guiding, were expressing. That nothing can actually be done, when that's not the case.

The point is with the current population of humans, and the absolute fact that there are NO perfectly efficient, ethical, or sustainable practices within industrial harvesting of organisms, there is no way to "ethically source" ANY ANIMAL OR POPULATION.

And I'm LIVID for the cognitive dissonance expressed with personal choice of fish (which is implied as an ethical choice based on the question to reduce unsustainable consumption) being connected to farm animals and that the personal choice is acceptable all the same, "in moderation".

On top of already showing an example of how worldwide outrage and boycotting of soulless companies for their dolphin bycatch MADE A REAL DIFFERENCE.

Your job is to encourage them and shown them what can be done. You connected the truth about supply and demand, but somehow it stops short of making the personal choice to actually enact that method to make a change.

Especially in a whole majority of students who all thought, "it's pointless to do anything because they'll be overfished anyway," or "actually bc of sometning about palm oil, fishing is good bc despite all the evidence shown so far, humans are making a good impact for them and their habitats!!"

It should not be taboo to have discussions about food choice, when there are choices available. It's that simple. Discouraging such discussion is placing a misleading idea onto the students you're teaching, and is irresponsible to the planet that is actively being depleted of its resources.

IT IS NOT IMMORAL OR ILLOGICAL TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION! Considering that most resources (especially animals) harvested from agricultural systems or from the wild, are being overharvested because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

Excuse me sir, we're all sitting in this temperature maintained, expensive ass lecture room, in a developed country that has grocery stores. I had expected much more nuance from you because you have a background on environmentalism, and are teaching about environmental preservation and conservation.

Instead, the very rarely chosen option to "not eat fish at all" was deemed an "unreasonable and extreme" approach because "not everyone can do that, some places have to fish for food." And basically it's not ethical as am option of PERSONAL choice, or "to tell people not to eat fish at all."

When the extensive list of ecological / organismal losses caused by severely overactive fisheries is given for example, and you ask students what the solution is, the expectation is that your reasoning is bound to uphold reasonable and ethical solutions for the threatened ecosystems addressed.

If a professor teaching an environmentalist course is going to have discussions on human impact on the planet and solutions, it's their responsibility to effectively show those solutions to the next generations that are going to be in charge of dealing with these problems one way or another.

📌 Historic fascists with plenary authority:
• Hitler
• Mussolini
• Stalin

Plenary authority or plenary powers: Absolute and without limitations.