Just watching 30 Days 1x05, where two city dwellers get to live in the
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, an entirely self-sustaining community.
The inhabitants of which have agreed to live a completely vegetarian life, their reason being "meat is very inefficient".
Come
on, guys. That is the way to go only if you want to alienate 90% of the rest of the world.
I have great respect for eco-nerds, not the least of my resons being that forsaking modern comforts is something that takes a lot of nerve. But why oh why, why dear god, madonna mia, heavens above, do they always have to be fucking vegetarians? All right, I have nothing against vegatarians, two of my best buddies from university are a quasi-vegetarian[1] and a semi-vegetarian[2]. But why does meat always have to be the dividing line? I think it is unwise, if you advocate an ecologically sensible lifestyle, to include vegetarianism. Vegetarianity. Whatever.
Why? Two reasons.
One, it so makes for bad publicity. "Oh, so they won't let me eat meat. I guess I'm out then." (As the male 30-days participant so brilliantly puts it "I guess I'll be part of the problem"). And the entire package is rejected wholesale, for the insignificant fact that no meat is included.
Second, and more importantly, I do not believe that a vegetarian lifestyle is necessary for advocating ecologically sensible living, or reasonable. The nutrition arguments have been made many times over, by both sides, so I will skip them. But think about this: why does it have to be an all-or-nothing choice? Why not limit meat consumption to once or twice a week? Sure, meat is more inefficient. It's a luxury, for christ's sake! Luxuries are by their very definition inefficient. That, everyone could live with.
[1] no meat most of the time
[2] fish, but no meat
