Sacred cow ambulance service launched in India

[Brainfade]

Just now, zen said:

Note that human beings are predictably irrational .... the human first (and not planet) displays that irrationality, imo, as if you keep humans first, you could potentially undermine the planet, which supports all life. On the other hand, if you keep planet first, humans automatically have a relatively better environment to make progress 

Not necessarily.  Protecting the environment with the goal of having the planet available for human survival is the rational approach.  

[zen]

46 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

Not necessarily.  Protecting the environment with the goal of having the planet available for human survival is the rational approach.  

Rationality as displayed in cases such as CO2 emissions, deforestation, water pollution, land pollution, etc. 

 

 

[Brainfade]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Rationality as displayed in cases such as CO2 emissions, deforestation, water pollution, land pollution, etc. 

 

 

Not sure I get your point.  And I think you are missing mine.  Again, we must minimize all of these with human survival in mind.  I am advocating for judicious use of resources, of which we have enough to sustain 11B.  Protecting the environment has nothing to do with animal ambulances.  

[zen]

1 minute ago, Brainfade said:

Not sure I get your point.  And I think you are missing mine.  Again, we must minimize all of these with human survival in mind.  I am advocating for judicious use of resources, of which we have enough to sustain 11B.  Protecting the environment has nothing to do with animal ambulances.  

Everyone knows, we must minimize. That should not be a point. The discussion is how? Will the behavior change. What could be the motivation? Which is where my points are focused 

 

As I said human beings are predictably irrational. For e.g. we know wars are destructive, but we still fight, and so on.  Usually "humans first" has led to "we first" which further has turned in to "I first" .... We haven't found meaningful solutions yet but keep accumulating problems 

 

 

 

 

[Brainfade]

16 minutes ago, zen said:

Everyone knows, we must minimize. That should not be a point. The discussion is how? Will the behavior change. What could be the motivation? Which is where my points are focused 

 

As I said human beings are predictably irrational. For e.g. we know wars are destructive, but we still fight, and so on.  Usually "humans first" has led to "we first" which further has turned in to "I first" .... We haven't found meaningful solutions yet but keep accumulating problems 

 

 

 

 

When it becomes obvious that we need the environment for OUR survival, then behaviors will change.  Not some moralizing about how we need to be kind to other species.  And FWIW, the world is a much better place than it ever was.  Food production is up, Poverty is down, Infant mortality is down, women's education is up, economic opportunities are greater, deaths from violence are down, longevity is greater ... I can go on an on.  I am optimistic about the future.  

 

Take a look at https://ourworldindata.org.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Brainfade

[zen]

23 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

When it becomes obvious that we need the environment for OUR survival, then behaviors will change.  Not some moralizing about how we need to be kind to other species.  And FWIW, the world is a much better place than it ever was.  Poverty is down, Infant mortality is down, women's education is up, economic opportunities are greater, deaths from violence are down, longevity is greater ... I can go on an on.  I am optimistic about the future.  

And we don't know when it will become obvious .... And such irrational behavior continues to show up in opposition to even providing ambulances for animals .... it shows up when we think attending a meeting is more important than stopping on the road to help an accident victim

 

Many of the concept that you talk about are relative. Yesterday, I was wearing an ISAIA suit (starts at $4K), Armani shirt (around $300 iirc), Hermes tie ($300), Rolex watch, etc. I would be considered wearing more premium clothes, at least in terms of brands, than someone wearing Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger or whatever for example. Does that make me more happier? However, someone else could be wearing a bespoke $60K Kiton suit. Compared to that person, my suit is less premium. Does that make him more happier than me .... Talking about education for example, many great entrepreneurs haven't visited college  

 

In absolute terms, is our planet better than it was say 400 years ago? Can I breathe more clean air? How many species have vanished because of human activities? How can we take today's economic development standards and marry it with the greenest planet that we have ever had, along with having a robust ecosystem where other species can thrive? .... For me, these are more pertinent questions 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by zen

[Brainfade]

21 minutes ago, zen said:

And we don't know when it will become obvious .... And such irrational behavior continues to show up in opposition to even providing ambulances for animals .... it shows up when we think attending a meeting is more important than stopping on the road to help an accident victim

 

Many of the concept that you talk about are relative. Yesterday, I was wearing an ISAIA suit (starts at $4K), Armani shirt (around $300 iirc), Hermes tie ($300), Rolex watch, etc. I would be considered wearing more premium clothes, at least in terms of brands, than someone wearing Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger or whatever for example. Does that make me more happier? However, someone else could be wearing a bespoke $60K Kiton suit. Compared to that person, my suit is less premium. Does that make him more happier than me .... Talking about education for example, many great entrepreneurs haven't visited college  

 

In absolute terms, is our planet better than it was say 400 years ago? Can I breathe more clean air? How many species have vanished because of human activities? How can we take today's economic development standards and marry it with the greenest planet that we have ever had, along with having a robust ecosystem where other species can thrive? .... For me, these are more pertinent questions 

 

 

We agree on what the pertinent questions are.  But not on the intent.  Again, why do we want the greenest planet?  For me it's to sustain the human species so there is enough for all in the next millenium and then the next.  We do it for ourselves.  Life was shitly hard 400 years ago, unless you belonged to an elite class.  90% of the people were involved in hard labor.  We are doing much better today, thanks to increased food productivity and energy production, and technology in general.  We can of course do better, but not because we want to save the animals.  We must want to save ourselves.

 

I have no idea what your first paragraph was supposed to convey.  

 

 

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

We agree on what the pertinent questions are.  But not on the intent.  Again, why do we want the greenest planet?  For me it's to sustain the human species so there is enough for all in the next millenium and then the next.  We do it for ourselves. Life was shitly hard 400 years ago, unless you belonged to an elite class.  90% of the people were involved in hard labor.  We are doing much better today, thanks to increased food productivity and energy production, and technology in general.  We can of course do better, but not because we want to save the animals.  We must want to save ourselves.

 

I have no idea what your first paragraph was supposed to convey.  

 

 

The bolded part is one of the reasons we are in this mess: Humans first -> we first -> I first .... Other issues often get side tracked .... as humans are predictably irrational 

 

On the other hand, when we keep the planet first, we automatically seek to create a system which is beneficial for humans and other species, along with the environment. We do it not just for ourselves but also for everyone / everything else, which is what my point is .... 

Edited May 5, 2017 by zen

[Brainfade]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

The bolded part is one of the reasons we are in this mess: Humans first -> we first -> I first .... Other issues often get side tracked .... as humans are predictably irrational 

 

On the other hand, when we keep the planet first, we automatically seek to create a system which is beneficial for humans and other species, along with the environment. We do it not just for ourselves but also for everyone / everything else, which is what my point is .... 

Looking out for your species is not the same as being a selfish individual.  By your logic, if a leopard is walking away with a human baby in its mouth and there was a gun nearby, you'd just let it go because nature should take its course?  I would shoot the damn cat, because the human baby is more valuable to me.  Equating a human life with that of any random animal is emotional ridiculousness.  Save the planet.  Make it green.  Reduce pollution.  Produce more food on less land.  Do it because WE need it.  If in the process a few species of bacteria or plants disappear, so be it.  

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Zen will keep saying 'humans first is wrong/planet first' but its important to realize, he is like a politician talking about starting war. He wants YOU to stop having kids and think of the planet first, but not him. No time for these 'do as i say not as i do' fake-moralists.

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Brainfade said:

Looking out for your species is not the same as being a selfish individual.  By your logic, if a leopard is walking away with a human baby in its mouth and there was a gun nearby, you'd just let it go because nature should take its course?  I would shoot the damn cat, because the human baby is more valuable to me.  Equating a human life with that of any random animal is emotional ridiculousness.  Save the planet.  Make it green.  Reduce pollution.  Produce more food on less land.  Do it because WE need it.  If in the process a few species of bacteria or plants disappear, so be it.  

 

 

But we would do the same if a human being is walking away with (stealing)  human baby. We kill other human beings in wars too. Which illustrates that the example you used is not applicable to what is being discussed / implied 

 

The point is much deeper. It is about having an environment where a leopard too has its space vs. eliminating leopards because they serve no use, relatively speaking, to human beings  

[Brainfade]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

But we would do the same if a human being is walking away with (stealing)  human baby. We kill other human beings in wars too. Which illustrates that the example you used is not applicable to what is being discussed / implied 

 

The point is much deeper. It is about having an environment where a leopard too has its space vs. eliminating leopards because they serve no use, relatively speaking, to human beings  

Wait, what?  We kill other human beings in war, but we shouldn't.  We kill a leopard that is carrying a baby away because we should.  

 

You are equating a human life with that of other species.  And that is ridiculous.  

 

[zen]

44 minutes ago, Brainfade said:

Wait, what?  We kill other human beings in war, but we shouldn't.  We kill a leopard that is carrying a baby away because we should.  

 

You are equating a human life with that of other species.  And that is ridiculous.  

 

Both acts are considered ok by people who are assumed to be rational 

 

Many will likely rate living among a leopard > living among say someone like Osama Bin Laden 

 

Btw, Kenya has passed a bill that gives life sentences to poachers if they kill one of the selected animals such as elephants .... so not everything is in black and white as you perceive, my friend! 

Edited May 5, 2017 by zen

[Singh bling]

On 5/5/2017 at 10:41 PM, zen said:

Rationality as displayed in cases such as CO2 emissions, deforestation, water pollution, land pollution, etc. 

 

 

Most environmentalists believe that India is already burdened with over population of cattle particularly cows. You are actually advocating harming planet by making case for cows. More cows , more CO2 emissions  more land snatched from wild. So stop beating drums of environment. prsereving ecosystem many times means culling down animals which are harmful to environment

[Singh bling]

On 5/6/2017 at 0:28 AM, Muloghonto said:

Zen will keep saying 'humans first is wrong/planet first' but its important to realize, he is like a politician talking about starting war. He wants YOU to stop having kids and think of the planet first, but not him. No time for these 'do as i say not as i do' fake-moralists.

 

Which animals , which planet he is talking about. Cows in India are treated very well in many parts of country but this does not mean other animals also get same status. Infact Buffalo farming in last 20-30 years have increased very much because of  export of its meat.Old and abandoned cows will ultimately go into wild area  and destroy whatever ecosystem is left

[zen]

8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Most environmentalists believe that India is already burdened with over population of cattle particularly cows. You are actually advocating harming planet by making case for cows. More cows , more CO2 emissions  more land snatched from wild. So stop beating drums of environment. prsereving ecosystem many times means culling down animals which are harmful to environment

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for your post that illustrates a lack of understanding for what is being discussed / proposed

 

Appears as if injured animals including cows should be mistreated / mishandled / not cared for because of whatever you wrote above. If not, your post is pointless to the point of animals having rights too

 

 

PS I see that you have quoted something from Mulo, who is on my ignore list and appears to be striving to get my attention. I don't see his posts unless quoted by someone 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by zen

[Singh bling]

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for your post that illustrates a lack of understanding for what is being discussed / proposed

 

Appears as if injured animals including cows shoukd be mistreated / mishandled because you think they do whatever you wrote. If not, your post is pointless

 

PS I see that you have quoted something from Mulo, who is on my ignore list and appears to be striving to get my attention 

 

 

 

Nowhere I said they should be mistreated,All I am saying is domestic animals which are artificially bred for milk or any other purpose should be culled for environment as they can be very harmful to them.That should be done with minimum pain

 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

 

[zen]

28 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Nowhere I said they should be mistreated,All I am saying is domestic animals which are artificially bred for milk or any other purpose should be culled for environment as they can be very harmful to them.That should be done with minimum pain

 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

 

Remind me, how does that relate to serving as an argument against providing care for animals too, respecting their rights, treating them well, creating a space for them in this world (vs humans hijacking the planet for example), etc., which is what my point on animals is

 

Environment is more influened by deforestation by human related activites, CO2 emissions by vehicles, power plants, etc. The land fill and water pollution is impacted mainly by human activities including the excessive use of plastic 

 

Since you said that by making a case for cows, we are actually harming the environment, taking land away (primarily forests) from the wild, do you think actions by cows is responsible for the large part of what is happening negatively to the environment today? For e.g. what is the percentage of forest lost because of cows related activities vs human activities? Are cows cutting the forests down?

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by zen

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Remind me, how does that relate to serving as an argument against providing care for animals too, respecting their rights, treating them well, creating a space for them in this world (vs humans hijacking the planet for example), etc., which is what my point on animals is

 

Environment is more influened by deforestation by human related activites, CO2 emissions by vehicles, power plants, etc. The land fill and water pollution is impacted mainly by human activities including the excessive use of plastic 

 

Since you said that by making a case for cows, we are actually harming the environment, taking land away (primarily forests) from the wild, do you think actions by cows is responsible for the large part of what is happening negatively to the environment today? For e.g. what is the percentage of forest lost because of cows related activities vs human activities? Are cows cutting the forests down?

 

Quote

http://ourfoodprint.com/learn/india

Yes cows and other cattle are harming environment.Dairy industry is responsible for that

[zen]

27 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Yes cows and other cattle are harming environment.Dairy industry is responsible for that

Please understand the report you post