Saturday, January 24, 2015

Animal Rights vs Human Rights vs Humanitarianism vs Organic vs Environmentalism


There is so many rights and believers these days that fights for something that you can get lost. We all fight for something that we think is right, but is it really, I always had questions for these extremest and want them all in a room one day to fight it out... WWF will have nothing on this. To start of let my get each definition of the competitors:

  • Humanitarianism 
  • Organic movement 
  • Animal rights movement 
  • Human rights
  • Environmentalism

At the bottom I have quoted each from Wikipedia and what they stand for.

So let's start stating the flaws that each thinking might have, and also the answers I want from them, if they are true to what they stand for.

Let us start with Organic movement. Farming with without genetics, the issue I have are as follows if the whole world moved to organic farming what will be the outcome? There are a lot of pro and cons of organic farming, but my main concern is the land if you just google "how much more land does organic farming require" you will see a lot of articles that states it ranges from 25% to 84% more land is required. so if this is true and we need At least 1.2 acres or 0.5 hectare per person is required and agricultural land covers 33% (13,812,040 square kilometers) of the world's land area organic farming and with a world population of 7.22 Billion people will mean that this figures must go to the range of ..

  • Agricultural land will increase between 17 265 050 to  25 414 153 km
  • Human requirements will increase between 0.63 to  0.92 hectare
This means that if 7.22 Billion people will require land that goes from 36 100 000 to between 45 125 000 - 66 424 000 so currently we already cant feed all the people on the plant by 22 287 960 sqkm farmland and if we all go organic the figures goes between 27 Mil or 41 Mil. well the earth is 149 Mil square km so there is space I guess, but the problem is farmland cannot be everywhere so we need to take away 33% of desert land (49.17 Mil sqkm) so we have then 100 Mil left and if we take 41 Mil of Farmland it leaves us with 59 Mil to live on with the animals and forests and buildings. Now lets bring in the Human Right, Animal Rights and environmentalist people in the equation. If we cannot kill animals and there is currently 24 Billion livestock and 50 Billion in others we will have to live in ratio:
  • 18 % Humans (10 Mil)
  • 26 % Livestock (15 Mil)
  • 54 % Other Animals (32 Mil)

I am making assumption that ever species takes up the same size of land requirements and that we can live anywhere in the world excluding dessert, so Iceland and north pole is also in this. Now with not killing humans we have a 2% (144 Mil) growth rate per year so in 10 years we will need space for 1.4 Billion people more, how much will the animals need, we can't eat the livestock and we can't keep the animal growth in control so that is a problem... space here we come!!!!

Ok so that is one question I have for the organic people with the others now lets look at another issue I have, we cannot kill people who has killed and we must make love not war. if you research you will see that society has a very high rate of kids ending up like their parents (not personalities, but economic and morals) you have a 60% chance, so taking that into mind lets take a 50% ratio of good and not so good people, So in 100 population there is 50 people that contribute positive to society and 50 that don't lets say 10 people are killers and on average they kill 2 people which means that we can lose 10 positive and 10 negative people in the world. Now lets say everyone have 2 children there will be then 40 good children and 40 not so good, but lets say the killers only can kill 10 people and they are all good? this means that there will be 40 good kids and 50 not so good which means that we sit with a ratio of 90 good and 100 not so good now you see where I am going if this keeps on happening and the not so good keeps populating the positive contribution on society will fade away.
If I look at the first scenario we will see that the killers are alive and will also give the 100 - 90 ratio. This means that without death penalty we are killing of a linage of good people and allowing not so good people to growth... mmm now I wonder why we ask why is there so much crime, rape and killing in the world... then why do we kill animals that killed a human? we say that if they killed once they will kill again... if we are animals shouldn't this apply to us then too?

Now my last question is for Environmentalism... if we go green, by not using paper, then shouldn't we then not use any forms of energy? This PC am I writing on and the servers that this blog is hosted on, don't the plants that generate the electricity use up space and also pollute the planet? The green cars are build from pollution plants, the energy they use are from pollution plants, and if we say solar and wind and water, then I go to my first question, doesn't this use more land space too?

I do not have the answers, but I think we need to start looking at a balance and reality that no matter what cause we are fighting for our thinking is fundamental flawed, if we put all the right people in one room can we think of a win-win scenario where people can eat meat and veggies, we everyone has a right to a point? Where there is compromise to live as part of nature and society?

I am a balance thinker for me I have no rights, I earn the rights, if I want light and food I need to work and pay for them, if I don't want to work I have no right to any of that. If I take the right away of a living person I have no right to live either. If I mentally unstable and cannot afford kids, why would I have a right to bring a person into this world that I will screw up so bad that they cannot contribute to society? If my kids have the right to education, then why do I have 6 and cannot afford to sent them to school and give them the best chance to have an education? If someone works hard and have an idea that can make them rich, what right do I have to demand their wealth? why don't I get off my lazy ass and do the same? If I am unhealthy and overweight I do not demand the fit and healthy people too look after me and let me get skinny, I get up, eat right and exercise, I ask them to help me were I am not good in exchange to help them were I am good at. Why don't we?

Humanitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarianism)

"In its most general form, humanitarianism is an ethic of kindness, benevolence, and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common element in its evolution. No distinction is to be made in the face of suffering or abuse on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, tribe, caste, age, religion, ability, or nationality.

Humanitarianism can also be described as the acceptance of every human being for plainly just being another human, ignoring and abolishing biased social views, prejudice, and racism in the process, if utilized individually as a practiced viewpoint, or mindset.

In armed conflict and beyond, humanitarianism is the organized efforts to alleviate suffering and protect non-combatants, such as the wounded or civilians, and is protected under international humanitarian law."

Organic movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_movement)


"The organic movement broadly refers to the organizations and individuals involved worldwide in the promotion of organic farming. It started around the first half of the 20th century, when modern large-scale agricultural practices began to appear.

The organic movement began in the early 1900s in response to the shift towards synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides in the early days of industrial agriculture by a relatively small group of farmers. These farmers came together in various associations: Demeter International of Germany, which encouraged biodynamic farming and began the first certification program, the Australian Organic Farming and Gardening Society, the Soil Association of the United Kingdom, and Rodale Press in the United States, along with others. In 1972 these organizations joined to form the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). In recent years, environmental awareness has driven demand and conversion to organic farming. Some governments, including the European Union, have begun to support organic farming through agricultural subsidy reform. Organic production and marketing have grown at a fast pace.

The term “organic” can be broadly described as food grown without the assistance of man-made chemicals. The beginnings of the organic movement can be traced back to the beginning of the 1800s. In 1840 Justus Von Liebig developed a theory of mineral plant nutrition. Liebig believed that manure could be directly substituted for mineral salts. Many years later in 1910, preceding the First World War, chemists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch developed an ammonia synthesis process, making use of nitrogen from the atmosphere. This form of ammonia had already been used to manufacture explosives, so after the war, it was implemented into the fertilization of agriculture.

Organic food was initially seen as a fad observed by the eccentric few, however today it has become more widespread. Organics have come to represent a safe house in a disturbing world where food quality and safety are constantly under siege” (Blythman). Today, whole foods stores have captured a significant share of the grocery shopping market, specifically, Whole Foods Market, Wild Oats, and others."

Animal rights movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_movement)

"The animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal liberation movement, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement which seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.

It is one of the few examples of a social movement that was created, and is to a large extent sustained academically, by philosophers.

All animal liberationists believe that the individual interests of non-human animals deserve recognition and protection, but the movement can be split into two broad camps.

Animal rights advocates, or rights liberationists, believe that these basic interests confer moral rights of some kind on the animals, and/or ought to confer legal rights on them; see, for example, the work of Tom Regan. Utilitarian liberationists, on the other hand, do not believe that animals possess moral rights, but argue, on utilitarian grounds — utilitarianism in its simplest form advocating that we base moral decisions on the greatest happiness of the greatest number — that, because animals have the ability to suffer, their suffering must be taken into account in any moral philosophy. To exclude animals from that consideration, they argue, is a form of discrimination that they call speciesism; see, for example, the work of Peter Singer.

Despite these differences, the terms "animal liberation" and "animal rights" are generally used interchangeably."

Human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)

"Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They require empathy and the rule of law and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others. They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances, and require freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.

The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and regional institutions. Actions by states and non-governmental organizations form a basis of public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights suggests that "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of continued philosophical debate; while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety of rights such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement, prohibition of genocide, free speech, or a right to education, there is disagreement about which of these particular rights should be included within the general framework of human rights; some thinkers suggest that human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid the worst-case abuses, while others see it as a higher standard."

Environmentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism)

"Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution or protect plant and animal diversity. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.

At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainability. The exact measures and outcomes of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which says that the Earth as less fragile than some environmentalists maintain, and portrays environmentalism as overreacting to the human contribution to climate change or opposing human advancement."