#animal agriculture propaganda

[sidewalkchemistry]

This is how the dairy industry lied to the world

[cookie-sheet-toboggan]

I hated this panel above (like I actually had to put down the comic and pace my room after reading it, it was so bad) because it fundamentally misunderstands environmental activists & eco terrorists, which Poison Ivy is!! More plants die to animal agriculture, not less!! Poison Ivy eating humans or going out hunting makes sense, but her eating that diner chicken platter does not. Like I've never wanted to write a letter to an author more in my life than I did after this issue came out. A simple google search into the destruction of animal agriculture would have yielded up study after study. We're literally losing the Amazon rainforest to grow feed for livestock! Make Poison Ivy a cannibal, make her a hunter, or make her a vegan (there's a reason why 99% of eco terrorists are vegan), but don't make her an animal agriculture supporter, oh my fucking god.

Also, the rant about agave is 'anti-vegan talking points 101'. This author did zero research. Vegans are not upholding and sustaining agave production, that would be the alcohol industry (ie tequila manufacturing). Like, holy fucking shit, facebook clickbait, there's not even evidence that vegans buy agave in any significant numbers. This is just made up.

OP, you are correct. This comic book panel - however - is not. Make Poison Ivy a sexy cannibal lesbian. She eats people, not farm raised livestock.

my poison ivy hot take is i actually think she would be some kind of weird carnivore rather than a vegetarian because she only really has empathy for plants and sees most people as meat sacks i think she would eat people is what i'm saying. what i'm saying is they should let her do sexy lesbian cannibalism

[wild-garden-fairy]

Stop basing your ethics on stuff you learned in school challenge...

[bestanimal]

Round 1 - Phylum Onychophora

(Sources - 1, 2, 3, 4)

Onychophora is a phylum of long, soft-bodied, many-legged animals. They are commonly called Velvet Worms due to their velvety texture, and the human propensity for calling any small animal with a long body a worm. Onychophora is the only animal phylum in which every extant (non-extinct) member is fully terrestrial.

Onychophorans are predators, preying on other invertebrates which they catch by spraying an adhesive, glue-like slime. This slime can also be used to deter predators. They will target slime at the limbs of their prey, and have even been observed targeting the fangs of spiders. The slime is stretchy, with high tensile strength, and forms a net-like structure when sprayed. It takes about 24 days to replenish an exhausted slime repository, so they will eat their dried slime when they can.

Onychophoran legs are called oncopods, lobopods, or “stub feet”. They can have from 13 to as many as 43 pairs of feet, depending on species. Their legs are hollow and have no joints, instead being moved by the hydrostatic pressure of their fluid contents. Each foot has a pair of tiny chitin claws which they use to gain their footing on uneven terrain. They sense the world via a pair of antennae, the numerous papillae covering their bodies, and a pair of simple eyes, though there are some blind species. Their mouth is surrounded by sensitive lips, and their chitin jaws, used for chewing up prey, look similar to their claws. On either side of their mouth are the oral papillae, openings containing their slime glands. Unlike their relatives, the tardigrades and arthropods, they do not have a rigid exoskeleton, restricting them to habitats with high humidity. They are also nocturnal hunters, and shy away from light, leading them to be most active on rainy nights. Onychophorans have two sexes. Females are usually larger than males, and sometimes have more legs. In most species the males will secrete a pheromone from their many “armpits” to attract females. Mating procedures differ between species. Some species are live-bearing, and some are egg-laying. The oldest known fossil Onychophoran, Antennipatus, is known from the Late Carboniferous.

Propaganda under the cut:

The little orange guy in my avatar is a velvet worm!

Some species can spray their slime up to a foot away, though their accuracy gets worse with distance.

Apparently, velvet worm slime tastes "slightly bitter and at the same time somewhat astringent.” Don’t ask how biologists know that.

It is hard to evaluate all velvet worms due to their nocturnal nature and low population densities, but of the few species that have been evaluated, all are near threatened to critically endangered. Main threats come from habitat loss due to industrialisation, draining of wetlands, and slash-and-burn agriculture. Many species naturally have low population densities and small geographic ranges, so a small disturbance of ecosystem can lead to the extinction of entire species. Populations are also threatened by collection for universities or research institutes.

While most countries offer little to no protection for their velvet worms, Tasmania is unique for having its own velvet worm conservation plan and one region of forest dedicated to preserving the endangered Blind Velvet Worm, Leucopatus anophthalmus (seen in the 3rd image).

Onychophoran’s stub feet allow them to be sneaky ambush predators which hunt only at night. They move slowly and quietly, with their body raised off the ground. They only use their claws when needed for climbing, otherwise they walk softly on the pads of their feet. They are often able to get so close to their prey that they can gently touch them with their antennae to assess their size and nutritional value before the prey is alerted.

Onychophorans have small but complex brains, and are thus capable of sophisticated social interaction. Some species live and hunt in packs, acting in aggression and territoriality towards velvet worms not in their own group. After a kill, the dominant female always feeds first, followed in turn by the other females, then males, then the young. High-ranking individuals will chase and bite subordinates who climb on them, but will allow juveniles to climb on their backs without aggression.

Somft

[read-marx-and-lenin]

I'm asking this in good faith, but this is something I'm genuinely confused about. Regarding the Holodomor, or the Soviet famine of 1930 in general, why does it matter if it was a genocide or not? At best it seems to be a natural famine exacerbated by poor decision making, and while that is far different from a genocide, I don't understand why that specification matters, because it was still made worse by Soviet intervention, unless I'm getting the facts wrong which I probably am.

It matters to the Western propagandists who were insistent for decades despite zero evidence that the famine was used to commit atrocities against the people of Ukraine. The refrain the whole time was that once the Soviet archives were made public, they'd finally have the proof they needed. The archives are eventually opened, and surprise surprise, there's not only no evidence of the deliberate withholding of grain, there's evidence of significant amounts of food aid being sent to help alleviate the famine. The myth of a Ukrainian genocide began as Nazi propaganda and was adopted as part of the "double genocide" narrative by Western reactionaries after WW2 to downplay the crimes of the Nazis and to maintain a narrative about liberal opposition to "authoritarianism", painting Western capitalists as the "free world" fighting against both fascism and communism. (Don't ask them why they stopped fighting fascism after WW2 though.)

As for the human elements of the famine, it is also part of the typical Western narrative, even among those who admit the Holodomor was not a targeted anti-Ukrainian genocide and who admit that there were environmental factors, to try and put substantial amounts of blame on the Soviet collectivization of agriculture. I am not going to lie and say collectivization went smoothly with no issues, but you cannot ignore the factors of reactionary sabotage by kulaks (including the destruction of animals and grain and the outright murder of party officials) and the effects of Western sanctions and sabotage on the economic development of the USSR.

While some have argued that there was a complete "gold blockade" on the USSR during the famine and so the Soviet Union was forced to export grain to facilitate international trade, the blockade was never enforced by all Western nations at the same time and the Soviets were still able to export gold and silver at various times throughout the 1920s. It is true, however, that gold reserves were stretched thin at the time and the Soviets simply didn't have enough gold to cover their international debts. Soviet gold mines had never been extraordinarily productive and the rest of the Soviet economy was still developing at the time, so grain was one of the few things that they expected to have in surplus. In addition, there were various other sanctions in place by 1930 that did limit who they could trade with and what they could trade with, but the export of grain was almost never restricted. The famine caught them off guard at a very bad time.

While international grain exports were restricted during the famine as grain was diverted to famine-stricken regions of the country (and grain imports were increased as well), the problems with hoarding only worsened as in the panic of the famine, kulaks sought to exploit the people and create a profitable black market on grain. A struggle against the kulaks coincided with worsening environmental effects and the spread of disease among both crops and humans.

The famine was not man-made, it was not entirely natural, and it was not the inevitable outcome of collectivization. It was a perfect storm of a variety of factors. Stalin was not some heartless monster condemning millions of Ukrainians to death for daring to defy the glorious Soviet Union. He was not some idiot who had no idea what he was doing, plunging the nation into famine out of ineptitude. He was not a stubborn maniac who refused to abandon failing economic policies even at the cost of human lives. He was a human being, one of many in charge of the Soviet Union, dealing with concurrent disasters as best as they could.

[mornmonday]

Where are these numbers coming from? What parts of these processes have specifically been analyzed? Are we counting emissions from the beef industry as purely leather industry creations? Is it more sustainable to throw away a cow hide that's already created as a side effect of producing beef? These are great numbers but I don't see the story behind them represented here.

Its great that we have new emerging technologies that will give us more sustainable leather alternatives in the future, but are they going to be about 50% plastic like other leather alternatives are these days? Things like cactus leather require a significant amount of petroleum to manufacture (at least in every case I've ever seen), and something being half plastic really takes the punch out of its claim to sustainability. Do these CO2 emissions calculations include the pollutants released when that half-plastic-pleather breaks down in a landfill? I understand you want to make a big point about re-use being the ultimate climate saver (and I agree there!) but we still have to acknowledge that a lot of this plastic will end up being thrown away, as every material eventually reaches the end of its usefulness. Is pleather recyclable, like some plastics are? Cuz that would be really cool, and I would be interested to know how the recycling process of plastic that is half cactus compares to the recycling process of full plastic, which is already pretty inefficient (and honestly I feel that recycling is a lie designed to keep liberals calm in the face of a plastic / oil industry that's going to kill us all, cuz we know plastic recycling contributes almost ¾ of the pollution of just producing new plastic).

Do you think we could lower the amount of emissions significantly by scaling down and de-industrializing the beef (and other meats) industry, and making better use of hides already produced by the animals we eat?

There will never come a day when the whole world is vegan, perceived morals aside let's just be practical. Total world veganism would mean another wave of cultural genocide against indigenous ways of life in North America (just speaking about the cultures I am familiar with in my local area, not claiming to know every indigenous culture and diet on the planet or whatever) and a lower quality of life for a lot of disabled people. But now im getting preachy, so I'll end this here.

PS: consider reading this article if you want more info on why I feel that ultimately producing any new plastic is long-term worse than shifting our meat industries to use "waste" hides and just keep making real leather. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse

If anyone actually gives a shit about sustainable clothing instead of just circlejerking about vegans bad, here you go This source shows that synthetic leather is far better than animal corpse skin but still not truly sustainable

Overall, we need degrowth in the fashion industry and should focus on re-use and repair instead of making new things, but Part IV of that page has a whole report on future sustainable options such as using mycellium or other plant based alternatives for when we do need to create new clothing. In the meantime the science is clear: pleather is objectively less pollutive than tanned and treated cow corpse skin, and no cow has to die for it.

[goodassmotherliker]

All day, I have been doing my best to avoid manipulations regarding the consequences of russians blowing up Kahovka HPP Bridge, but as the catastrophe unfolds, grim understanding kicks in. Many elderly people and people with mobility issues were not able to evacuate before the water flooded their houses. We won't know the extent of the losses until or if the water recedes. Same with domestic animals, animals from the zoo, and rare wildlife species. Thousands of people in the South of Ukraine are losing their homes and being displaced as I am writing this in Kyiv.

Meanwhile, the water washes away mines planted by russian soldiers, and they detonate uncontrollably, floating in the current. Also, russians continue to shell the region to hinder the evacuation efforts of Ukrainian authorities.

Fertile lands are being lost to the flood. This is a huge blow to Ukrainian agriculture and a direct threat not only to ourselves but also to the livelihoods of many countries in the Global South dependent on Ukrainian crops.

The Southern regions of Ukraine are about to face technical and drinking water shortages. Some parts are controlled by Ukraine and may count on humanitarian support. Others are currently under russian occupation, i.e., completely on their own in the face of devastating, life-threatening tragedy.

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently occupied by russians, is likely to lose a lot of water used for its cooling systems. russians have also been intimidating and torturing its staff, who stayed there to avert nuclear catastrophe amid the occupation.

This is hell. We can only hope to save as many lives as possible. No country would inflict something so monstrous on itself. Please do not be fooled by the so-called ambiguity promoted by russian propaganda and some Western media. Kahovka HPP Bridge has been mined by russians for months and overlooked by the allies of Ukraine despite frequent warnings by our authorities.

This is a russian doing. This is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. This is an act of terror and ecocide sponsored by the russian people.

[spiny-ant]

THE BADASS BUG BRACKET

ROUND 1, BRACKET 15

Cicada Killer (Sphecius speciosus) vs Texas Leafcutter Ant (Atta texana)

Cicada Killer Propaganda: Literally so huge, strong, powerful, glossy, sexy, and killer

Texas Leafcutter Ant propaganda: One of the only animals other than humans that genuinely practice agriculture... Incredibly massive organized societies

[commajade]

finally watched watched my brothers and sisters in the north when it's been in my to-watch list for years and it was so touching and so beautiful.

the people interviewed were of course handpicked and have better conditions than other people because of the impact of U.S. sanctions and such, but it genuinely inspired me how hard-earned their good living conditions are. the farmers had to work really hard to re-establish agriculture after the war and now they get so much food a year they donate most of it to the state because they simply don't need it. the girl at the sewing factory loves her job and gets paid with 14 kilos of food a month on top of her wages. the water park worker is proud of his job because 20,000 of his people can come and enjoy themselves every day, and Kim Jong-un himself took part in designing it and came by at 2am during construction to make sure everything was going smoothly. his grandmother's father was a revolutionary who was executed and buried in a mass grave in seoul but in the dprk he has a memorial bust in a place of honor and his family gets a nice apartment in pyongyang for free.

imperialist propaganda always points to the kim family as a dictatorship and a cult of personality but from this docu it's so obvious that it's genuine gratitude for real work for the people, and simple korean respect. if my president came to my work and tried his best to make my working conditions better and to make my life better, i would call him a dear leader too. if my president invented machines and designed amusement parks and went to farms all over the country to improve conditions for the people, i would respect him.

the spirit of juche is in self-reliance, unity of the people, and creative adaptations to circumstances. the docu rly exemplified the ideology in things like the human and animal waste methane systems powering farmers' houses along with solar panels, how they figured out how to build tractors instead of accepting unstable foreign import relationships, and how the water park uses a geothermal heating system.

it rly made me cry at the end when the grandma and her grandson were talking about reunification. the people of the dprk live every day of their lives dreaming of reunification and working for reunification, and it's an intergenerational goal that they inherited from their parents and grandparents. the man said he was so happy to see someone from the south, and that even though reunification would have its own obstacles that we have the same blood the same language the same interests so no matter what if we have the same heart it would be okay.

and the grandma said "when reunification happens, come see me." and it's so upsetting that not even 10 years later, the state has been pushed into somewhat giving up on this hope. the dprk closed down the reunification department of the government last year and it broke my heart.

a really good pairing with the 2016 film is this 2013 interview with ambassador Thae Youngho to clarify political realities in the dprk and the ongoing U.S. hostility that has shaped the country's global image. the interviewer Carlos Martinez asks a lot of excellent questions and the interview goes into their military policy, nuclear weapons, U.S. violence and sanctions, and the dprk's historical solidarity with middle eastern countries like syria and palestine and central/south american countries like nicaragua, bolivia, and cuba.

[hotvintagepoll]

Very very very upset about cagney not winning so I wanted to submit some propaganda as his number 1 shooter :( was he conventionally attractive? No… was he the scrungliest cutiest patootiest manlet ever? YES!!!

Some fun facts for you… his first onstage appearance was as a chorus girl (top row, second from left with the killer arms hehe.) He actually had such bad stage fright that he would get sick before going onstage :(( which is hard to believe given the confidence that he exuded onscreen! According to James himself, he didn’t even really have a passion for acting that landed him on Broadway, to him it was ‘just another job.’

Despite a genuinely rough upbringing which influenced a lot of his ‘hoodlum’ characters, he was the complete opposite of the characters he played, apart from definitely being a mama’s boy, much like many of his gangster roles hehe c: He loved animals, art, sailing (despite suffering from severe seasickness hhh) and gardening. He was nicknamed the ‘faraway fella’ by his dear friend Pat O’Brien because of his introverted nature. Here are some of his drawings and paintings. He actually attended Columbia to study art, but had to drop out when his father died in 1918.

He raised horses later in life on his land in Martha’s Vineyard, Verney Farm (a combination of Cagney and his wife’s maiden name, Vernon. He was married to his wife, affectionately nicknamed Billie, for 60+ years until his death.) He was so interested in farming that he was awarded an honorary degree in agriculture from Rollins College, and when accepting the degree, he submitted a paper on soil conservation… what a silly little guy.

James was also a talented boxer—owing to his street fighting youth—and ballplayer. If he hadn’t been an actor, he may have made the major leagues!! Speaking of career changes, he was nicknamed ‘the great againster’ for his constant walkouts from Warner Bros. following contract disputes. On more than one occasion, he threatened to quit Hollywood to become a dentist or a doctor like his brother lolll. Most importantly, he was one of the founders of the Screen Actors Guild and fought hard for actors’ rights!! Here are some pics of him boxing/wrestling … I love when those strands of hair would fall out over his forehead :D

Anyway I have so much more I could say but this is getting long so I’ll stop here… I just love him so much!!! He was a sweetheart and a cool guy!!! As someone said, this is the verified short king lover website, so SHOW IT!! Vote cagney!!

[frankifried]

something i've always found interesting about the misinterpretations of darian or the hunters of the dead in general is that they are apathetic or cruel, or lacking a love for "anything beyond the sanctity of the golden order," which in itself is oversimplified.

the golden order encompasses everything. all of the life in the lands between, all of the potential. everythings' soul returns to the ertree with time, by darian's own prayer, because everything is sacred. by the hunter of the dead's account, or at least darian's, the golden order is no perceived to be exclusively some unreachable, small concept. it overarches all of the lands between. the hunters' responsibility is the lands between, everything the erdtree touches.

i've never understood this concept that such a thought process is built on apathy and not a misleading or desperation given the hunting in itself is so driven by a protection & cleansing of others & the world?

even the concept alone that they seek "an absolute evil to contend with" means they believe in an overarching innocence or goodness to be protected, beyond the golden order. that the "absolute evil" in question harms or threatens. whether that be the animals, the agriculture, passing tarnished, sacred ruins.. followers of the golden order are waiting for its restoration, waiting for queen marika's return. the lands between is in shambles but that does not mean that what remains is not worth protecting until it can be restored to its livelihood once more.

to see these concepts so simplified and mistaken or misinterpreted is so saddening to me because at the end of the day it is all about love. i understand at first being a bit "icked" or reactionary to certain dialogues but that is both a privilege & a disadvantage that we have as the player. we know more than these people do.

it can be difficult for us to understand the perspective of alot of these characters at first because of this, or even acknowledge that there is a perspective at all, but i greatly encourage people to try.

to the inhabitants of the lands between, marika just up and left with little explanation at all. everything fell apart. and it's been quite some time on top of all of that. and when explicitly in a conversation about the hunters of the dead & the spread of death, one can assume that darian at the least has been doing this for years now. one does not simply keep a disease spreading across an entire world at bay by themselves out of some sort of malice or bloodlust. one is not so adamant about warning passing strangers not to tread somewhere they don't understand out of an itchy trigger finger. i hate this concept that darian would harm or kill any that slightly opposed her. because it's not accurate or truthful to how she's portrayed within her dialogue whatsoever. the erdtree itself is not stingy or picky about who is in or who is out. it's complex. and the hunters of the dead are meant to serve in what they interpret the golden order may want, not what they personally think is best for it. (which in itself is a different conversation regarding darian's heresy & whatnot. an unrelated topic.)

she's incredibly tolerant & accepting towards our decisions on purpose. a difference in opinion or a slight opposing in thought process does not deem you an "absolute evil" if you can still fall victim to something even greater than you. a disagreement does not make you unworthy of protecting, because that is not her decision to make.

the hunters of the dead are not scholars or prophets, they reject study in its entirety. and based on darian's opening dialogue, they're likely entirely incapable of proper rites & whatnot in its entirety as well. they are unfortunately detached from the soul of their faith, its dehumanizing. they are there to enact their hunting and that is that. not change minds, not spread propaganda or word like corhyn for example. they don't exist to engage in thought or the human bits of religious following. they lack autonomy, personhood. likely because if they pursue thought or study, they'll be forced to realize not only the complexity of fundamentalism, but recognize & accept the fallacies within the golden order, and how they've (the d twins) been wronged & misled by it. they're weapons, dogs. sent to kill what they believe to be the worst of the worst to protect others and that's it, so no one else has to.

the dead are perceived as an "absolute evil" by the hunters of the dead because it essentially eats everything. it takes over everything with little control, with little moral, little ethic. it kills without thought or reason. no matter how innocent or how guilty its victim is.

the conversation regarding whether or not the concept of an "absolute evil" can even exist under the golden order is not so much a demonization of the hunters of the dead as it is a genuine incite for thought and what the order means & stands for. the order is historically ever changing, that is its purpose. to morph & to shift to adapt to the world it overarches, not the reverse. that is the hunters' mistake.

yes, those who live in death kill & spread with no thought, no reasoning. but that is because by nature, without proper guidance, it is all they know how to do. how can they be blamed or "evil" if they know no better? can something be evil if it's not malicious or intentional? can something be evil if it's only misguided? they are intentionally juxtaposed to the d twins, as the only hunter/hunters(?) we know for this reason !!

too many people approach duskborn and the hunters v. the dead with an intent to come out of it picking sides. of fitting either of them into a box of "whos good whos bad." and it's such a terrible mistake to make because it's not about answers or fighting, it's about the complex thought & irony behind it all. the big bad evil is not the hunters nor the dead. it's those misleading them. because again; can something be evil if it knows no better?

[multifandomexpialidocious]

The subtext of hunger, agriculture, food crisis vis-a-vis scapegoating and “othering” in Wicked

I just watched the WICKED movie the other day. This is my second night after having watched that movie. I’ve read the book, watched the musical, and now, watched the movie. I am writing this immediately after I woke up after lucid dreaming, some themes and commentary hiding in plain sight having been made clear in my dream.

So.

Oz is a highly agricultural land. From the depiction of a largely agrarian society in Munchkinland to the triggering events that shape its society, this much is clear.

Right off the bat, in the movie, Dr. Dillamond attributes the scapegoating of the Animals to the Great Drought, where the people, hungry and frustrated, wanted someone to blame. (As a side note, I am curious whether Madame Morrible is alive and already competent a sorceress during those times. I am don’t remember the dates, but come Oz suffers from Great Drought when there’s a weather-manipulating sorceress in the picture? This to me is suspicious in the same way Morrible’s hand in Nessa’s demise is, or will be.)

This already sets the precedent of the public consciousness being pliable to “other” sectors of society and deprive them of their rights, if it meant being able to get-over a real but complex societal problem like poverty and hunger. Sounds like Nazi Germany and today’s current climate, right? It does. The propensity for fascism exists within Oz’s culture.

Now this part may sound like a stretch, but I argue that there is subconscious reason why they sprang out of the creators’ imagination.

I’m not gonna talk about witches and their significance as an historically oppressed group and the metaphor of a witch as society’s constant attempts to snuff out women empowerment. Y’all already know that.

Obviously, the solution to a drought is water. And I cant help but remember how water is significant in the story. In the classical tale, Dorothy melts the Wicked Witch of the West into a puddle by throwing a bucket of water at her. In the books, Elphaba is deathly allergic to water. This is not the case in the musical and movie, but she does take advantage of that ridiculous rumor and a bucket of water gets thrown at her. In the movie, and as I’ve seen many point out, during Elphaba’s iconic scene, storm clouds punctuate her rise to power. But Elphaba isn’t known to manipulate the weather. You know who is? Madame Morrible. Storm clouds and thunder are gather to literally make Elphaba appear villainous, fearsome, and menacing. Spoilers, but, Elphaba wasn’t able to see her political aspirations bear fruit. Going back to the drought imagery, Elphaba, a symbol of otherness herself exists as a figure that seeks to correct the undue scapegoating and political disenfranchisement that people chose to wrongfully resort to. They may wreathe her in stormclouds all they want, but as force of nature herself, her moral stance in all these injustice, her advocacy, is correct and righteous. She and everything she stands for water to the Ozian’s moral drought: clear, purifying, quenching. A path to wash away the sins of society and clean its conscience anew.

The resulting “othering”, scapegoating, and disenfranchisement of the Animals, of Elphaba, were not mere reactions to a harrowing social ill. The Great Drought and its direct effects (poverty and hunger) and the trauma it entrenched in collective Ozian consciousness were taken advantage of by political figures. Leaders people looked up to but were unable to solve the problem. So instead of taking accountability, they chose to shift it on others instead, employing propaganda. The “greenness” of Emerald City is an illusion of the Wizard, the phony spectacles masking the glaring inequality in its metropolitan affluence as opposed to the more agricultural provinces and distracting from holding leaders responsible to effect true and direct solutions. After all, if there were no problems, who would the people look up to? It is all a fake. This “greenness” is a fake to Elphaba’s real. It’s a “greenness” that co-opts and imposes conformity, calling one to willful blindness and perpetuating that same culture of division and disenfranchisement. A “greenness” that is not the same as and inevitably clashes with Elphaba’s own: a greenness forged by the same “othering”, stigma, and disenfranchisement but with a sense of self and a sense of justice to effect social change that would end the cycle.

[balkanradfem]

I've been reading 'The Climate Book' from Greta Thunberg, and I have to talk about it. I've never seen a book written so brilliantly and desperately, pleading for awareness, for action, for survival. I thought I was aware of the climate change, but there was a vast amount of information I did not know. I'll start from the ones I did.

I knew that the climate has already changed, and will continue to change until a lot of animal species will go extinct, and a big amount of human beings will suffer, end up impoverish, misplaced, in starvation, or dead. I knew the culprits were the companies that refused to stop taking down forests, burning fossil fuels, promoting lifestyles of consumerism, over-consumption, generated the amount of waste that the planet could not safely consume or store. I also knew that one of the biggest pollutants were big oil, animal and plant agriculture, fast fashion industry, travel industry, and the capitalistic system that enabled 1% of humanity to own and over-consume 90% of the resources available to us. Knowing this made me feel powerless, because even as I boycott all of it, I can't do much else, and I'm not enough to stop what is going on. I am merely a drop in the ocean - which is what Greta points out as well. But, Greta doesn't think we're powerless.

This book is incredible in the sense that it goes over and beyond to think practically. It doesn't despair, it doesn't panic, it doesn't think any other way but how to practically and effectively bring change, what are the options and possibilities, what is true and what is propaganda, how to avoid millions of deaths and extinctions that are sure to come, if we do nothing. Greta has analyzed all action that is 'being done', and found out most of it was fraud, cheating, lying. All of the governments and companies who were bragging about reduced emissions, or offsetting emissions, have simply found ways to outsource them and to emit them in another, poorer country. The amount of emissions has actually increased.

She has also interviewed the world leaders, and people responsible and suffering from climate change - and these are the results: Nobody feels responsible, nobody feels as if it's their turn to change, to reduce, to do anything to help it. Even interviewing people whose livelihood was taken away from them due to climate change, who have lost their living environments already, their trees and animals and fields and fertility and soil, when asked if they would be willing to work ecologically from now on, with reduced or low emissions, their answer was 'Why should we? It's not fair, they took from us and enjoyed, while we suffered. We won't stop until we have what they have. We deserve it.'

With this information, Greta has found a truth of how humans influence each other - we imitate. If we see someone else doing something, or having something we find desirable, we also want it. We look at ourselves in relation to other people that surround us, we take responsibility according to what others around do, and we hold ourselves accountable only as much as others do. And this is why we have a power that goes beyond individual action, beyond simply lowering our own emissions and boycotting companies that are responsible for pollution - we are able to influence others. We're able to influence the media, which forms public opinions, and using the media, force into action those who benefit from polluting the planet.

What I didn't know, and this book taught me, was that from the times humans started to hunt, they didn't only have a great effect on the environment, they were the absolute leading agent on it. Soon after hunting the megafauna into extinction, the environment started to change not just because we affected it, but because we directed it to. We caused the extinction of many species throughout the past, by hunting, taking wild spaces for our own use, polluting water sources, changing the climate, spreading predatory species,  like cats and rats, and we didn't stop there. We changed the landscapes of forests and fields, into human-used agricultural land that was effectively deadened for the purpose of wildlife. We domesticated, and then farmed animals, to such extreme degree, that right now what is left of the wildlife, is mere 12-15% of all animals out there. More than 80% of current animals by weight living on earth, are put there by animal agriculture, meant for human consumption. That is absolutely insane. We did the same with the wildlife environment as well – there is now only 3% of the forests on earth, that are still considered intact. We changed the landscape, not only slightly, but by erasing most of it, making it unusable to animals, insects or wild plants, appropriated only for agriculture, grazing, and human-only environments. And, we dug up and released so much carbon into the air, it is coming close to the amount that we had on the earth, at the time of dinosaur extinction, which wiped out a third of the planet's species. And we keep doing it, even knowing what will happen, knowing that every single time this happened in the past, it created mass extinction.

I wasn't aware how serious and extreme the changes we made were. Knowing what is going out, makes it very clear why we have a crisis, it would be crazy to expect not to have one. These changes were not reported, nobody was asked to approve of them, there were no regulations or limits, no environmental studies on consequences, and it keeps going. We keep increasing the demand for agriculture and animal products, increasing our consumption even though we are running out of the natural resources used to create the products. And it is not our fault. Most of the food and meat created by destroying this land, will go to waste, for the profit of the corporations. The world will keep living in starvation, despite so much of natural life getting destroyed for food, despite the climate crisis being caused, partly by our food production.

This doesn't mean we can't sustainably feed ourselves anymore, it just means we can't do it the way we're used to. It just tells us we need to use more resilient and less land and water consuming food. Plant based diets demand less soil and emit less carbon, gardening reduces the amount of agricultural space needed to feed us, supporting and protecting wildlife wherever it's still thriving, will save both soil, animal species, and biodiversity that is very quickly fading from the planet.

I've also learned that even as we're close to the tipping point, but haven't reached it yet. Whatever we do right now that stops us from reaching it, will mean the difference between life and death to the future generations of people, animals, and plants. If we manage to make changes now, to stop the ice from melting past the tipping point, we can save millions of lives, that would end in certain death otherwise. If we can create policies that are not volountary but binding, we have a chance to save livable land, animal and plant species, biodiversity, and human quality of life. It's not too late to act, in fact, this is the vital time to act, and we're the only ones who can do it.

And the way you can act is not just by reducing waste, reducing the amount of energy you consume, reducing animal-products in your food and refusing to waste and throw away usable goods, but by being public about it. By making it clear it's a positive improvement on your life, on your quality of life, that it's both moral and enjoyable, both inspiring and encouraging others to do the same. Some of us have bigger impact on others than we might know, and if we start doing it and visibly enjoying it, there are others who will follow.

This book has taught me immense amount of science behind the climate crisis, and gave me incentive to do more than just live and feel helpless, I need to do more. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more, and wanting to act more. I will be from now on, writing more about ecology and preserving the planet, and how to do it. If we're the directors of where this planet is going, we have to be so intentionally, with knowledge, wisdom and awareness of what we are doing. We can do good, and humans have been doing good, any time there's been wisdom, awareness and intention in how we're shaping the environment. And if anyone wants the book in the audio form, send me a message and I will give it to you.

[vegantinatalist]

Um....ok first all bitch I was everything but rude to you in my delivery soooo why you came at me that way is honestly a mystery to me. 2nd of all , all you had to do was bring facts which you didn't. There is no fucking plant on this planet that gives the same nutrients as red meat stop capping.Now with that all being said yes I'm a huge animal lover probably an even bigger animal lover than you but I'm not a raging dick about it and recognize my life is just as valuable. You ever thought the reason your such a lifeless bitch is because you're purposely depriving yourself of necessary nutrients. Every vegan I've ever met hates life hates themselves and are always angry and hungry.

Remember your ancestors weren't vegan. There has never been a vegan tribe on this planet. The fact u would rather eat tasteless plants than nutrients dense meat tells me you need some serious love in your life.

Happy holidays

I dont give a shit whether youre rude to me, i will still point out youre an idiot if youre an idiot and i care if youre rude (and definitely if you are violent) to animals. too many people on this planet will baby you and tell you you arent wildly stupid when you say wildly stupid things (this happens with more than just veganism related stuff) but i aint the one.

"carnism" is the belief that we need meat to live and/or thrive and it has been EXCESSIVELY debunked to the point this is an unprofessional debate to even bring up and makes you look like a child or fundie. i debate about things that are actually of up to date practical concern, not meta ethics and "lions tho" and "ancestors though" appeal to nature fallacy baby crap. "if you dont kill others, you dont love yourself" is the pathetic take of severely ignorant people. you are not a bigger animal lover if you dont respect the rights of animals and you fucking kill them.

there are actually countless examples of veganism across all of human history in various religions and cultures. a lot of black roots, lotta asian roots. its gone by different names such as flesh avoidance, jainism, its a thing with rastafarians, bla bla etc etc. so youre way wrong there too. you have no idea how affected you are by animal agriculture propaganda and im saying this because i care. multiple billions of dollars are spent every year to keep you believing the CRAP you believe, and thinking other information is bogus. they dont do that for no reason. i did offer information and a whole channel of information you can also go to r/debateavegan and vegan world discord server.

[bestanimal]

Round 1 - Phylum Nematoda

(Sources - 1, 2, 3, 4)

Nematoda is a diverse phylum of animals commonly called roundworms or eelworms. Most are free-living and feed on microorganisms, but some are parasitic.

Nematodes are very diverse, but usually appear as small, slender worms. The smallest are microscopic, while the largest free-living species can be up to 5 cm (2 in) long. Some parasitic species can be even longer, reaching up to 8.4 m (27.5 ft) in length! Nematode heads are radially symmetrical and, in many cases, have head-shields radiating outwards around the mouth. The mouth has either three or six lips, which often bear a series of teeth on their inner edges. They have a dense, circular nerve ring which serves as their brain. They are covered in sensory bristles that provide a sense of touch. There are two small pits on the head that likely serve as chemoreceptors. Some aquatic nematodes have eye-spots, but it is unknown if they are actually sensory. They have seperate male and female individuals, with females usually being larger than males, though some species are hermaphroditic. They reproduce sexually, and females have a glandular uterus. They lay eggs, though some species are ovoviviparous. Larvae of free-living nematodes look like smaller adults, though parasitic nematodes usually have more complex life cycles.

Nematodes are perhaps the most successful phylum on Earth. They have adapted to nearly every ecosystem: from marine to freshwater, from soils to trees, from tundra to rainforest, at the tops of mountains, in deserts, in oceanic trenches, and up to 3.6 km (12,000 ft) below the surface of the Earth. They represent 90% of all animals on the ocean floor, and 80% of all individual animals on Earth. They often exceed a million individuals per square meter. This ubiquitous nature means they play a role in every ecosystem, most crucially in polar ecosystems where life is otherwise scarce. Of the parasitic forms, about a third of genera occur as parasites of vertebrates, and about 35 nematode species occur in humans.

Propaganda under the cut:

Nematodes play an important role in the decomposition process, aiding in recycling nutrients.

There are approximately 60 billion nematodes per human inhabiting the Earth’s topsoil. Those are your government assigned topsoil nematodes. Do with them as you wish.

One soil-living nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans (see first image), has had its entire genome sequenced, the developmental fate of every cell determined, and every neuron mapped. They are considered a model organism: a non-human species that is extensively studied to understand particular biological phenomena.

While some species of nematode are detrimental to agriculture, other species are considered beneficial as they prey on agricultural pests. These species are bred commercially as biological pest control agents which can be used as a much safer, environmentally-friendly alternative to pesticides.

The largest known nematode, Placentonema gigantissima, can reach sizes of up to 8.4 m (27.5 ft) long and 2.5 cm wide. It has been found living as a parasite in the reproductive tract of a sperm whale.

As stated by nematologist Nathan Cobb:

“In short, if all the matter in the universe except the nematodes were swept away, our world would still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembodied spirits, we could then investigate it, we should find its mountains, hills, vales, rivers, lakes, and oceans represented by a film of nematodes. The location of towns would be decipherable since, for every massing of human beings, there would be a corresponding massing of certain nematodes. Trees would still stand in ghostly rows representing our streets and highways. The location of the various plants and animals would still be decipherable, and, had we sufficient knowledge, in many cases even their species could be determined by an examination of their erstwhile nematode parasites.”

[1ore]

Scuttling into ur askbox like a little beetle

i think i recall you reblogging/posting things about geography and culture + human effect on it - I vaguely recall a piece of art where it showed a blurred out, cropped piece of people fighting, and focused instead on the flora in the scene.

ANYWAY! getting back on track. seeing that piece inspired me to take a course this semester called "people and the land: cultural geography". and the whole reason I came to your askbox was to ask if you had any suggested reading materials? We'll get stuff in class ofc, but I am curious to see if there's any bias of materials on the prof's side vs someone else.

Phew that was a long ask. thank you o/!

That sounds like Liz Anna Kozik’s piece : D So happy it stuck with you! I love her work!!

As for your ask, what an awesome class! Land-human relationships are my bullshit, and I really enjoyed my own cultural geography class.

Thinking back on my schooling, I would say about 70% of my classes fell in with the “everything is awful and humans are the worst” narrative, and the other 30% made time for land-human relationships other than the extractive hellscape that most people currently live under. So, full disclosure, when I think of “bias,” that’s what I think of. You grow up in the miasma, it’s hard to imagine that there’s any other way of living. It’s also hard to say without knowing the professor, but I think, in general, it’s good to be mindful of who is or isn’t telling the story.

ANYWAY. All that in mind, here’s some articles about people-land relations that I think are neat:

The Environment and Society portal - I like their digital exhibits especially. I remember enjoying Oceans in Three Paradoxes and The Northwest Passage. Great place to wander around and pick a random article that catches your eye.

Of Deserts and Decolonization: Dispelling Myths About Drylands – obligatory desert propaganda. An article looking at how colonial mindsets about deserts disrupt existing relationships and hurt both people and land, and also how those attitudes shape environmentalism/conservation/etc. still today.

The Miracle of the Commons – lovingly challenging the Tragedy of the Commons with a creative solution to poaching and human-animal conflict in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia. Great article to sit in discomfort about (productively!)

Biodiversity: The Variety of Life that Sustains Our Own – Contains one of my go-to examples when explaining how humans can be good for land and biodiversity, the story of Quitobaquito Springs (and its sister spring Ki:towak, though the author doesn’t mention it here.)

The Environmental History Timeline - just fun to look at, especially the further you go back. It’s funny to spot where a young branch of history is trying *really hard* to reframe how academia thinks about the past, by bringing the invisible landscape forward:

2700 BCE —  Epic of Gilgamesh describes vast tracts of cedar forests in what is now southern Iraq. Gilgamesh defies the gods and cuts down the forest, and in return the gods say they will curse Sumeria with fire (or possibly drought). By 2100 BCE, soil erosion and salt buildup have devastated agriculture. One Sumerian wrote that the “earth turned white.” Civilization moved north to Babylonia and Assyria. Again, deforestation becomes a factor in the rise and subsequent fall of these civilizations. (Perlin, 1991). 2700 BC — Some of the first laws protecting the remaining forests are decreed in Ur, Messopotamia. (Grove, 1995).

^^^ fucking around and finding out forever and ever and ever.