Is it ethical and vegan to use transportation system/travel?

Speaking of the transportation system a person wrote this:
"At its foundation, the transportation system is a necessary evil. It was derived for convenience and in its current condition is an infrastructure monster. The costs of utilizing and maintaining such a system are high for not only animals but to our planet and our own species.

In principle, this hypothetical situation reminds me of a retort provided by Robert Grillo when asked about the ethical implication of eating a rescued chicken's eggs: 'is it ever benign to eat from a body that is suffering?' There are many parallels to be drawn between these two cases, I feel. There is an inherent malignancy in both situations: the unfortunate chicken whose body is riddled with pain and discomfort from being bred to grow so large so fast; and the transportation system which stands as one of many statues to the human desire for convenience, expediency and selfishness.

I believe that the more pressing question is for how long should we hold a reflective vigil for the sadness found in the situation where our selfish needs trump the lives of others. We must not forget the costs of our decisions; and with such mindfulness, perhaps humility will one day be the operative factor in our decision making rather than convenience.

In other words, no- I do not feel that it is moral to consume an animal who was killed as a result of our transportation system. Not only for the reason that I provide above, but also because of the current social outlook on veganism in general. There are already far too many excuses, justification and illogical forms of reasoning buttressing nonveganism. I would not want to throw this marginal case into the mix to misconstrue the obvious moral consistency of veganism.""
--End of quote.

I don't make it to a vegan issue, but it is certainly an ethical issue - to only travel when there is a necessity, e.g. in order to earn a livelihood. I started biking to work - it is about 40 kilometers (Unfortunately my knees started aching - I need to figure out why)..


And to a live a lifestyle of the most nonharm the vision we should all strive to create vegan self-sustained communities where we grow our food using vegan permaculture: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html

I believe that also this take is valid: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/road-kill-abandoned-eggs-and-dumpster-diving/
And this take: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/is-vegan-food-or-clothing-that-was.html

Vegan permaculture, vegan, ecological and environment friendly

-Showing the world how we can live sustainably and ecological in communities; and that we can live a lifestyle that doesn’t exploit humans and other animals.
-Vegan permaculture is important because of that common non-ecological or ecological agriculture in almost all cases involves animal use, isn’t ecological and is very, very destructive for the planet. Usually animal manure is used and methods are used to kill the insects. All monocultures are very destructive. They use huge amounts of fossil fuels and fossil fuels is a major contributor to environmental pollution and global warming. They deplete and destroy the soil and can and have many times lead to desertification. We should as a moral imperative go over to vegan permaculture, which is sustainable and healthy for the planet, and thus healthy for us humans and all nonhuman animals. Vegan permaculture doesn't require fossil fuels and enriches the soil instead of depleting it.

Transportations also involve lots of environmental pollution, burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases. By growing our own food locally we don’t need to contribute to this and can minimize our own ecological footprint. To see the destruction of greenhouse gases and pollution, I refer to the resources below.

http://www.cupblog.org/?p=10179

Richard Oppenlander: Sustainability and Food Choice: http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/free-electures/richard-oppenlander/

The Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Dirt the Movie: http://www.thedirtmovie.org/

Planet in Peril: http://edition.cnn.com/services/opk/planet.peril/for.html
Flow: How did a handful of corporations steal our water:
http://crmpublication.blogspot.no/2010/02/documentary-flow-how-did-handful-of.html
State of the Planet – The Complete Series .. David Attenborough

Reply to non-vegan claim that a 'vegan diet doesn't kill less animals'.

It does kill less animals. And the consumer of a vegan diet is not paying the farmer to breed up and kill animals. The consumer of a vegan diet wants to be able to buy food that doesn't involve pesticides and other procedures that kill animals and the planet. The consumer of a diet of animal foods is either intentionally killing animals or paying someone to intentionally kill animals. There is a big difference.

A vegan should avoid eating food where the farmer is using pesticides to grow the food, and thus intentionally killing bugs. He/she should opt for growing or buying food from vegan permaculture if possible. If he/she has this choice.
Pesticides killing animals and the planet are used because we are living in a nonvegan world. The person who accepts the exploitation of animals for food is responsible for this. Vegans try to avoid this, but won't commit suicide if this is impossible.

All monocultures are unethical. We should as a moral imperative go over to vegan permaculture, which is sustainable and healthy for the planet.

I recommend this article re. the claim that a vegan diet doesn't kill less animals: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vegetariansim3a--less-grains-for-animals2c-less-animals-kille/4679802

Furthermore I recommend this resources which touch on monocultures and other important environmental issues, etc.:

How violence and domestication of animals, leads to violence against humans:
Animal Oppression and Human Violence, by David A. Nibert, Professor of Sociology at Wittenberg University.
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=10179
The Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Dirt the Movie: http://www.thedirtmovie.org/
Planet in Peril: http://edition.cnn.com/services/opk/planet.peril/for.html
Flow: How did a handful of corporations steal our water:
http://crmpublication.blogspot.no/2010/02/documentary-flow-how-did-handful-of.html
State of the Planet – The Complete Series .. David Attenborough

Miljöval och mat - vegan vs allätare/köttare

Min kommentar i en diskussion om hur våra konsumtionsval påverkar miljön - vegansk diet vs. en diet med djurprodukter:

80% av födan som djuren som används för kött, mjölk och ägg  i Europa kommer från länder utifrån Europa. Ofta drabbas utvecklingsländer. Multinationella korporationer kommer in och tvingar ursprungsbefolkningen i dessa länder att köpa och använda sig av sina maskiner. De blir skuldsatta och när de inte kan betala skulden, så tas deras mark ifrån dem. Denna mark används för monokulturer som förstör jordmånen och som slutligen leder till att det som förut var odlingsbar mark blir gjort till öknen. De som förut bodde på dessa marker blir tvingad att flytta in till storstader och att leva i fattigdom i slumkvarter.

Alla monokulturer (vilket är i princip hur all mat odlas) är f.ö. väldigt miljöförstörande, och det enda ekologiskt hållbara sättet att odla mat på är småskaligt genom att använda sig av vegansk permakultur. Så i ett miljöetiskt perspektiv så ska man odla så mycket mat man har möjlighet till genom vegansk permakultur, och/eller köpa mat som är odlad på detta sätt [1].

Det finns f.ö. miljöproblem även med att föda upp och äta 'betesdjur': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drS5hHdelR8

Det går att odla spannmål och andra grödor i liten skala i vegansk permakultur utan att det ska vara skadligt för miljön.

Men när man diskuterar detta glöms ofta djuren bort. Djuren är en del av miljön. Och de har också ett egenvärde. Är det rätt att ta deras liv när vi kan leva och må bra på en vegansk diet? Se bifogad bild för mer info.

1. Se referenser för påståenden här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/hur-norge-sveriges-och-hela.html

------

Det finns så mycket i vårt kapitalistiska samhälle som är fullständigt felaktigt. T.ex. alla länder i den 3:e världen har möjlighet till att våra helt och hållet självförsörjande på mat förutsatt att de endast odlar plantbaserad mat. Fattiga bönder blir tvungna att exportera spannmål till andra länder, medan människor i deras egna länder svälter? Varför? Om de blir självförsörjande på mat, vatten och andra livsnödvändigheter inom landet så utrotas fattigdomen; och de behöver inte arbeta med att leta guld, etc., och annan miljöskadlig och människoskadlig mineralutvinning. Lite länkar [1]. Ja, det är väldigt många problem som behöver lösas för att få rättvisa i denna värld och utrota fattigdom, och ett stort problem är att vi i väst exploaterar människor i den Tredje världen genom våra konsumtionsval (genom att betala de multinationella korporationer som exploaterar dessa människor).

-----
"År 2007 importerades totalt 41 miljoner ton soja till
Europa (mjöl, bönor och sojaolja) .1
Den svenska importen
utgjorde cirka en procent . I nuläget används omkring 90
procent av sojan till [djur]foder."
http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/sites/default/files/dokument-media/2009_jordbruk_mat_sojarapport.pdf

1.http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/how-does-vegan-diet-and-permaculture.html
-----------
Lite fakta (obs! oavsett slutsaterna - det enda som är acceptabelt är att sluta konsumera animaliska livsmedel eftersom djuren har ett egenvärde och vi måste respektera deras intressen):

Här kommer lite fakta av olika slag som tillsammans bildar slutsatsen att vegetariskt kost är bättre ur miljösyn punkt: 1. Avgassutsläpp brukar man vara överens att man ska minska:Global Environment Outlook 2012 (FN-rapport)

Förord
”GEO-5 är den mest omfattande, opartiska och djupgående utvärdering av sitt slag. Den återspeglar den gemensamma kunskapen om de senaste vetenskapliga rönen, som bygger på den stora mängd forskning som genomförs inom och utanför FN-systemet av ledande experter och samarbetsorganisationer.”
BAN Ki-moon, Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare

Sidan 82
”Med tanke på hela råvarukedjeanalysen, inklusive avskogning för bete och foderproduktion, så står köttproduktionen för 18-25 procent av världens utsläpp av växthusgaser, vilket är mer än den globala transportsektorn”
----------
2. European Nitrogen Assessment
Närmare 85 procent av Europas kväveförbrukning, från konstgödsel, går till grödor i djurfoder. Eftersom europén i genomsnitt äter 70 procent mer kött- och mjölkprodukter än nödvändigt föreslår rapportförfattarna bland annat en minskning av köttintaget.

Totalt har 200 experter från 21 länder bidragit till denna 800-sidor långa rapport. Forskarna uppskattar den årliga miljökostnaden till mellan 70 och 320 miljoner euro – mer än dubbelt så mycket som den extra avkastningen kvävebaserat konstgödsel ger jordbruket.
-
3. Den har ett mer helhetsbegrepp: FN:s djuruppfödningsrapport Livestock’s Long Shadow är den världens största och viktigaste vetenskapliga djupgående rapport angående djurhållningens miljöpåverkan. Den är gjord av FN:s jordbruksorganisation FAO 29 november 2006. Rapporten pekar ut djurhållning för köttproduktion som en av de allra största miljöbovarna av alla mänskliga aktiviteter. Köttet toppar listan för bland annat jordförstörelse, förstörelse av vattenresurser, överutnyttjande av vattenresurser, försurning och luftföroreningar. Hela 18 procent av världens växthusgaser kommer ifrån djuruppfödningen.

---
5.FN:s resursanvändningrapport, FNs miljöråd 2010
FN-rapporten Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production konstaterar att köttkonsumtionen måste minska drastiskt och omgående för att rädda planeten från klimatförändringens värsta konsekvenser. För att rädda världen från hunger, bränslebrist och klimatförändringens värsta konsekvenser krävs ett globalt skifte mot en vegetarisk diet. Västvärldens förkärlek till kött och mejeriprodukter är ohållbar då världens befolkning växer mot beräknade 9,1 miljarder år 2050.

”Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.” (sidan 82)
-----

 6.Rapport om kött och skogsskövling
Greenpeace
Rapport om hur biffkorna och köttexporten driver skogsavverkningen i Amazonas. Betesmark åt boskap upptar nära 80 procent av marken från den skövlade regnskogen i brasilianska Amazonas.

”A Greenpeace survey based on Brazilian government data shows that in 2006 cattle occupied 79.5% of the land already in use in the Brazilian Legal Amazon” (sidan 3)

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply to 'Does the world has enough arable farmland to provide adequate nutrition for 7 billion people'?

In USA alone 800 million People could be fed by the food that 'livestock' is fed with today:

'From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.
Quote:  
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

More articles on the same topic:

Is a vegan diet sustainable in colder countries, Sweden ,Norway, etc?

Cause of the injustices in Bangladesh, e.g. in garment factories, and the solution to end poverty and starvation

For references:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
http://www.ncifap.org/issues/environment/

----
More thoughts:
PaulYork AnimalRights Dustin, if you look at the most thorough scientific report on the subject, Livestock's Long Shadow, which is online, it reveals that 11x more arable land and water is use to grow feedcrops to produce meat than a comparable amount of veggies -- meaning that we can feed many times more people by switching to a plant-based diet. It could solve world hunger easily, but all those resources are being wasted to produce a relatively small amount of food, at great expense to the environment and human health -- so meat-eating is wasteful and elitist. Then there is the fact that it is #1 cause of increased risk of pandemic disease, that could wipe humanity out. To eat animals is to be against humanity and human rights because of health, global warming, water waste, pandemic disease, world hunger. From a purely humanistic perspective it is a terrible crime. That is why the IPCC and UN both strongly recommend elimination of meat from human diets, and plant-based protein instead.

-------------

Is a vegan diet sustainable in colder countries, Sweden ,Norway, etc?

Joey Lusk,
Also all northern countries, including Norway where I live, would easily become self-sustainable on a plant-based diet.

You can easily calculate the arable land, how much plant-based foods that can be grown and how many it can feed.
I did a calculation that a plantbased agriculture in Sweden could feed almost 80 million people: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/kan-hela-sveriges-befolkning-leva-som.html (in Swedish)

If we start with a completely plant-based agriculture, we will eliminate starvation and poverty. See e.g. this article that I wrote about Bangladesh: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/cause-of-injustices-in-bangladesh-eg-in.html and this article [2].

You can choose to enslave, raise and kill an innocent cow on pasture to feed one person, or you can choose to use the same area (about at least 8000m^2 per cow) to feed 36 persons for one year [1]. Potatoes and nutrition: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/may/potato.htm

Learn more here: http://comfortablyunaware.com/index.php/blog/be-aware-the-myth-1/

In a vegan just world, where everyone cares about everyone else – humans and nonhumans, feeding all of the population will not be a problem at all!!

Which would you choose???

1. http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/potatoes_uk.cfm ; based on 45 ton yield for one hectar.
2. http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

Is smoking vegan? Effect of smoking upon environment, animals and health

“The inhalation of one cigarette contains about 4000 dangerous and cancerogenic chemicals that go directly into your body. The mix of nicotin, tar, poisonous gases and chemicals has sideeffects that hurts the lungs, body, blood vehicles and organs of the smoker.”

By smoking we destroy and pollute the environment by all dangerous chemicals, and thus we inflict suffering and death upon the inhabitants of the environment – us and the nonhuman animals.

Buy buying tobacco (depending on from where), we may also pay for slave labour (you can easily Google this), just as happens in the cocoa and clothing industry (this documentary covers mainly the cocoa industry) in many countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFoGpkpicPU

Our health is important and to live long is very important so that we can become as old as possible and to influence people and other animals as much as possible to live a more peaceful and loving lifestyle.
We are also animals and shouldn’t inflict violence upon ourselves through destroying our Health.

-

Other comments:

Genghis Koan I know I changed my world by stopping smoking, my childrens world as a role model and my families and friends worlds as role model and being less easily frustrated etc

Bli vegan för djuren och för miljön

Kärnkraft är ju såklart inte heller bra. Men denna fråga är inte liten i förhållande till kärnkraft.
Djuranvändningen av de djur som människan föder upp i fångenskap och slaveri till att bli vår föda (endast för  ”smak”,vana eller bekvämlighet) leder till oerhörd global  uppvärming (forskning visar att det är över 51 procent av den totala  påverkan (FN:s rapport säger 14 % men de har inte räknat med alla  faktorer)). Vid 2030 kan endast den påverkan djurindustrin har ha värmt  upp jorden 2 grader mer än det var under förra århundradet, vilket  forskning har visat kommer ge ännu mycket mer katastrofal effekt än det  ger idag i form av torka, översvämmningar, etc, med oerhört många  människor (och andra djur) som får lida och dör som effekt.

Så varför fortsätter vi att förstöra för oss själva, våra medmänniskor och alla djur som har precis samma rätt att leva som oss, som värderar sina liv lika mycket som oss; varför orsakar vi andra individer onödigt lidande endast för en "smakupplevelse" eller vana?

Rekommenderar denna föreläsning av Dr. Richard Oppenlander
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas&feature=em-uploademail
Och denna föreläsning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo


Vårt tänkande om djur är väldigt förvirrat. Å ena sidan så betraktar vi djur som medlemmar i vår moraliska gemenskap. Vi hävdar att vi står för det moraliska och bindande kravet att inte utsätta djur för 'onödigt' lidande. Vi kan självklart diskutera vad betydelsen är av "nödvändighet", men vad än det betyder, så måste det innebära att det inte är acceptabelt att orsaka andra individer smärta, lidande och död för mänsklig njutning, nöje, eller bekvämlighet. Om det gjorde det, så skulle undantaget av denna regel helt och hållet kasta omkull denna moraliska regel.

Problemet är att 99,99% av vårt användande av djur inte kan rättfärdiggöras av någonting annat än mänsklig njutning, nöje, eller bekvämlighet. T.ex., så dödar vi cirka 100 miljoner landlevande djur varje år i Sverige (och liknande siffra i Norge) endast för mat. Ingen hävdar att det är nödvändigt att äta djurprodukter för en optimal hälsosam livsstil och det är mer och mer forskning som påvisar att djurprodukter är skadligt för människan (se t.ex. denna dokumentär: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ). Det enda som människan försöker rättfärdiggöra sitt beteende med, som utsätter djur för lidande är något så trivialt som att vi gillar smaken av djurprodukter, att det är bekvämt att göra så, eller att det är gammal vana.
[Översatt citat från http://cup.columbia.edu/static/interview-gary-francione ]
Rekommenderar även https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach och http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

--
Det som kallas för "ekologiskt kött" leder till mer växthusgaser än annat kött  - kor på grönbete avger mer metangas. Lösningen är självklart att sluta med alla djurprodukter, om man vill minimera den direkta och indrekta skada man gör på människor och andra djur genom att konsumera djurprodukter.

Citat från SVD-artikel:
"Dessutom antog vi att utsläppen från nötköttet 2050 är 40 procent lägre än i dag. Ändå riskerar maten att ta upp hela vårt utsläppsutrymme om vi ska vara säkra på att nå tvågradersmålet.

Att kor betar framhålls av debattörerna. De är sant, men de äter även vall som odlas på åkermark, samt spannmål. För klimatet spelar det ingen större roll om kor äter gräs eller spannmål, metan bildas oavsett i deras magar."

 

"Vidare hävdar de att inbindning av koldioxid i betesmark och träd kan göra nötköttet koldioxidneutralt. För det första, det kan ske viss kolinbindning i vall och betesmark, men inte nog för att kompensera nötköttets utsläpp. För det andra, produktion av nötkött kräver 20-30 gånger mer åkermark jämfört med vegetabilier (utöver betesmarken). Om målet är att binda koldioxid, så är det mycket effektivare att producera vegetabilier och plantera skog på marken som blir över. Nötkött kommer aldrig bli klimatsmart i en sådan jämförelse.
"

FREDRIK HEDENUS

fil dr energi och miljö

DAVID BRYNGELSSON

fil lic energi och miljö

JÖRGEN LARSSON

fil dr sociologi

samtliga verksamma vid Fysisk resursteori, Chalmers

 

 

Why Allan Savory environmental approach with "holistic" grazing isn't sustainable and isn't good for the animals

I saw the lecture.

I suggest that we let the wild animals thrive and live free again without us killing them and destroying their environment, and let them graze the lands again. A vegan world where we stop killing all wild animals, let the forests grow back again, let the wild animals graze the lands, and let the humans only eat plants.
If we care about what is "good for the animals", we can't take their precious life. Their purpose is not to become our "food". He is trying to "mimic nature". No, lets restore nature again. Let all animals be free again, instead of being our slaves.

I highly recommend this article: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/ , the book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle (http://www.worldpeacediet.org/)
and this about environment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas
And this article about Dr. Richard Oppenlander commenting on Allan Savorys approach: http://freefromharm.org/agriculture-environment/saving-the-world-with-livestock-the-allan-savory-approach-examined/
James McWilliams write:
It has been a long-running quest of mine to debunk the myth of “rotational” or “holistic” grazing. Allan Savory’s recent TED talk drew fresh attention to the issue in a way that seemed to evoke rabid salivation in those who think they can eat animals as a way to ameliorate climate change. Savory’s talk went viral, foodie environmentalists everywhere started sharpening their steak knives, and I leaped headlong into the fray with this piece, published today in Slate, a venue that—to its everlasting credit—is fearless about taking on the status quo. If you are so inclined, express your opinion about the article there. It helps.

The underlying premise that renders moot all efforts to graze animals holistically is the fact that humans cannot, no matter how eloquent they are, create ecosystems that replicate the shifting relational matrix that we call nature. It almost seems absurd that this limitation would even have to be pointed in the first place, but every time I look up there seems to be another old white man claiming that he has the key to capturing and mimicking the infinite complexity of global ecosystems. These people call themselves environmentalists, but their approach to the ecosystem is as arrogant and aggressive as that of any corn-growing, GMO-using monoculturalist. The best thing we can do to any ecosystem (he said on Earth Day 2013) is leave it well enough alone. Back off, human.

Removing domesticated animals from the planet is the best way we can do this. Livestock emit more GHG emissions than cars. They use more water than any other aspect of agriculture. They trample potentially healthy land into hardpan. They take up one third of the globe’s arable land. They are a menace to the environment and no amount of theorizing about how herds and predators once kept carbon-sequestering grasslands safe and healthy will rectify the reality that the reason those grasslands are no longer safe and healthy is because humans domesticated animals to eat them.

The complexity of the earth is beyond us. What we need on Earth Day is a recognition of this reality. Some call it humility.
[Note, I don't agree with his approach about animal rights, that is outlined on his website. I follow the approach outlined here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ]

Beef and other animal products cause cholesterol level over 150 and potential heart attack; many other problems for humans, animals, including starvation, poverty

It causes cholesterol level over 150 and potential heart attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0
It causes many other problems for humans, animals, including starvation, poverty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo
The animal industry, has a vast environmental impact and is causing poverty, starvation, a vast amount of greenhouse-gases and subsequent deaths by droughts and floods because of climate change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas&feature=em-uploademail

Reduce ones environmental impact, eliminaty poverty, reduce green house gases-emission and global warming

I think it is about to put our best effort to spread love and compassion in all our actions. Judging or attacking doens't help anyone. Kind, loving and explanatory posts do help. We can and should help people how to make loving and compassionate choices - e.g. about palm oil - without attacking anyone. [This is a very helpful book: http://www.worldpeacediet.com/ ; and YouTube-channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Qgb5R4-s4 ]

 

Me and my wife don't use any hygiene products - just water. It works well. We started last October.

One can Google on "no poo" to find some other people's experiences (articles of different quality and many are giving bad advice too). The hair may become a bit greasy for a while during the restoration-process. After this, the hair stops being greasy.

 

It takes some time for the body and the hair to adapt, to get restored from being destroyed by all destructive chemicals in the products that one buys (I know there are also a few organic, natural products that are good for ones body).

 

This has much less environmental impact, and thus reduces harm, suffering and death to the animals. It is also very cheap.

We don't use any products with palm oil.
We have also cut down heavily on the electricity we use - we don't have any radiator (we live in an apartment and it comes some (not much) heat from the hallway of the building), no refrigerator, no toilet paper (our society may thinks it is gross, but water works just fine), no TV, etc.

We buy only organic food (stared recently) now to minimize the harm we do to nature. We plan to become totally self-sustained and live off-the-grid, and have our on veganic, organic garden; and also to sell some of our produce and to start a vegan café.
Here is an example of a family who are completely self-sustained on only 1/10 of an acre of land:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/urban-homestead-being-self-sufficient.html

 

 

A trailer about the movie 'No Impact man' gave me some good inspiration for good changes to make: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgLzKDKOCEw (movie may contain many bad advice also, but I trust everyone is critical)

The most important advice to work against eliminating poverty and starvation is to go vegan. More about environmental impact of animal products is find here:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/veganism-is-eating-with-love-and.html

Shouldn't vegan not only be about that a product doesn't contain animal products, but also that it doesn't contain chemicals harming the environment and thus the animals?
And if we don't need a product altogether that has a bad environmental impact - how can we justify using it?

Realizing the damage e.g. hygiene products with chemicals has to the environment and thus other beings, and that their are alternatives causing no harm (e.g. using only water, see my post above) ---
how could one continue something that is causing other beings unnecessary pain and death.
We should strive to that all our actions are reflecting non-violence, love and compassion to all beings.

--
Most of us agree on that it is morally wrong to hurt other beings and that we should do our best to minimize the pain and suffering for all living beings. This is the most essential thing.

I link it to veganism based on the following.
:
"1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jain concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things.[3]"

"Ahimsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi strongly believed in this principle.[3] Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle.."

The action of putting chemicals bad for the environment in the nature, e.g. by using hygiene products with such a chemicals, is not demonstrating kindness to all living beings.