Ecomodernism

Within environmentalist circles, there exists something of a debate as to whether or not it's good to allow for continued economic growth and human quality of life if it will come at the cost of the environment and of course climate change. As anyone who knows a little history is aware, as we've developed technology, increased quality of life, and created a globalized, interconnected economy, this required the burning of fossil fuels (oil and coal) and boosted the human population massively, and this has led to the huge ecological problems humanity is facing right now. On the surface, it seems like doing a deal with the devil. Do we ditch the energy sources that are making us wealthy and prosperous, or do we hold on to them while we keep digging ourselves deeper?

Well, frankly, this whole discussion is based on a false dichotomy. While traditional, old school environmentalist movements often emphasized becoming more in tune with nature and slowing down, modern technology and science allows us to maintain our high quality of life, population, and economy all while minimizing our environmental footprint. This isn't speculative technology, we have these resources available to us right now, and they come in all different forms.

Unlike some Vegans, we emphasize that human beings also deserve moral consideration, and increasing their quality of life does not automatically need to come at the expense of the environment. Economic growth is (overall) a good thing, and billions of people rely on it to escape poverty. In comes Ecomodernism, the idea that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive, and both can be achieved with the proper technologies, smarter planning, and a shift to a more sustainable civilization.

Veganism

Gotta start here, obviously. We've mostly discussed these sorts of things in other articles, so we'll keep this section brief.

Out of the hundreds of irrational, unsustainable activities human beings partake in, consumption of animal products is arguably the most egregious in terms of cost to benefit ratio. Not only is animal agriculture responsible for roughly 12-20% of global emissions , it is also responsible for about 50% of deforestation, AND is the primary usage of our crops, including soy, wheat, oats, and maize ('corn' is a very silly word). It takes dozens to hundreds of gallons of water, and dozens to hundreds of pounds of feed just to make one pound of meat. Thermodynamics would cry.

What makes it particularly egregious compared to the other unsustainable things we do, is that consumption of animal products at most, give us a temporary moment of indulgence which very often damages our long term health, and that could have otherwise been achieved with other foods that can not only be made to be just as delicious, but are even healthier. At least with fossil fuels and transportation, there are economic and quality of life arguments to be made.

In terms of ecomodernism, Veganism is cornerstone. It is a completely unnecessary waste of resources, and we can easily support the current global population and more with our current food infrastructure. Switching humanity to plant based diets would be a massive relief of our food resources, and reduce greenhouse gases substantially. This would not have any significant negative economic impact (and in fact, would be beneficial; see [Economic Arguments for Veganism]), and would improve our sustainability significantly.