Why I Am No Longer An Environmentalist, Next Part

I already know that a human being always takes precedence over an animal.  I am more than OK with animal testing for medical purposes.  I am NOT OK with testing makeups cosmetics on animals.

Recently, I have come upon some very compelling and very relevant information.  Environmentalism is actually rather racist, when you really look and analyze all the facts.

Upon first glance this might sound like a crazy assertion to make, but that is only because it is a [[trumped-up]] sound bite.  Study this in more depth and you will see what this means.
I am aware that that sounds like some weird-ass twisting of political correctness with poli inc ____ into something ____

- worrying bt rain forest deforestation in tropical countries.
-- let us [[[ observe, ponder__]] at thsi phenomenon a bit more closely. ____ tropical countries with lush vegetation ____ many of them are third world countries.
Erm but what about the people in Costa Rica? Do they not have a right tk earn a living? [[[[ elaborate on this ___]]]]

-- it turns out that many indigenous cultures hunt as a source of food.

-- guess what. Those people [[[ who ate natives to the region __]] have a god-given right to earn their livelihoods however the hell they want.
- they ar under no obligation to ask permission from whites
seek approval from [[[cushy,, comfortable, wanting for nothjng ,,,, pp who grew up in peacetime and economic prosperity

-- env is simply a [[[random___]]] choice that they have the luxury of entertaining. __[[[ languid, flippant ___]]]
- n. They have no earthly right tk foist their choice of what to prioritize and fret over -- upon_____ starving
All huma beings have only a finite amt of time on this earth.
they are more than firmly and solidly within all of their rights as huma neings to prioritize human rights over animal or tree rights.
[[[ allocate___nono their precious resources and human energ, humN capital
They would much rather devote the fiber of their beings towards feeding theor fsmilies. Puttig a roof over their fsmilies' heads.

I remember back when I was in high school readin some little opinion lines from kids in high school.  the topic was about going to a high schol reunion, I think.  one girl said that she probably won't be going to her hoghsc hool reunion, and she hoped the reason would be that she was saving rain forests in costa rica.  being a teenager at the time, this soundd awesome to me. ___

but, hang on a minute.  the people who are [[enacting, participating__]] the deforestation-- those are poor costa rican people.

-- whites in western first workd society have no goddmn right to force poverty-stricken pp to waste precious enery towards something as frivolous n trivial n laughable as this.

--- eskimos in subzero temperatures that must be measured on the kelvin scale. They wewr fur. You know why?  Because Aqua scutum does not exist

Look if anybody loves nature, it's me.
the three manor aspects of nature-- nurturin/healing, beautiful majestic- warerfalls, rain forest

More "Jerk" Complaints

Ah excuse me, but why would the guy call after a one-night stand?  You two had a one-night stand.  Isn't that what the agreement was in the first place?  Have sxxee once, and then never again encounter each other.  Pretend for the rest of your lives that you never met.  Conduct your lives as if each of you never knew the other existed.

To be completely honest, I feel like perhaps the best course of action in this situation would be to never speak to each other again.  The situation is too messy, it is too aggravating, it is too much of a pain in the ass.  Just cut off this messy irritating thread in your lives.  I do not think there is any realistic hope to resuscitate this dead, flaccid, sagging non-entity.

Start over anew in a healthy romantic relationship with a completely different person.  Begin another chapter in each of your individual lives with someone new.  This relationship started off on a very negative foot from the word "go."  It never had any potential to go anywhere.  You need to start over with an honest sincere approach.

Meeting some random stranger in a bar or club, hook-ups.  If you are going to do that, then fine, whatever.  That's your business.  But be plain and straightforward and realize that that is not a relationship.  That is not going to go anywhere.  Just let it go.

Vegetarians- A First-World Affectation

I have stumbled upon a strange theory.  The peculiarity of refusing to eat meat is a distinctively white upper-middle-class phenomenon.  Declaring oneself a vegetarian is a status symbol.  In the western world, we have so much abundance of food that we have the luxury and privilege to turn down an offer of food.  Unless one is Hindu and must refuse to eat meat upon threat of eternal hellfire, there is no realistic reason to eat only foliage.

This is not when I first realized that vegetarians irritate me.  But it is when I shaped coherent opinions that dug a little deeper than "vegs suck."  This is my first foray into observing their behavior, studying motivations and social cues.

Let me ask you something.  Do you think starving people in third world countries are vegetarians?  If they are, do you honestly think they made the decision consciously on purpose to be vegetarian?  Nope.  They are vegetarian because they cannot afford to buy meat.

Do you think poor Appalachian white families are vegetarians?  Do you think poor lower-class black people living in government subsidized housing projects are vegetarians?  Do you think that anyone born into poverty in this country would ever choose to be vegetarian?

Vegetarianism is a distinctly first-world affectation.

Whether the proponents consciously are aware of this or not, this is a status symbol.  It is a way of signaling to others that, "we are living steeped in luxury and in the ability to be choosy.""  They have the privilege of being picky, finicky eaters.  There is so much food, that they don't have to worry about missing out on vital nutrition or sustenance.

"There is such an abundance and such a variety, that the exact thing I want will be in there somewhere.  I don't have to eat something I am not totally crazy about.  There is bountiful plenty.  So what if there is a bunch of food that might go to waste because people are not eating it?  I have a craving for a particular nibble, and if I act fastidious enough, it is bound to show up."

It is a sign that they are so comfortable and cushy, that they have the realistic option to turn _down_ an offer of food.  You think a brown-skinned anybody living in abject poverty in slums of a third-world country is a vegetarian?  By choice?  You think a poor white person living in a trailer park is a vegetarian?

I realized this because I have been taking Environmental Science this fall semester.  I think that the topic change from environmentalism to this realization about vegetarians should be obvious.  Come on, environment => salads.  The transition is natural and self-evident.

I walked into class the first day of the semester -- and saw that it was populated by all these middle-class white kids.  I could infer that the majority of the kids were there because they thought it would be an easy class.

My first question was, 'Hey, wait a minute, where are all the rednecks?'  My second reaction was, 'Oh good Lord, really?'  When I walked into class that first day, I almost had a stroke trying to keep my eyes from rolling.  It was pretty obvious they were mostly enrolled in this course because they thought it would be an easy A.  Like it would be comprised of a bunch of pot-smoking hippies sitting around wailing “save the rainforest” or something.

The class started with more than thirty kids enrolled.  Now it is past the halfway point of the semester, and almost two-thirds of students have dropped the course.  So as per usual, I was right.

A Job Defines A Person, Part II

What is this fervent notion that people should not be defined by their jobs?  [[Why do people hate being defined by their job?]]

This is such a deviant, outer-fringe missive that I cannot fathom why these people would think such things.  I am unable to think of any positive, optimistic reason that people would so fervently believe this.  Through logic and reason, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that these people must hate their jobs.  I can only surmise that perhaps these people have really shitty jobs.  Cleaning toilets for a living.  Specifically, cleaning other people’s toilets for a living.  Yes, that I can understand, wanting to emotionally distance oneself from those jobs.  Or perhaps they have jobs that are mediocre, if not outright shitty, which they still hate.  Corporate rat race and advertising and what not, trying feverishly to convince the public to buy crap that they do not need.

You must understand, back in high school, I did not understand why so many op-ed writers, in response to some particular claim, would always start wondering about the lifestyle habits, not to mention the sanity, of the person that made said claim... until now.

I was a teenager in the 1990s.  Believe me when I say this, we really truly did not encounter many lunatic extremists of either stripe, whether liberal or conservative.  We truly did not.  There were... maybe one or two, and they were spaced very far apart.  The vast majority of opinions I had read and heard were moderate.

Now I get it.  It is because the particular declaration was so shockingly bizarre, that some sort of bad event must have happened to them in their childhood formative years.  Something traumatic must have transgressed to shape their opinions thusly.  They could not possibly have arrived at this opinion though logic and reasoning.

Back in the 1990s, my coming of age years, I never did understand why some women, upon being fed up with some man's nasty disgusting opinion of how women should act sexually, she would then say something along the lines of, "if that's what you want, go find a prost."  It was meant as a witty retort, meant to diffuse her own frustration.  It was a sarcastic defense mechanism with the intention of recognizing the ludicrous disgustingness (and rightfully so) of the misogynistic opinion.

What about people who truly love their jobs, who chose their professions because these jobs reflected all their values that they want to strengthen in themselves, and on which they possibly wish more people would place emphasis???

Why are some people so hell-bent on making sure people are not defined by their jobs?  I am defined by my job.  I chose to go into science, because I want to find out all about the universe.  I chose to go into medicine because I care about people.  Also I like looking at people's innards.  So yes, I am defined by my job, and I will freely admit it.

Why do they want so badly for people not to be defined by their jobs?  Many people are in fact defined by their jobs and they are probably happy to admit it.  You know why?  Because they had the guts to do something good for themselves and follow their passion and their passion is for something very useful that contributes to society, that makes the world a better place.

A biomedical researcher who has broken some ground on a new cancer treatment.  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

What if someone is a teacher, who inspires students to want to think critically, to examine, to analyze and grow their horizons?  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

The guy who founded Habitat for Humanity.  You expect me to believe he is not defined by his job?

A quantum physics researcher, perhaps someone who works in string theory, who has unlocked some of the secrets of the universe.  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

What about an investigative journalist, and I feel that this should include whistleblowers, .....to ask the tough questions, to demand answers?

A doctor who genuinely cares about their patients, who listens to their patients, whose patients have told them that they are a wonderful doctor that the patients feels they can trust and the patient knows the doctor will listen to them?  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

A member of a symphony orchestra.  One of those Newberry award-winning authors.  A skilled painter or sculptor.  People who create, who give us a reason to live, a reason to appreciate life.

All these people have passion for their work.  They each chose their respective fields because it was a noble calling for them, it spoke to their souls, they are drawn to them.  You damn well better believe they are defined by their jobs, and they are happy to admit it.

A Job Does Define A Person

What is this fervent notion that a job does not define a person?

Psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists always ask this particular request:  "tell me who you are; Define who you are; Describe who you are."  Then the responder says they are a teacher or a doctor, or they start to list their accomplishments, perhaps their band made regional, and they are a band leader.
    Then the psychiatrist abruptly interrupts them and says, ''I am not asking what you do for a living.  I am not asking what your job is.  I am asking whoo youu arrre..."

Contrary to popular opinion, yes you can in fact judge people based on the job they picked.  It is not the only definition, no, but a job offers a good bit of insight into a person's choices and mindset.  The occupation that someone decides to do for a living showcases how they see themselves fitting into the world, how they could contribute to the world, how they perceive themselves.  It shows what they consider a priority in their own lives, and what they see as being important enough that they should dedicate their time and energy and effort into perpetuating into the future.

If someone works on Wall Street, that tells me he is incredibly shallow and only cares about money, is probably a misogynist ahole, thinks he's the 3hi+.  He is one of the "stupid sons of rich men," has a sense of entitlement, expects to have everything handed to him on a silver platter, doesn't expect to have to work hard ever.

On the other hand, if someone is e.g., a teacher, or a SMET person (like me!), or founded an institution like Habitat for Humanity, then that shows that this person cares about people and wants to affect the world in a positive way.  Innovation, helping the world become a better place, improving upon the state of the world and its inhabitants.  Also it shows that he has a passion for a distinct subject, he knows what he wants and he goes for it.  It also shows that this person is practical and realistic.  He chose a field that will actually get him a job and not just one that sounds flowery and abstract (i.e., useless) such as a degree in mass communications or psychology or some 3h +.

But these types insist that defining a person by their job is shallow.

Teachers at public grade school are possibly the most overworked, under-appreciated, *underpaid* occupation.  They are also some of the most selfless, magnanimous, dedicated people in society.  They went into this profession knowing full well that the pay is a trickle in a bucket.  And yet they soldier on anyway, because they know that these kids are counting on them.  They charge on because people are depending on them.

When these ignorant types say that people should not be defined by their jobs, they are revealing their own latent ungratefulness.

They do not have any appreciation for teachers.  They do not have any gratitude, they do not have any regard whatsoever for the magnitude of significance teachers have to society.  They are confessing that they basically take teachers for granted.

I mean, really.  What the hell else are you looking for?  What else do you expect them to do to earn your approval?  What else do teachers have to do to prove to you that that they care greatly about their students?  And that they are making enormous positive contributions to society?
    
Let us take a closer look at the types of jobs that probably originally sparked the battle cries of, "nobody should be defined by their job."

Garbage collector, manual laborer, city sanitation worker.  Do you know what I see when I look at someone in those job positions?  This tells me that the person is in a bind and probably desperately needs the money.  Look, no one would ever pick "trash guy" as their career choice and area of expertise.  Let's be honest here.  No little kid grows up dreaming of being a garbage man.

This is what I mean when I say that a person's choice of job reveals many clues about him or her.  Recall the liberal accusation that it is shallow to derive opinions from a person's occupation.  The above doesn't sound shallow to me.  On the contrary, it is quite profound.
----
Hey, you know what?  I just realized something within the course of typing this.  The people that insist that jobs not define a person -- do in fact harbor these same snooty, stuck-up opinions of manual labor jobs.
Wait a secc...  Does this mean YOU see them as somehow being less worthy of a nod to them as a human being??  You, the open-minded liberal, who always preaches never to judge a book by its cover, and to always always always consider everyone and their dog equal.

They are simply trying to pacify their own guilt at being so snooty.

Look, I might be judgmental, but at least I am honest.  At least I admit it.  I never made the claim that a dog-pooper-scooper-maker is in any way equal to a UN delegate.