Freegans and Vegans: Where’s the Love?

Freeganism is in the news again, this time in the UK, and so I have had a flurry of links to the essay I wrote on the subject a couple of weeks ago. This renewed interest in the subject has spurred me to revisit it with a few more of my thoughts.

When I wrote my essay entitled, “Freeganism: What’s Up With That?”, one aspect of the freegan philosophy I found to be most curious, yet could not successfully work into the the post, was their intense hostility towards vegans who did not embrace the freegan lifestyle of consuming products gleaned from dumpster-diving.

While I have sympathy with the freegan core beliefs that the immense waste in our society is a cause of ecological, economic and social ills, I still stand against the means by which freegans attempt to redress the issue. I still very strongly believe that their “political statements” and “lifestyle choices” do little to assuage the damage caused by capitalist society and instead, they benefit directly from the waste generated by the industries they revile. I also do not share their very dim view of vegans, which I find to be strange, since many self-described freegans are also vegans, and in fact, the very name by which they call themselves, was coined as a play off of the word, “vegan.”

I should, of course, define what veganism is, before I continue.

Wikipedia defines veganism as “a strict form of vegetarianism, consisting of abstention from the consumption or use of all animal products, including eggs and dairy products, as well as articles made of bone, leather, feathers, mother of pearl or other materials of animal origin.”

In short, vegans are people who do not consume products that are non-plant in origin (including eggs, dairy, and honey), and many of them do not use or wear items made from any animal products, such as wool or leather.

The reasons for adhering to such a diet or lifestyle are myriad, but most of them boil down to a strong ethically-framed belief that the consumption of animal products involves cruelty to the animals, even if the animal is not killed to obtain the product. Many others are vegan for reasons of health, citing lowered cholesterol and blood lipid levels as the result of a vegan diet, while others become vegan for environmental reasons, stating that raising vegetable matter for human consumption uses fewer resources and results in less environmental degradation than intensive animal farming. Others note that if fewer humans ate meat, then more plant-based food would be available for humans to eat, and the result would be less issues of starvation and hunger in the human population.

These ethical reasons may or may not arise in conjunction with spiritual or religious beliefs, though there are some vegans who claim to be more spiritually aware as the result of not eating meat. Various religious beliefs around the world involve vegetarianism in several different forms as a means of spiritual purification and as a physical acknowledgement of the “oneness” of all life, including animals.

So, really, what’s not to like?

Well, if you are freegan, apparently quite a bit.

In an essay entitled, “Veganism,” author Adam Weissman states: “Usually, the question of animal oppression is approached only in terms of compassion and prejudice: animals are exploited and destroyed, bands like Earth Crisis would have us believe, simply because we see them as subhuman and are willing to abuse them in order to satisfy our greed. I suspect that the problem runs much deeper than mere cruelty and avarice. Under capitalism, it’s not just animals that are exploited—it’s everyone and everything from farmlands and forests to farmhands and grocery clerks. The oppression of animals is just a little more obvious to us because it involves the murder of living things; but it’s not just animals that have been enslaved and transformed by our society, it’s everything, ourselves included. Without an understanding of how and why our social/economic system drives us to seek to dominate and exploit everything, we will not be able to alter the way animals are treated in any significant or long-lasting way”

He continues, “When I walk through the aisles at the supermarket, looking at all the products for sale around me, perhaps I can tell which ones are manufactured from the exploitation of animals, but I can’t tell which ones—if any—are manufactured without exploiting anyone or anything….So the idea that you can be sure that your dollars are not financing anything inhumane or destructive just by examining the ingrediants of a product and ascertaining that it includes no animal products strikes me as absurd. There are a thousand other kinds of oppression, just as outrageous as animal oppression, that keep the wheels of our economy turning, and there is no reason to be less concerned about any of them than about animal oppression.”

From reading Weissman’s words, it is clear to me that he feels that vegans are not “radical” enough to satisfy his own beliefs regarding how best to stop the exploitation of animals. When I was in college, I noticed that a lot of the more radical, hardcore fringe groups dedicated to social change on a grand scale suffered from a lot of infighting, when they could be banding together in order to more efficiently affect real changes in society. Much of the bickering involved minutia that revolved around which group or individual was the most “radical,” which essentially created a situation where marginalized groups fought to marginalize each other further–a most illogical activity.

This is what Weissman’s diatribe against vegans and veganism feels like to me–a very far-fringe individual pointing a finger at a less-fringe (yet still marginalized) social group and accusing them of siding with “the man.” Or, in this case, the “capitalist pigs.”

Of course, Weissman has more to say on the subject. He never seems to lack for words.

“In the meantime, rather than practising veganism, I practise “freeganism.” I know that as long as I participate in the mainstream economy, whether I am buying vegan or non-vegan products, I am supporting the corporations which represent world capitalism. So rather than just buying animal-friendly products, I try to purchase as few products as possible….Anything I can get for free at the expense of the exploiting, oppressing capitalist system is a strike against that system, while purchasing vegan food from Taco Bell (which is owned by Pepsi Co.) is still putting money into the hands of an oppressive, exploiting corporation. I live off of whatever resources I can scrounge or steal from our society, trying to avoid animal products when I can, but concentrating above all on keeping my money and labor out of of their hands….A willingness to pump money into the mainstream economy, which is responsible for the oppression of animals and humans and the destruction of the environment, through consumer spending…is not compatible with the professed goal of most people who follow a vegan diet, which is to end the exploitation of animals.”

In other words, vegans don’t do enough to end capitalism, which is the root cause of the oppression of animals, because it is the root cause of all oppression. (I cannot help but wonder if Weissman believes that capitalism was extant in the Neolithic period when the domestication of farm animals began. Once again, as I noted in my first essay, his grasp of food anthropology and human prehistory is fundamentally flawed.)

His argument against veganism as being mired in consumerist society, however, is flawed, because while he hopes to create a new and different economic system, one that is not based upon oppression, he refuses to acknowledge the existence of alternate means of food aquisition beyond buying from the corporate-owned grocery stores.

No mention is made of buying directly from small, local farmers through CSA’s (consumer supported agriculture), farmer’s markets or local co-op stores. Nor does Weissman mention supporting small local producers of tofu, or locally-owned bakeries. Supporting local farmers and small food producers would go a long way providing an alternative to the current corporation-dominated economy, but these possibilities are ignored, even though many vegans and omnivores participate in the support of these businesses.

Instead, Weissman proudly proclaims that he sometimes steals in order to “stick it to the corporations.”

That certainly sounds ethical, doesn’t it?

Why does Weissman refuse to recognize the viability of smaller, local farmers and food producers as a means by which to change society into a more ethical, less cruel and oppressive one?

That may be because Weissman inherently mistrusts agriculture and farming. In another essay, entitled, “Freeganism: Liberating Our Consumption, Liberating Our Lives,” Weissman attacks farming: “From the outset, the creation of farmland involves the complete destruction of preexisting habitat and ecosystems, whether this means logging a forest or simply threshing preexisting browse and to clear land for crop rows and loosen soil, inevitably leading to significant topsoil loss. Animal species and the ecosystems they are part of rely on a highly specific and delicate set of habitat conditions to survive. When we turn biodiverse, unspoiled plains and forests into farmlands, we kill countless animals that fall to their deaths as trees crash to the ground or who are crushed or to ground to their deaths by tractors or plows.”

In this essay, Weissman makes no distinction between ecologically sound methods of agriculture, and factory-farm, corporate monoculture which utilizes pesticides and other harmful petrochemicals that endanger humans, wildlife, water supplies and the health of our soil. It is obvious to me that he is either willfully ignorant of the differences between sustainable farming and corporate monoculture, or he simply does not care about them, because if he actually supported the local economy by buying organic produce from a reputable farmer who practiced sustainable agriculture, he wouldn’t be able to keep getting by on a free ride by dumpster-diving.

Oh, and stealing. Let’s not forget the stealing part.

What does he suggest as an alternative to farming? Well, he doesn’t actually suggest that farming cease–or if he does, he gives no viable alternative to agriculture as the basic means of food creation. He does, of course, as I noted in my earlier essay, invoke the glorious days of our hunter-gatherer past, when humans never saw the earth as raw materials for exploitation, and we only took what we needed and all was loving kindness and beautiful. And, of course, he equates freegans with the noble hunter-gatherers of old.

But I have a question.

If it is true that the goal of freeganism is to bring down capitalism and to create a new and different society that is not based upon the oppression of anyone or anything, then how exactly does a bunch of priviledged kids dumpster-diving for food accomplish this? What is the mechanism here? Sure, some folks leave the corporate-driven consumption cycle, but how does this stop factory farming? How does this create a new economy?

How, exactly, does ragging on vegans, many of whom support local food economies by carefully shopping at farmer’s markets, bakeries and tofu-makers, “stick it” to Pepsi-co?

It doesn’t.

Freegan philosophy is empty. For all of its high-minded ideals and long-winded arguments, it is simply a means by which people who feel powerless in the face of corporate hegenomy can feel like they are doing something worthwhile that will really bring about an end to the evils of capitalism. It is a way of getting something for nothing, while feeling heroic at the same time.

If I were a vegan, I’d be really pissed right about now.

As it is, I’m not a vegan, yet I am still plenty disgusted.

20 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. This reminds me of reading an essay in David Rakoff’s “Don’t Get to Comfortable”. He writes about taking a foraging class in NYC with the “Wildman” (http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/), and makes the observation that foraging is hard work, and is an area easily prone to (sometime fatal) mistakes (i.e. it can be really hard to keep track of what is edible, when it is edible, how to prepare it, etc.). Cultivation has allowed for easier food acquisition, safer food production and tastier food preparation – which is nothing I would argue with.

    Ah, I am sad I will not make it to my market this weekend, but I am happy to have found out a 3-4 day indoor market will be setting up in my area of Baltimore.

    Comment by Amy — February 21, 2006 #

  2. I had a comment for ya Mei Mei, but it became a rant, sorry. So to keep from killing your blog, I’ll post a link to it from my own blog.
    Click here

    Comment by Bryian — February 21, 2006 #

  3. That and I don’t know bout you but returning to “hunter-gatherer” society is sorta like shooting ourselves in the foot. Domestication and agriculture is what freed up humanity’s *time* to develop other things – like art, music, writing… you know… culture. Substinence farming no matter which way you cut it is not friendly towards having extra time.

    I’m genuinely curious how this guy thinks he’s avoiding exploitation and harm – by exploiting businesses that employ locals and contribute to the local economy. (Oh, opps he just calls that stealing, that’s not the same thing… my bad… *snort*)

    Comment by bastlynn — February 21, 2006 #

  4. So… Weissman proposes that all of human society go back to being hunter-gatherer… only without the hunter part. Sounds practical!

    Perhaps he doesn’t suggest purchasing locally-grown or locally-made products because he’s so urban/suburban he can’t grasp the concept. Sustainable farming? What’s that?

    Comment by eso — February 22, 2006 #

  5. Hunting and gathering are very hard work indeed, Amy. So is farming.

    My suspicion is that Adam Weissman has never really foraged for wild food in his life. He strikes me as a city boy who has this dimly romanticized view of “the natural world” but has never really lived in it, or dealt with it.

    He has probably never had a rattlesnake on his backporch threatening himself and his dog.

    He has probably never gone out foraging for wild berries, herbs, mushrooms and ramps.

    He has probably never even grown his own goddamned lettuce. He wouldn’t know the operative end of a digging stick if he saw it, nor would he know how to use a mule-drawn or a tractor-drawn plow.

    I bet he has never dug row after row of potatoes, nor harvested corn, nor frozen an entire winter’s worth of vegetables, nor made jelly or canned or made saurkraut.

    And I know damned good and well he has never caught and killed his own fish, nor helped gut a steer, nor dressed out a hog.

    I have done all of these things. And I can say from experience they are all very hard work and do not in any way shape or form compare to going uptown and dumpster-diving for the refuse from supermarkets.

    For him to compare “urban foraging” with what real hunter-gatherer societies have to do to survive is an insult.

    Bry–preach on, brother.

    Bastlyn, the fact is–hunter-gatherer societies only really work well for small groups of humans. There is no way we would be able to sustain the number of people we have on this planet without agriculture. It doesn’t all have to be pesticide-dependant fossil-fuel driven monoculture–but, frankly, some of it probably has to be, at least when you are talking about growing enough grain to feed current and projected human populations.

    This little fact is part of what really makes me think that Weissman doesn’t care too much for humanity. He may be one of those very radical environmentalist/animal rights activists who think the world would be better off without humans.

    I disagree. Without us, what would make God laugh?

    The platypus? No way. That is a one-joke critter. We humans are way more entertaining than a mammal with a duck bill that lays eggs and has a tail like a beaver, and defends itself with poison spurs.

    I mean, once you get over the engineering of the platypus, it is all over. One chuckle, that’s all.

    While we humans come up with endlessly fascinating ways of making fools of ourselves, every day.

    And some say God has no sense of humor.

    Ha, I say. Ha.

    Comment by Barbara — February 22, 2006 #

  6. Arrived via the same convoluted path as Ally, but from my own comments box!

    Just wanted to say how interesting your take on freeganism is. I too can’t quite get past the hypocrisy involved in thinking that simply getting things for free means that those things are removed from the destructive chain which produced them. And as for thinking shoplifting is acceptable… Makes you wonder.

    Poor vegans!

    Comment by KW — February 22, 2006 #

  7. Barbara, your comments about the radicals reminded me of one of the best scenes in the Life of Brian:

    Reg: The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f***king Judean People’s Front.

    Stan: Yeah, the Judean People’s Front.

    Reg: Yeah.

    Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.

    Reg: Yeah.

    Stan: And the People’s Front of Judea.

    Reg: Yea… what?

    Stan: The People’s Front of Judea.

    Reg: We’re the People’s Front of Judea!

    Stan: I thought we were the Popular Front.

    Reg: People’s Front!

    Francis: What ever happened to the Popular Front?

    Reg: He’s over there. [points to a lone man]

    Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!

    Comment by Meg — February 22, 2006 #

  8. Doesn’t dumpster diving for food when you don’t absolutely have to, mean that genuine homeless and starving people have less food available to forage? Seems selfish and pointless and frankly weird.

    Comment by Toast — February 22, 2006 #

  9. Hey Barbara!

    This guy sounds like a wingnut looking to justify his own choices.

    I am not quite vegan (I still eat eggs and fish), but most vegans I know are also very seriously concerned about issues like organics and fair-trade, which Weissman seems to ignore. Both issues, either separately on in conjunction with each other, assure better pay and working standards for farm employees; it’s not just about the food itself, but in making life better for the people who produce it.

    Using Weissman’s philosophy, we should all go back to living in log cabins made with our own hands, using ans ax that we made ourselves, while wearing clothes that we created from grass we found in a field and then wove together. Worker oppression doesn’t just take place in the food industry – it’s in every industry. I bet that, for most North Americans, 90% of all of the stuff in our homes was created in a factory setting where the workers were not paid or treated fairly. There are many things that we, as consumers, can do about that, but stealing stuff out of dumpsters and ranting self-righteously about our superior lifestyle choices isn’t one of them.

    Comment by Sheryl — February 22, 2006 #

  10. If anyone is interested in the ideas of hunter gatherer societies vs heavy agricultural societies then you might pick up “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn. I will admit that he is biased towards the hunter gatherer lifestyle as the ecologically correct organization of human society, but even if you disagree with him I think he has some great insights into the mindset of our culture. When I say our culture though I mean any culture that subsists off of heavy agriculture. That would pretty much mean most of the world.

    I have to say that I agree with his idea that the ecologically sound way to live would be to live as a hunter gatherer, but like with most grand theories on humanity it doesn’t consider the humanity portion…just the theory. Like the joke :Two economists are looking at several equations on a blackboard. One turns to the other and says, “You know this one would work much better if you take the people out of it.” But what it comes down to is no matter how ecologically sound a hunter gatherer organized society may be, it is no longer a viable option for the current numbers of humanity we have on this planet. So returning to that lifestyle, no matter how noble one might think it is, is pretty much an impossibility at this point, barring some event that would reduce the population of humans on the planet back down to a level that would make hunting & gathering sustainable. So that leaves us with the question, “Ok so if not that then what?” If I knew the answer I would be holding the Nobel Peach Prize…as it is I think Barbara’s suggestions are some of the best options we have at the moment.

    One last thing: Another discussion in “Ishmael” is which lifestyle (hunter gatherer vs farming) is the more difficult lifestyle, or the flipside is which one allows for more freetime. The point that he brings up is that farming is actually more difficult than hunting & gathering. One has less free time as a farmer than as a hunter gatherer. BUT! The farmer is more productive on a smaller ammount of land, which produces a surplus. This surplus feeds others who don’t farm. These people are the ones with all the free time, not the farmers and it is these nonfarming people that take on specialized roles in society…ie rulers, professional soldiers, and so on. So it is a heavy agricultural society that sets up a heirarchal social system vs hunter gatherers which are usually more egalitarian. So mr freegan has some good thoughts that he is working with, unfortunately I think he has mixed up how to interperet those thoughts for his own life and the actions to take.

    Feel free to point out if you think I’m crazy. : )

    Comment by Benjamin — February 22, 2006 #

  11. I have the same reaction I did to your last essay — how is stealing something *already* produced harming the production cycle in any way? It’s not. It’s a cheap line created by a bunch of spoiled brats to justify their illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior.

    Freeganism has been bugging me for a long time, but your essays have done a marvelous job of verbalizing exactly what bothers me about it. Thank you.

    (I found your blog via Food_porn on LJ, btw, and I’m enjoying it immensely. I hope to try those duck sauce cookies next time I have a free afternoon!)

    Comment by Sternel — February 22, 2006 #

  12. Benjamin, you are not crazy. Hunter-gatherer societies, as a general rule, efficiently produce enough food for their people in a smaller amount of time than agriculture.

    However, there is a flip side to this, which you tangentially mentioned, but did not really touch on.

    First of all–hunting and gathering only work for small groups of humans, and there is seldom any surplus food available for lean times, drought, famine. Hunting and gathering is not possible in all places on the earth with the same amount of efficiency. And, thirdly–hunting and gathering can have a negative impact on the environment–waters can be over-fished, small quarry can be hunted out, and vegetative matter can be over-harvested.

    And, while most hunter-gatherer societies are “more” egalitarian and less hierarchical than agricultural ones–that is a statistical tendency only. It is not a universally true statement. The buffalo hunters of the Western US Plains were anything but egalitarian and they certainly were hunter-gatherers.

    Whereas, the agriculturally-based Eastern tribes, particularly the Cherokee, but also many of the Algonquin language group, all granted women more power, because it was the women who primarily tended the crops–the garden plots belong to them, and so they had economic power and say in the tribe.

    So–as I said–in general, hunter-gatherer societies (the !Kung San, for example) are more egalitarian, but every agricultural society is not a bastion of harmful hierarchy, either.

    Life expectancy is fairly low in hunter-gatherer societies, too. Hunting and gathering are hard work–and dangerous, too. Poisonous plants and animals, and hunting accidents happen.

    Agriculture, indeed, allows for more leisure time for more people. One also has to take into account the idea of communal farming–which is how many early agricultural societies and later tribal agricultural societies worked. The work is less hard when shared out among many people.

    Agriculture is the most efficient way of sustaining human life at this point in our history. It is also necessary because of the population numbers we are sustaining on this planet. So, for Weissman to decry it as a complete ecological disaster may, in part be true, but is also foolish, since he makes no suggestion to lessen the environmental impact, merely talks about not paying farmers for their products so they will stop farming. (And then, what exactly does Weissman and his dumpster-divers think they are going to eat?)

    Eso–I wondered about that. Is he just completely ignorant of sustainable farming practices, because he is so far removed from the earth that he has no clue? Yet, he is obviously well-read on other topics, and on agriculture itself in a narrow sense that I cannot help but think that he is willfully ingnorant of sustainable food production.

    KW–yes, the convoluted thinking makes me confused, too. Taking something for free does not divorce it from the harm caused in its production, period. The harm still occurs. Taking it for free does not negate the harm. It simply feeds from the harm without supporting it economically.

    How is that better?

    Meg–Stop oppressing me! (That is my favorite part of the movie. That and “Blessed are the cheesemakers.”)

    Yep, Toast. That is a point I drove home in my first essay on freegans.

    Sheryl–if he advocates that we all go back to living in log cabins we build ourselves, I would love to see him build one.

    I bet he couldn’t.

    Comment by Barbara — February 22, 2006 #

  13. I’m glad that someone else made the whole Monty Python connection, too :). I will link to this one, too, if you don’t mind? And thank you for coming to visit!

    Comment by Ally — February 22, 2006 #

  14. But I’m not the Messiah…just ask Barb ;)

    Comment by Bryian — February 22, 2006 #

  15. Sternel–I agree with you–it still doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

    Ally–you are welcome–you have a nice blog. And thank you for linking here.

    Bry is certainly not the Messiah. But he does bless cheesemakers now and again.

    Comment by Barbara — February 23, 2006 #

  16. I’ve heard of these ‘scavengers’ before, but didn’t realize they had a whole convoluted philosophy to justify their methods. Bizarre! And from what I’m reading here, sad.

    In our county, a group bought into the “food rescue” mindset – get the edible-but-not-sellable food that a restaurant or grocery store is going to throw away, and instead direct it to food banks and other non-profits. Food Gatherers is the name of our local chapter, and they rescue enough food (up to 3.4 tons per day) to provide 4500 meals per day (see http://www.foodgatherers.org/about.htm for more stats). They even gather surplus food from the (local, sustainable) farmer’s market at the end of market days… Just think if those “freegans” instead spent their energy on getting more food rescue organizations set up around the country!!

    Comment by Tricia — February 23, 2006 #

  17. Foodgatherers sounds like America’s Second Harvest and Food! Not Bombs–both of these organizations work to get edible food out of the waste stream and into food banks and shelters where it can be utilized to feed the poor and homeless.

    I would have a lot more respect for freegans if they worked with these organizations than if they just foraged for themselves.

    And yeah. The philosophy is pretty convoluted.

    Comment by Barbara — February 24, 2006 #

  18. Oh my! I started off researching just what a “freegan” was after tripping across the word in a news aritcle. Lo! I find myself here and laughing.

    Please, I do not live on a farm nor have I HOWEVER; despite living in a northern climate – I try damn hard to grow my edibles every summer. Who is this dumpster diver? Has he ever worked a damn hard day in his life and then come home to work a few more hours in agarden in the hope of growing enough beans to take you through the winter?! All this while raising and feeding your kids.

    A return to the “hunter and gather” stage of our development? Let’s examine this. “Hunter” denotes killing something and I simply don’t recall hunting a carrot. Sooo, what is he hunting? “Gathering” He speaks of oppression of disadantaged peoples (and yes this happens) and yet, it was our ancestors who developed the fine art of “enforcing” others to gather and farm for them.

    Dude hear me … hubbie and I worked damned hard (clearly you do not), we recycle darn near everything butthe dog’s poops, we grow an organic garden BUT we live in a country where it is frozen for close to five months of the year.

    Mr. Weissman may I suggest that you get off your duffs, works them to the bone like some many of us do, shop and GROW wisely. You wanna make a change? Get outta my garbage, inspire others to grow organically and recognize, you merely living off the fruits of others. In my dictionary that makes you a scavenger … not a hero.

    Comment by Kim-Maureen — May 26, 2006 #

  19. Hello, Kim-Maureen, and welcome!

    Well said. There is nothing wrong with working hard to put food on the table–especially when you are working with the earth, not against it.

    Good for you for growing organically, even in a rough climate! Keep up the good work! (I cannot wait until we start terracing the back so we can put in the big garden we want!) (Next year–next year. It will happen next year.)

    Comment by Barbara — May 26, 2006 #

  20. Thank you Barbara for your kind words. Yes, next year you will build that terrace. Next year I will “co-opt” a bit more of the lawn for a few more gardens.

    Would that we could send our missives to this putz. I do apologize for the typos in my past missive, hey juice and key boards NEVER mix. LOL

    To the point, Mr. Weissman’s article I found to be offensive (in that he advocates stealing), dillusional (in that he wants a return to a simpler life that being: Hunter/Gatherer).

    I stated at a previous site, if every human in my country “lived off the land” and did not farm or buy previously produced foods, we would starve to death and more importantly, destroy an entire ecosystem. For the record I live in Canada. When I say we are frozen for four or five months of the year, I mean the our southern border. This does NOT include the nothern areas where food is flown in … at a huge cost. Yes, there are serious issues there as well that this topic cannot cover for the time being.

    He mentioned “Hunters” in his article and yet, what is he hunting? An animal? Oh surely not according to him but then what? I duuno ’bout anyone else but I never hunted a carrot, or a letttuce and well, you understand. So what is he “hunting”?

    As a wee history buff I find his theories to be unrealistic, rather “pipe dreamish” and truthfully, the rantings of a lazy man trying to justify his existance.

    The facts of the matter are, our population globally, is beyond comprehension. Yet, the MAJORITY of the Earth’s resources are consumed by a few countries (mine included). I know I am not sharing any great wisdom here. Yet I must ask, despite the effort of the lowly folks to be aware and respectful not just of the environment but of all that live within it, where does does this scavenger get off lecturing to us? (Side note: when I sat ALL; it does include the animals) So many of us recyle, shop organically (not that I can afford that), support the small, local business owner and repair, upgrade without purchase, so many of our things. Hell, I have NEVER owned a living room set I bought brand new … or bought for that matter. Most of my furniture is “previously owned” … LOL many times.

    It’s not my food, my items, he and his ilk are living off of, so how can they possibly critize the many like myself who are actually TRYING? I find his article to be the attempted pseudo-justification of a lazy man who is incapable of supporting himself, incapable of nurturing an idea and bringing it to fruition and therefore, must lash out like some mildly gifted child because life has not granted them their perceived reward.

    If this is blogging, I do apologize as I am still learning my way through the eticate of the ‘net… but I stand by my rant.

    Kim-Maureen

    Kim-Maureen

    Comment by Kim-Maureen — May 27, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress. Graphics by Zak Kramer.
Design update by Daniel Trout.
Entries and comments feeds.