by Jason on December 17, 2010
You are SO under surveillance. Like, right now. Don't steal my internets.
Oh, psychology, you misunderstood science, you. Don’t get me wrong, I love you, especially when tied to business, but sometimes, oooh, sometimes you make me wonder. But there’s been a study, and they used experiments, and so it must be true: vegans are more likely to be lying thieving bastards.
The bastards part isn’t proven, and this actually isn’t about veganism specifically, but a recent study claims that people who buy eco-friendly products are more likely to cheat at other things [PDF link to study.] On the other hand, these same people are more likely to be seen as fine upstanding citizens, which means people buying green are all psychopaths in the making that the neighbours will never suspect.
OK, I’m exaggerating a little. I do that. It’s my way. And I’m allowed because I took public transit this week. Here’s the deal: subjects were told to buy either some normal products or some green-friendly products in a fake online store, and then they did a test that secretly determined how honest they were. The people who bought the eco stuff lied and cheated more than the people who didn’t. The researchers are theorizing that this is some kind of licensing effect, where by being virtuous in one area we subconsciously allow ourselves to be a teeny bit evil in some area.
Vegans do a lot of work to help animals and the environment, so I’m guessing the IRS-equivalents in your countries will be asking people to self-identify as vegan in the next tax return, and you’ll all proudly tick the box, happy to finally get the recognition you deserve, but surprise! The box is actually a “please audit me because I cheated on these taxes look my name isn’t even Benedict Manfrengensen” box! That’s what happens when science gets out, y’all.
OK, it’s probably nothing, but it’s a little weird, and if I get caught doing anything remotely dishonest for the next little while I’m going to use veganism as my defence. Possibly in court. But, you know, only if I’m caught.
by Jason on November 24, 2010
Today’s stories don’t have a whole lot to do with veganism, other than some connections to plants and animals, and I’m sure I could string something together, but folks, honestly, I’m just amazed at these articles and felt like sharing.
A British Columbia man has been charged with feeding bears. Feeding bears is a no-no, because they’ll get all domesticamicated or something, so Allan Wayne Piche is looking at potential fines of up to $100,000 or a year in prison. There’s no word on what charges he’ll be facing for the one thousand marijuana plants found on his property, which was why the cops raided his property in the first place, but hey, you go get ‘em, Ministry of the Environment!
In all, well, most, seriousness, the Ministry was able to “wean” the bears back to nature by gradually reducing the feed levels, which means they didn’t have to euthanize any of them, and kudos to them for properly cleaning up after a drug bust, but I just love how the story’s all about the bears and the drugs are an afterthought.
In other news, British Columbia has gained a new plant species: the world’s deadliest mushroom has been spotted and is likely to stay. Wanna know how deadly the mushroom is? It’s called the death cap mushroom. It’s so deadly it can kill you. It’s, like, lethally deadly.
Oh, and THEY CAN LEVITATE.
I don’t have anything to add, I just liked the picture.
OK, one more, from the same website, because I think they’re speaking to me, and this one isn’t terribly funny but it’s good news just the same: a diet rich in nutrient-dense foods might lead to stronger bones. Nutrient-dense foods are ones with high ratios of nutrients to calories, as opposed to calorie-dense foods, which have high ratios of calories to doughnuts. Plant-based foods are packed with nutrients and don’t usually have a lot of calories, so they win, and people who eat a lot of them tend to have fewer fractures.
Fish also gets mentioned, but let’s just ignore that because there’s lots of plants in the article and fish have more heavy metals which means you’ll trigger the airport detectors even more often if you eat them, or so says my science, so just stick with the plants and you’ll have a better chance of being an 80 year old pro-wrestler, body slamming and top-rope diving like the strong boned person you are.
by Jason on April 21, 2010
Even without watching Prison Break, I bet I could escape this thing, and fish are almost as smart as I am. Photo by Ivan Walsh
Alas, this is what journalism amounts to these days: the “established media” put forth a sad collection of factoids without enough background to actually make any sense to those not intimately familiar with the issues at hand, and then the “blogosphere” makes silly jokes. This cycle is vital to prevent that which was once called “meaningful lasting change” in our collective youth. Now we have websites with pictures of cats, which it turns out is all society wanted in the first place.
(Yeah, I feel old today.)
Anyway, a Canadian fish farm has been charged by the federal government with possession of fish. Specifically wild fish, which are different from farmed fish, which I guess is all that they were allowed to possess. There’s something in the process that involves catching a bunch of the farmed fish, which I thought were kept in tanks, but maybe they do things differently now that most of the wild fish are so low in population that they can’t really be said to be “using” the ocean anymore, so maybe the fish farmers have spread their stuff out a little. From what I gather, they’re from an “open net” fish farm, where the “tank” is a big net in the ocean that supposedly keeps the farmed fish in and the wild fish out. Except when they don’t, apparently.
The charges are based on a private prosecution that was put forth by biologist and activist Alexandra Morton, and I think that’s pretty cool that she could go and do that, but I’m also interested with the money quote:
“For decades we have heard reports of wild fish trapped in fish farms, eaten by the farm fish and destroyed during harvest”
Here’s the thing: I haven’t heard this, and I’ve been writing about various related topics for 9 years now. Even with the most awesome smart phone, do you think the average consumer is going to do one tenth of the (ridiculously minor) research that I did for this post while standing at the fish counter trying to decide what to buy? Anyone who thinks being a vegan is hard doesn’t understand anything about fisheries, animal agriculture, or anything else other than maybe what wine goes with what food.
juniorsenior sent in a heads up for next month’s wildlife trade convention: China thinks they’ve figured out the best way to keep tigers alive. Unfortunately, that’s “tigers” as a species, not “tigers” as individual animals, and the solution is a lot like the heroic cattle rancher’s technique to save cows from extinction. China is expected to propose an amendment to the 14 year old ban on trading tiger parts, presumably at the behest of the operators of Chinese tiger farms, who have an estimated 4000 tigers in captivity with nobody to (legally) sell them to (in contrast, there are only 3000 to 5000 tigers left in the wild.)
China’s arguments are similar to ones regarding the legalization of drugs, in that they both propose that it would be easier and cheaper to obtain the product through legal means, if such avenues where available. Unfortunately, in this case, that decision would come at a price of countless tiger deaths in farms, and I suspect the push to keep the species alive in the wild would fall by the wayside as long as their continued existence was ensured (nobody worries about the wild cow population, for example). This one’s more for the conservationists than the AR crowd: is it worth preserving a species if everything about its lifestyle has to change for the worse?
by Jason on April 12, 2007
PonderingWillow reports that they’ve found one of the oldest creatures in Alaska, and I don’t mean Bob at the barber shop. Actually, I mean one of the former candidates for the oldest creature prize, since she was a 100 or so year old fish who got caught up in a net and then sent to a lab for dissection. Wanna bet that the fishing company is going to spin this into something about helping us learn about the aquaculture that they’re destroying? Of course, this is undeniable proof that fishing companies are engaged in perfectly sustainable practices, right? After all, if a fish can go 100 years without getting caught, there must be hope! Oh, the fish? Yeah, she had to die. How else can you find out how old someone is without cutting them in half and counting the rings? (No, I’m not kidding, that’s pretty much how they do it) Oh well, there’s probably another old fish out there, and don’t worry, the caring environmentalists at Trident Seafoods are going to find him!
by Jason on March 27, 2007
You may have noticed an increase in cat threads here on VP. Part of that is because I and others have learned to love the things (the threads, that is), but it might also be symptomatic of a larger trend – the cat population is exploding, to the point where I could almost envision an episode of The Apprentice where The Donald says something about the stray cat industry.
According to a submission from Magic Stones, the trend towards warmer weather is providing an environment that promotes breeding, and shelters are struggling to keep up. You know those sayings about how you can’t give away kindness, and whatever you give will come back to you tenfold? It’s like that with strays and shelters: the Toronto Humane Society says that for every 2 cats they adopt out, they’re getting 3 strays back.
You might not be able to control the weather (if you can, let’s talk), but you can help here. If you have a cat, have him or her neutered or spayed, or at least keep your cat(s) indoors. If you don’t have a cat, consider helping a group that has too many by giving a gift (which is often tax deductible) to your local animal shelter.
by Jason on March 5, 2007
Darky sent word of a pilot program in Delaware in which chicken growers will be installing solar panels in an attempt to recoup some of the money that’s required to power the ventilation systems needed when you’ve got tens of thousands of birds crammed into a single building. The government will be chipping in around $250,000 towards the pilot project, and growers who adopt the system might even be able to earn “green credits” for their good work for the environment. Yep, chicken farmers will be seen as an environmental force for good, at least to the people who don’t live downwind of their farms. Those people will continue to stay indoors on warm days. As for the plan, I see a few problems. First of all, if they’re putting the panels on the roof, the heat absorbed by the dark panels might reduce the power savings, since more power will be used for cooling. Secondly, this plan is being proposed to growers who are contracted by the poultry companies to raise the birds, but I’m guessing the savings, if any, will be quickly absorbed through reduced margins on the chickens, since the poultry company (who’s actively participating in the pilot) will know exactly how much more can be squeezed – United Food and Commercial Workers say that the current system already has 71% of growers earning below poverty-level wages. Finally, come, on! If a large scale poultry operation can release ammonia and arsenic through vast amounts of manure and qualify for green credits by slapping on a few solar panels with the intent to enable production of even more toxic gasses, there are more than a few things wrong with the US environmental program. Link.
by Jason on February 16, 2007
fuser reports that the flagship of the Japanese whaling fleet has, er, caught fire. As if the Japanese weren’t pissing on the environment enough with their defiance of the whaling moratorium, the international community is concerned that the ship’s oil supplies could seep into the water and possibly threaten the nearby penguin community, who just want to make penguin babies in peace. Now, as near as anyone can tell, the fire was one of those “just happens” kinda things and not an act of sabotage by animal rights groups or just plain animal sources, but here’s the kicker – whale oil burns an awful lot. That’s right, the ship’s plight is that much worse because of what they’re there for. Take that up your science expedition and smoke it. Link.
by Jason on January 11, 2007
A new report is recommending that American lobster fishermen use less traps to reduce their impact on the North American right whale population, which currently numbers around 350 on the east coast. According to one of the study’s authors, the changes would reduce the number of whales who get caught in the equipment each year, without having much impact on the annual lobster catch. The fishermen (I can’t say “lobstermen,” it’s too scary) replied, “uh, you know we boil these little puppies alive, right?” OK, that’s not what they said, and they actually claim that they’d like to help the whales, but without an economic reason to change anything, it’s not likely that the whales will be getting much help from this report. Link.
by Jason on January 4, 2007
9Nines sent this in a while ago, but it took a while to read, since it’s a) so friggin’ long, and b) so friggin’ irritating. Plus it’s from Rolling Stone, so I kept dreading each hit of the “next” button, thinking that any moment now I’d have to learn more about Justin Timberlake. As it happens, it’s actually worth reading, being a lengthy account of the environmental problems with humungous pig farms, primarily due to the fact that they can’t deal with the massive amounts of pig poop that they’re generating. Link.
