I don't get why people have to get personal. Have been seeing this in a lot of threads of late. It always stops me from participating.
He has put some logical points in front of you and instead of trying to discuss those points people just start calling each other names. How is that good for the discussion.
Brussels' Mayor had once said - A developed nation is not one where everyone travel in their own car, it's one where despite owning a car people prefer to use public transport.
But the thing is that the public transport needs to be capable first for the citizens to prefer using it.
My Dad took VRS just because he was being transferred to Delhi. He is overweight and he couldn't have travelled in the Metro or by buses standing all the way. Compared to tier-2 cities, Delhi has a much better public transport system, but it still isn't equipped to handle the load.
I am an AAP supporter myself but they do make some childish mistakes sometimes. If they were feeling perturbed by the issue of pollution, they should have formed a long-term plan. They could easily have taken a year or so to strengthen the public transport system and then chosen to take drastic measures like such bans.
These bans are really needed all over the world but not before you can provide a working, viable alternative to the people.
Also these so called developed nations only want others to curb their CO2 producing habits.
It is a well known fact that rearing cows for beef and other meat producing activities contribute to over 51% of the CO2 emissions of the world. Not only that, these animals also produce Methane and Nitrous Oxide which have a much higher GWP (Global Warming Potential). CO2 has a GWP of 1 whereas Methane is 28 and N20 is 298. This means that both these gases are 28 times and 298 times more harmful than CO2 respectively.
Recently even China has started consuming Beef and the value of beef market in China alone is estimated to cross $60 billion by next year.
Projections show that by 2050, 465 million tonnes of meat will be required to satisfy the growing population. Human population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. But no concern is bring raised on how to feed the 120 billion animals expected to be reared for meat cultivation in the same period.
Now I myself am a non-vegetarian. I have seen many discussions on veganism. I specifically remember one comment from such a discussion where one Vegan was trying to coax other vegans by telling them not to force their beliefs on others as he believed that the world will turn Vegan on it's own. I now kinda see the wisdom in his words. If people today are ready to stop using personal vehicles for a better future they might turn Vegan one day for the very same reason.
OT - This was being discussed in some other thread but I didn't participate over there because of the afore-mentioned name calling. I kinda believe that all religious texts have a base in science. Many famous scientists have been known to be fascinated by the Bible. I am of the belief that some of the teachings have deep scientific reasoning behind it. Hindu religion teaches of abstaining from eating beef. If the world, one day has to stop eating beef in order to survive then we an certainly concur that their was a very deep scientific reason behind such teachings.
The only problem is that these teachings have been meddled with so much by selfish people over centuries that it is difficult to differentiate between the true and the false teachings. It will only be humanity's loss that we will have to learn them again the hard way.
