Does anyone claim that vegetarianism will save the world? It is possible some organisation exists that claim that, but most vegetarians (including me) are so not because we want to save the world (not sure what that means... ref: George Carlin) but for fairly straightforward ethical reasons.
Carrol writes:
> No! There is no political or ecological or moral aspect to where we
> choose to live! I have engaged in this argument over and over again
> since the late 1960s. There is no political constraint on idividual
> consumption choices UNLESS there is an organized mass struggle (as
> exhibited in pickets, full-page ads, leaflettings, demonstrations, etc)
> around the the choice at issue. Attempts to make individual consumption
> choices a matter subject to moral or political judgment absent such mass
> decisions are victious and devisive.
>
I would offer that it is viciousness about such things (the self-righteous passing of judgement) that is divisive, not attention to personal consumption itself. I am not sure I see your point... it seems to be a technological one? How is posting to a Usenet newsgroup any different from leafletting? What quantity makes a mass? Not being facetious here... I am a member of PETA and along with contributing financially I perform various activities which might broadly fall under "leafletting". We have 1000s of members. Other members like Pamela Anderson ;-) do other versions of leafletting. Some others carry out demonstrations. Along with all this are attempts to advance prescriptions on individual behaviour... where would that fall in your book?
It seems to that the means to an end are not that important when they do not run counter to the framework that justifies the ends.
--ravi