Actually, a lot of us aren't eating any fish at all. If you want to make a real difference, challenge your daily life, including what you eat.

Sometimes I wonder if vegans take the "superiority" of their choice a little too far. Sometimes I think they don't take it far enough. That said, I can't think of a more environmentally sound action than suicide. Imagine how few resources you'd consume if you stopped consuming altogether. Talk about superiority.

actually terry, mass genocide could be more environmentally useful than suicide but is the unibombers approach really desirable? You have a point: eco-fundamentalist behaviour is no more useful than religious or capitalist-fundamentalist behaviour because each of them takes a holier-than-thou approach & that won't encourage anyone to change anymore than telling them they're wrong.

When Ghandi said 'be the change you want to see', he didn't say 'then be arrogant about it'. Nor did he say 'make a couple of changes according to the most visible issues that get the most airplay and then stop there'. While environmental & social injustices remain, then we have more work to do to be & help bring about the change that we want to see.

It needs continuous change that requires continuous learning, adjusting and willingness to change which few people have. But confusingly, what if the majority of people say hell with biodiversity & forests, I only care about food & TV & a big house? Then do we need to 'educate' them (to bring them around to our value system) or, being in a 1st-world democracy do we respect the majority vote & bulldoze the forests?

Ghandi was of course a vegetarian. : )

Being blunt or saying what other people don't want to hear is often taken for arrogance. But what could be more arrogant than sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't want to listen? Oh wait, depleting the resources of our planet comes to mind.

There's nothing fundamentalist being vegan, other than it's not the popular norm. It's a decision one makes for one's self, and I happen to think it's a very responsible one. Again, people are quick to slap labels on things they don't agree with.

Nothing seems more controversial and imbued with moral overtones than what people eat, no matter what dietary trend one is discussing! And yet, when all the back and forth is finished, no one diet seems to universally meet the health requirements of every individual, and no one diet (short of subsistence-farming all one's own food) is always lowest in environmental impact. In a northern state, how much food needs to be imported to meet a vegan's nutritional needs, especially in autumn or winter? How well can a Type II diabetic control their blood sugar and maintain a healthy nutrient profile when a vegan diet averages a higher starch content than an omnivorous or ovo-lacto vegetarian diet? How difficult is a vegan diet for someone with a nut, grain, or soy allergy, all of which are common?

Saying things people don't want to hear is, of course, not arrogance, but neither is it a winning move in convincing people to make the changes in question, simply from a psychological perspective. It's bad marketing of an idea. That, of course, is the where the charge of fundamentalism lies; not being vegan, but the assumption that there is one right choice that is the only one thoughtful, well-intentioned people can make after weighing their options.

yep agree with anonymous' points.
above, I was not saying that all or most vegans are fundamentalists!! *Some* vegans, however, are intolerant & judgemental of non-vegans &that doens't encourage others to reconsider their behaviour.

And being righteous about yr choices can make it difficult for you to change when new information appears that questions choices you have been making.

There are many nuances to these complex issues so we need to be prepared to learn from new insights (eg local v's organic, cotton v's organic cotton v's other fabric choices) and then adjust our own behaviour.