Sweet potato puree with pea sauce


For 2 people:

1 medium, sweet potato

2 medium potatoes

1 tablespoon vegan margarine or coconut fat

150 g of frozen peas

3 tablespoons onion powder

5 tablespoons soy sauce



Peel both types of potatoes and cut into cubes. Cook in salted water until soft, pour off almost all the water, add the margarine and make a puree. While the potatoes are cooking, cook the peas until soft, add half a dl of water, onion and soy sauce. Simmer until almost all the liquid has boiled. Serve with puree.

Eggs from the torture chamber


In hen concentration camps: “Laying hens live their short lives in windowless halls, in common cages with up to eight floors. Twenty-two chickens share one square meter, the stench is unbearable. After only 14 – 18 months, the chicken concentration camp can no longer be carried – and we wander into the soup pot. Almost a fifth of us do not survive this year and a half: we die from stress, infectious or bone diseases, etc. ”“ We hens brutally pull us out of cages; in doing so – as in loading – we often break our wing or leg. Hang us by the legs on the wedges of the conveyor belt to stun us in the electric water bath. However, this does not always work. If we are a little smaller, or if we try to pull our head out of the water, we come under the electric knife in full consciousness. The conveyor belt continues to flow smoothly. Dead as well as living bodies come to the stake, then go to the plucking machine and finally burn over the flame. ”[1]

Battery-laying laying farms are real torture chambers for animals. In the cages, several hens are huddled in a small space, unable to move normally. Most of these animals, whose beaks are shortened so that they do not harm each other due to severe stress, do not see sunlight in their lives and do not know what fresh air is, what the real wind is, they do not know what grass, rain, no they know nature… Millions and millions of hens vegetate even in a hundred and more meter halls, humiliated to the end. Many are unable to survive even the short lifespan that humans expect of them, a year in which they have to lay about 300 eggs to reach the “norm” expected of humans. More than 300 million eggs are laid annually in Slovenia by enslaved hens. This, too, is the true image of humanity: an incredible moral lowliness. For profit all, but even if on the other hand is an innocent and helpless living being. Slave to the end. It is similar in soil farming.

Become vegan

When chickens are no longer profitable, they are sold to specialized plants, where they are processed into pate or other products. In gratitude for the one-year suffering of giving the profitable eggs to the owner, they are eventually killed and processed. Incredible humiliation of animals. What kind of world do we live in? Hellish or heavenly? Some would like to come to paradise through the suffering of animals and their carcasses. But this is not possible.

Maybe free-range laying hens do a little better, but even there there are only egg machines. They are not living beings with their dignity, but things of useful value for satisfying man’s low passions.

Although all scientific findings show that cages have an extremely bad effect on the well-being of laying hens, they have not yet been banned. The horrors continue. Politicians are looking away. They are not interested in the fate of innocent living beings. Their news is immensely bloody! It is similar with clerics. Their conscience is bloody too. They do not fight for the helpless beings created by God. On the contrary, they support their misery and genocide over them.

Maybe it wouldn’t be bad for some politician or cleric to spend a day or a week in a battery cage. It would be even better if it was the whole government or some bishops’ conference or. a cardinal choir headed by a pope. It would also not be bad if there was a consumer in the cage. Maybe then I should stop buying eggs. What you don’t want them to do to you, don’t do to them.

Zucchini with quinoa


For 1 person:

1 tablespoon sunflower oil

1 small onion

1 courgette

1 teaspoon salt

1 teaspoon ground garlic

1 teaspoon ground cumin

1 teaspoon ground curry

a pinch or two of turmeric

a pinch or two of ground pepper

1 tablespoon ground parsley

0.5 cups of quinoa (= 100 g)

fresh parsley for decoration


Cook the quinoa according to the instructions on the packaging.

In a frying pan, fry the chopped onion in hot oil until glassy. Add the peeled and diced zucchini, all the spices and fry over medium-high heat until the zucchini is nicely softened, which takes somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes.

Once the quinoa is cooked, drain it and add the zucchini to the pan. Stir well and fry for another minute.

Sprinkle washed and chopped fresh parsley over the top.

Serve with a large bowl of salad.Vegan diabetes recepies

This food protects you from heart attack and stroke!

Chili has many healing properties, in addition, it is rich in vitamins and helps to lose weight. It has now been found that regular consumption of chili helps reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke.

The study was conducted in Italy, where chili is a common ingredient. The study included 23,000 people, some of whom ate chili and others did not. Participants’ health and eating habits were monitored for eight years and found that the risk of dying from a heart attack was 40 percent lower among those who ate chili (hot peppers from the Capsicum family) at least four times a week, according to results published in the American Journal. University College of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology.

According to the chief researcher and epidemiologist, chili helped regardless of the rest of the diet these people ate. “In other words, someone can follow a healthy Mediterranean diet, someone else eats less healthy, but in all of them chili peppers have a protective effect,” Marialaura Bonaccio of the Mediterranean Neurological Institute (Neuromed) in Pozzilli told CNN.

Previous research has shown that chili has a protective effect on the heart and blood vessels, which is responsible for capsaicin, a well-known medicinal substance that gives it a burning taste.

Moderate amounts

In hot countries, including Thailand, India and elsewhere, they eat a lot more because they are not hot. Our researchers found that moderate intake of 4.4 mg of capsaicin per day has beneficial health effects such as lowered glucose, LDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein.

In contrast, with higher amounts of capsaicin (16.7 mg per day), this effect was reversed. Biochemical marker values returned to baseline one week after cessation of chili sauce. “Therefore, researchers recommend regular consumption of moderate amounts of chili products, but can not rule out the possibility of developing tolerance to the product,” the study summarizes the portal.

Chili and prostate cancer

However, a study published in the journal Cancer Research found that capsaicin destroys the cancer cells of the most common male cancer without any side effects. They later discovered how capsaicin works on them. A study by the Indian Institute of Technology has shown that it binds to the membrane of cancer cells – the protective envelope that protects cancer cells – and literally tears it apart, causing cancer cells to die. The discoveries are promising due to the development of new healthy ones. The first study to prove that capsaicin destroys prostate cancer cells was performed on mice that were genetically engineered to have human prostate cancer. Capsaicin was able to destroy 80 percent of their cancer cells without side effects.

But if you were trying to find the right dose of capsaicin for a human, you would have to eat a huge amount of chili a day. That is why, based on their findings, experts want to develop new drugs that would be successful in treating prostate cancer.

Why not eat eggs???

The first reason is ethical, because theft, kidnapping and killing are not for the benefit of people as such, but are harmful to human health, both mentally and physically.

Once an egg is introduced into the body from the yolk, a large amount of harmful so-called “Bad” cholesterol, which reaches the walls of the arteries and is deposited with the help of LDL lipoprotein (low-density protein).

Eggs contain a lot of sulfur, which makes work unnecessarily difficult and causes great effort in the work of the human liver and kidneys. Eggs stink, it is useless to put them in the body at 37 C for eight hours. The smell of stool after consuming eggs best confirms this.

Egg whites, as part of the egg, are a completely unusable food, if cooked, it requires more energy for its complicated digestion than it can provide, while in the raw state it blocks the process of digestion.

If you do not eat the so-called. “Organic” eggs, but those from poultry farms, are introduced into the body, among other harmful substances, and arsenic, which is given to hens to destroy parasites and stimulate egg production.

Eggs are usually consumed because they contain “high-value essential proteins”, most often in a thermally processed state (cooked, baked, fried), but this is exactly how amino acids coagulate through heat and are lost.

Salmonella, which is often found in eggs, especially in stale eggs, increases the risk of disease and serious health problems, especially if eggs are eaten raw, which is the least harmful way to use them for people who choose to do so.

Eggs are a very concentrated protein of animal origin, and if, as is the usual custom, they are eaten with other concentrated proteins, meat and milk, then they are difficult to digest and increase the harmful effects on health. It is also wrong to combine eggs with simple (eg white or brown sugar) and complex carbohydrates (cereals, white flour, potatoes, chestnuts …), as well as with mushrooms and legumes. The least bad choice for health would be consuming-combining eggs with a large portion of fresh salad seasoned with apple cider vinegar and other detox spices (chili, ginger, basil, pepper, etc.), but this is less common.

The use of eggs in the diet, especially if it is excessive, is reflected in poorer health, shortened life expectancy, reduced mental activity, reduced endurance and strength, slower recovery after illness, because you can function better and live better without eating “little borrowed” eggs. as well as without any food of animal origin.

Can a consumer society become responsible for animals, their own health and the environment?

Slaughterhouses are death factories. We all know they exist. Those who buy their products support them to continue their work. Slaughterhouses are not to blame for killing animals, livestock farmers are not to blame, for them it is just a matter of survival. It is the fault of the consumers to whom this business is provided. How to make changes in consumer society, how to raise consumer awareness, make them critical and create a fairer society for people and animals?

The problem with violence in modern societies is that it is systemic. This means that violence is embedded in society and its functioning, such as violence against the environment, migrants, the economically weak and, of course, animals. Simply put: if you want to buy tomatoes, you’ll have a hard time getting them without plastic packaging; if you flee to a safer country as a victim of war and want to work honestly there, you will not get a work permit; and if you’re hungry, you won’t get a vegan sandwich at the gas station. Violence is systemic and thus normalized – it seems that “it cannot be otherwise than it is”, that “we will not be able to change anything” and even that it is so “right”.

Let’s look at this problem in a different way: we humans are mostly very kind to each other today. We greet each other nicely if we accidentally walk to the store, apologize politely, write kind mail, and even if someone gets on our nerves, we are patient. So the problem is not interpersonal relationships, but the system. A system that produces butchers, both butchers and professional soldiers, who are then burdened with “ugly work”, losing the responsibility of the individual consumer. A lot of people say, “It’s not just me doing this. Everyone does that. If it weren’t for me, it would be for others. ”In this way, we transfer the responsibility to professional life-takers, and we wash our hands, saying that they are to blame for everything and we are to blame for nothing. But in reality, people who pursue these professions are often victims themselves: victims of their demographic circumstances, as they usually do not even have the right career choice for economic or perhaps some other reason.

In fact, I myself am convinced that the prospects in terms of increasing systematization and automation of violence are poor. In my opinion, civilization will increasingly resort to devices that will do ugly work instead of man. This can already be seen today: large farms with tens of thousands of animals can be managed, so to speak, remotely, without humans, just as we can shoot people from drones on another continent. I see a great danger for humanity in the process, which will increasingly leave killing to robots and automated devices, and thus encourage it, as it will somehow sweep it under the rug. I am convinced that in ten or twenty years there will be no more people employed in slaughterhouses, except, of course, operators of fully automated conveyor belts, who will not have any physical contact with “livestock”. How to change that? As far as animals are concerned, the story is very simple: stop eating meat and use as few animal products as possible. As far as the military industry is concerned, unfortunately, I do not see such a simple solution on the horizon

The importance of values

We are part of a consumer company that approves of all of the above. Every society is made up of individuals and many disagree with the generally accepted practice of the Holocaust over animals. What values ​​does an individual need to develop in order to be touched by such events, to understand that it is about killing innocent animals, to finally realize that this is not right? How are these values ​​formed?

I think that the problem is not that we do not have or know these values, but that we put them in brackets, precisely because the above-mentioned systematization and automation of violence allows us to escape from direct cruelty we effectively distance ourselves and at the same time avoid responsibility. People say, “Ah, since this sausage is on the shelf anyway, why not eat it?” ). They also say what I mentioned above: “What can I do? If I don’t eat chicken, someone else will! ”Another way: there is no problem with slaughter and suffering not touching us – everyone, except for a really negligible percentage of the pathological population, is slaughter accompanied by blood, dying and the screaming of animals, a force disgusting, so he wants to avoid it. The problem is that smart monkeys have invented a way to force others who are less fortunate into ugly work to do it for us, while connecting a bandage over our heads that prevents us from seeing and hearing bad things. around us so we can dine on our steak in peace with musical accompaniment. It is a phenomenon I call “intentional ignorance.” My thesis is that the problem in ethics is not a lack of information and empathy, but the deliberate avoidance of information and the learned restraint of compassion or numbness.

Extending compassion to all animals

Those of us who have dogs and cats at home find it easier to imagine the suffering of farm animals. We know how to empathize with them and we know how they feel when cruel livestock practices happen to them, e.g. when mother cows are deprived of a newborn calf, when they have to die so young, they would like to live… What about those who have no contact with animals? How should you extend your compassion to all animals?

I see a problem here. Namely: if I have pets, I may be more susceptible to the direct suffering of other animals, but the problem is that I put a blindfold around my eyes again and give these pets these slaughtered animals as food… This is a great moral for me personally. a dilemma as I am a big dog lover. In short: I think those of us who have pets have the same problem as those who do not extend their compassion to animals. Sorry. We just have to be consistent in our thinking and admit everything, even what we don’t want to hear and know. The fact is, however, that the planned breeding of large dogs that eat large amounts of meat is just as problematic as human consumption of meat. I try to compensate for this at least a little by having chihuahuas… But the paradox that on the one hand we are lovers of domestic animals – especially dogs and cats – among those who do not extend compassion to all animals, remains and is not so easy to solve … Of course I understand that dogs and cats do not have the same dietary choices as humans do. They just need meat more. However, this fact does not justify the systematic breeding of such animals. Rescuing them from shelters may still be somehow compatible with the idea of animal ethics, as we help survive creatures that were born by chance and are just here with us in the world. However, producing such creatures that have to eat other animals for their own pleasure and prestige is almost even more controversial than if we simply ate the meat ourselves. The institution of the “pet” is so full of traps and very enigmatic moral dilemmas, including the objectification and commodification of animals, which in the eyes of the owner often becomes a toy, which in my opinion contributes little to the actual moral attitude towards all living beings. After all, we all know the scandals with dog dealers and the conditions in which these animals live – and die -. All because of our “love” for small, fluffy, cute lumps… In short, the path to compassion for all living things is sometimes more a matter of rational argumentation than partial feelings, which are unreliable because they are attracted to what is here and close, meanwhile when they forget the distant and the hidden, which are precisely the animals in industrial meat production.

Overcome selfishness and comfort

Many people are selfish and think only of their own comfort. Is it even possible to move you out of your comfort zone?

I don’t know if I can totally agree with that. I think the appearance of being selfish creates just a distance from violence, that we have deliberately distanced ourselves from anything that would cause discomfort. Namely, if we personally witness some bad things, such as an accident, the vast majority will help us spontaneously, even though we will be at a “loss” because of it. In short, egoism may be in the fact that we close our eyes. However, I doubt that we can say that when we are faced with concrete situations, we are also completely insensitive. These may be just certain soldiers and police officers who are pre-trained in such a way that they must not show compassion, even though there are more benefactors and soft-hearted people than brutalists in these types – I am sure. People are people and it is difficult to find someone with a stone instead of a heart. These are only rare pathological specimens. The problem, as has been said, is that we are systematically hiding violence. Look, after all, how the system has eliminated aging and dying people from our lives, who exhale quietly and silently in overcrowded nursing homes, so that their slowness and the end of life do not “spoil” the youthful atmosphere that our culture favors. . It’s not that we don’t like older people as persons; the point is that the system is set up in such a way that it easily excludes the elderly from the fast pace of today’s life.

Transcend traditions, customs and religious practices

Ingrained traditions, customs and harmful religious practices (eg on religious holidays, when – despite the commandment Do not kill! – most animals are killed) we have lived since childhood. What needs to happen for us to be able to critically reevaluate and transcend them?

I have a feeling that these practices have less to do with religion than with the simple customs that are intertwined with consumerism today. You yourself have pointed out the unbearable tension between principles and practice, between the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill!’ And religious customs. But as I said, this is, in my opinion, a matter of habit rather than religion. I know a lot of religious people who don’t eat meat or avoid it very much – they are usually really religious, deeply religious people. Perhaps customs are actually followed more by those who do not think much about religion and basic religious messages and understand their “faithfulness” more in terms of blindly following habits.

But you ask me how we can overcome this integration into the environment and customs… Perhaps the answer to this critical thinking or critical revaluation you mention. Of course, this immediately raises the question of what makes such thinking possible. In my experience, this is on the one hand courage, and on the other hand a social climate that at least allows deviation from the average if it is not already actively encouraging it. In a society where there is strong conformism, ie the pressure to adapt to others, it will be very difficult to develop critical thinking, as this will mean isolation for anyone who dares to do something a little differently. However, if we create such conditions to promote diversity, then it is easier. I am a lecturer myself and in the lecture hall the difference is immediately seen between a teacher who wants everyone to agree with him and one who accepts different opinions. Only in the latter can we hope for the emergence of critical thinking, because only there will people get the feeling that they will be accepted even if they think differently and that no one will judge them for it. It is important, in short, to try to allow ourselves to be different, even though it often goes to our noses and even though we are sacredly convinced that we are “more right”. Of course, this is much easier said than done: I find myself practically daily in my own confusion…

Animal education system and ethics

Given that children are extremely compassionate towards animals, we can talk about child abuse. Parents, school, and society make emotional robots out of them out of compassion. This could also be prevented in schools, but even these are only a reflection of society. However, when they are taken to livestock farms in schools, they only further strengthen the belief that the exploitation and killing of animals is normal. What do you think the school or. what can teachers do to preserve children’s compassion for other living beings and to raise awareness of animal rights?

Above all, we need to focus on teacher education. I teach myself at the Faculty of Education and it’s really amazing how stereotypically future teachers and educators sometimes think about animals. Often the activity for kindergarten children is to take them to the farm, where the farmer then explains “what” is an animal, and no one even notices that we are the ones who “made” animals for food and that it could be otherwise. Anthropocentrism, according to which everything in the world is for the benefit of man, is a very widespread view and sneaks into every pore of life. Already at the level of picture books and toys for the youngest children. Think, for example, of toys in the sense of “farm” – in addition to the barn, tractor and tools, there are also chickens, pigs and cows in the packaging, as if in this case it is the same as in the first one. We already teach children with toys what “farmed animals” are for. In this way, we socialize children into violence against animals. Gene Myers has successfully shown that younger children are more empathetic to pigs and cows than older ones, because we already teach older people what cows and pigs are “for” and that it is perfectly normal to slaughter billions of them. summer. These are exactly the systematization and distancing from violence that I talked about earlier.

Much like prejudice against animals, it is prejudice against people. In fact, specism (discrimination based on type) and racism are very similar. Sometimes geography is taught in such a way as to show, say, the difference between Slovenia and Africa, without even noticing that the former is a country of two million and the latter of a billion continent! How the hell can you even compare the two? This is much worse than comparing apples and pears – it is more like comparing apples with the whole fruit and vegetable department, and with household appliances on top, or comparing one color with a rainbow that contains all the others. Absurd… In fact, this is the same as finding the differences between “man” and “animal”, not noticing at all that we have one species on one side and 7.77 million species on the other, many of which are more human-like. than each other. Such teaching is possible only and exclusively because of prejudice, and it is unfortunate that these prejudices in educational institutions are sometimes reinforced rather than disintegrated. You see, that is why it is so important that we have quality teacher education and that we work with colleagues at pedagogical faculties to open the eyes of future teachers at least a little and make them aware of what they uncritically accept from the environment and then spread. in classrooms.

Political system

Radical changes in society could be made by the politicians or state bodies we elect (especially the National Assembly and the Government). We should take the right decisions to promote health, promote healthy plant nutrition for citizens at all levels and shift state subsidies from the livestock sector to organic plant farming. The fact is, however, that the political orientation of politicians and their subordination to lobbies (especially livestock) under the guise of profit are often more important than the common public good. Probably only determined politicians could resist this. What personal qualities should politicians have in order to do more for the common good? How should we recognize them before the elections?

I personally think that it is better for politics if it is not based on strong and charismatic personalities, but on sober, rational arguments and conscientious, diligent and responsible officials. I would rather have quiet and collected political speeches than performances, as we can see in our National Assembly, where we really witness below-average rhetoric – I can’t imagine what it would be like if, for example, I lectured at such a low level of speech. I think students would justifiably leave the lecture hall… Well, I want to say that politics should be guided by arguments, not charisma. For charisma is a double-edged sword: if you are lucky, a strong, hard, relentless charismatic politician will stand up for the right things, but what if you don’t have it? Then you will have to deal with all sorts of Trump, Putin, Erdogan and similarly suspicious personalities who are not committed to the right things. In fact, it will happen to you much sooner that a charismatic person will be charismatic in the wrong, populist way. Think about how many historical political figures were charismatic in the “right” way. Maybe Gandhi, Mandela and Luther King – I don’t remember the fourth, and the third was more of a preacher than a politician. However, it is as problematic as you want… You do not get to know a good politician after his performance, but after a political program that you read carefully and shake. The less bombastic promises there are and the more arguments you find there, the better. I think Merkel is a good politician precisely because she is not bombastic and because she is quiet, committed and sober. Now compare her to Salvini. Disaster… So: don’t trust quick feelings! Rely only on arguments!

In short, sobriety is needed in politics, but also more foresight than it is today, but by no means appearances and promises. The problem of profit and capital flow that you mention is related to foresight. If we were far-sighted, of course, we would not hesitate to switch to a plant-based diet, and livestock farming would be just a sample. Now, however, we are forging earnings at the expense of future generations by throwing manure on the shoulders of another. In general, it seems to me that this is the main injustice of forging today’s profits: the cost of production in terms of the absorption of by-products is simply externalized and placed on the shoulders of others. It would be right for those who pollute the environment the most to pay for it… I myself mentioned in my book that the problem with implementing animal ethics is that its ideas are detrimental to the millions of financial flows that will need to be redirected. Of course, this is not impossible – money turns quickly – but it will take some time and effort. Again, a significant part of the responsibility for this lies with the consumer. Someone once said that in democratic societies, we don’t just have elections once every four years, but every time we go to the store. We actually vote with what we buy.

The media

We know that the media have an enormous influence on shaping public opinion, and they depend on the capital that finances them. Therefore, in the meantime, the state should intervene and ban harmful advertisements that mislead and direct people away from health, environmental protection and animal welfare. Any advertisement for animal products should be warned that this is harmful to health, similar to tobacco products. Do you think that such a measure of the state would guide people on the right path?

No. I think that such state interference in the lives of individuals is a very bad idea, as it smells of totalitarianism and ideological control of citizens. Personally, I am against the persecution of smokers and I do not see why I would then advocate an institutionalized persecution against those who eat meat. All these arguments of “health” are very suspicious to me personally and smell of moralizing, of puritanism, of ideological purity. After that, the “unhealthy” need to be cut off. Already Foucault has shown how dangerous state interference in people’s bodies can be in order to ensure “health”. This was done, among other things, by the Nazis, who wanted to have a “healthy” population.

The main feature of the notion of the state after the new century is that its task is not to help people achieve good, but to protect citizens from evil. Although the two seem very similar, they are in fact a big difference. The first understanding of the state presupposes that we know what is good for people and that we also prescribe it to them by law. Another way: it assumes that we impose our view of happiness on others, e.g. in the form of a “healthy lifestyle” or “utility”. This, as history has taught us, is very bad: just look at the religious wars in seventeenth-century Europe, where each side was convinced that it knew what was good for the other. A related problem today, in my opinion, is that part of the Islamic world that is fundamentalist and conservative, where in endless civil wars each side claims to know what true doctrine is and is consequently imposed by others who misunderstand the Prophet. . Of course, it is true that there are often strategic and financial interests behind these wars, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are justified by a “true interpretation” of religion. It seems to me that this is a general problem of monotheism, which, due to its insistence on the “true and only God”, is easily radicalized. Much better than imposing our view on healthy living, we simply leave the pursuit of happiness to the individual to decide for himself whether he wants to live healthy, faithful and useful or not, and we make sure that no one interferes in his choice of happiness. So I think it’s much better to simply write in the constitution that ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE PROPERTY – in this way we don’t rape people with our ideas about what is “good”, “healthy” and “useful” to them, but only we protect animals from violence or encroachment on their well-being

Deficient ethics

The anthropocentric attitude towards farm animals shows the extremely moral shallowness of society and citizens, as they do not understand that animals are sentient living beings who want to live just like us. What we cause them as a society is completely unnecessary, because it does not only harm animals, but also the environment or. the planet as a whole, and through unhealthy diets to yourself and your health. How could society change to prevent this from happening? Who are the actors who would contribute to this?

As I said, I don’t think it’s about not wanting to understand that, it’s about avoiding that understanding. Everyone knows that a cow and a pig feel pain. You will not find a person in his right mind to doubt this. At best, people think that the slaughter process is painless, although in my opinion they do not believe in it at all: they know that they are fleeing from the truth.

Who can change society? I think you can do it yourself, because we are the company after all. People who enjoy a social reputation, of course, have a special power, as they can be role models, and from Bandura onwards, we have also been proven to know that people learn by example. But our celebrities are not necessarily the only celebrities. In fact, we are all a constant role model to each other. If, for example, someone in a family of four decides not to eat meat strictly, it will affect the whole family sooner or later, and it is very likely that the other three members will eat at least some less meat and save some lives. Cumulatively, the effect will be as if there were two vegetarians or vegans in the family. This may not seem like much, but grain by grain cake, stone by stone palace… I want to say that individuals, however, have a greater impact than we are aware of. Of course, it is true that we have to be very persistent and principled, which is certainly difficult, especially at the beginning of the path we have chosen, because at that time we are often lonely, often even isolated. It should be noted that many people who opt for a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, after a certain more or less long period, fall back into the carnivore regime. Why? Because their reasons were too weak, or because society with systemic violence is geared so that these reasons fade over time: if animal suffering is hidden and bad information is actively avoided, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember the original reasons why we gave up the meat diet.


If we were kind to all animals, we would have a good feeling, a clear conscience and a good opinion of ourselves as a person and of the society in which we live. We would know we are doing good for ourselves, for the animals and the planet. What else would you add to this thought?

In fact, it is difficult to add anything to this thought, except that in such a world we would also feel safer and more accepted. Among the more interesting facts, it seems to me that, for example, those who are among the most demographically endangered are almost the most anti-migrant – less educated, poorer, more vulnerable. The paradox is that it is precisely these people who would benefit most from the systematic defense of human rights, as they would have a solid foundation on which to base themselves when demanding more rights for themselves. That the violation of the rights of migrants is related to the violation of the rights of their own citizens can be clearly seen in Hungary, where the criminalization of refugees was followed by an attempt to criminalize the poorest and most vulnerable people – the homeless. In other words, human rights violations will always affect the most vulnerable first, so it would be most logical for them to come together and loudly defend strict adherence to international law on the fundamental rights of all. The same can be said by this logic for animal rights: in fact, defending animal rights also means defending human rights. Animal ethics is therefore not only “friendly” to animals, but to all beings. That being said, everyone would feel safer in such a world. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the arguments of those who argue that animal rights are defended at the expense of human rights and that people should be taken care of first, then animals. These people do not realize that the cause of the suffering of both humans and animals is very similar, and that eliminating it would actually eliminate the suffering of all.

Will Russian smartphones soon be left without Android?

Google recently stopped certifying smartphones from Russian company BQ and other leading Russian manufacturers. This actually means that Russian smartphones have been left without Google’s mobile services. As smartphones have become virtually useless, Russian smartphone makers are increasingly turning to Huawei’s Harmony OS.

Russian manufacturers of Android smartphones are currently testing Huawei’s interesting Harmony OS mobile operating system on their devices. If all goes well, it means that this popular Android could be replaced in the second half of this year. The Russian smartphone maker BQ is expected to decide on it first, followed by other companies soon after.

Huawei’s Harmony OS mobile operating system is very popular among mobile users. This is currently available for more than 100 mobile devices. The novelty is available for both Huawei smartphones and tablets as well as Honor.

Soon, however, Huawei’s Harmony OS mobile operating system could also be housed on Russian smartphones. In addition, it could also run on other devices where Android currently reigns supreme. This includes smart TVs, cars, household appliances, air conditioners and much more.

Tricks for smart smartphone use.!.!.!

We humans are social beings, driven by a desire to connect with fellow human beings. It may seem strange at first glance, but smartphones combined with the World Wide Web have brought just as many social contacts into our lives. Although the comparison of this type of communication with the one that takes place live is often the subject of various debates, the fact remains unchanged – communication via the Internet is still communication. So it’s no surprise that we’ve become virtually inseparable with our smartphones.

Remember the last time you spent a day completely without a phone? You probably don’t even remember, but if you do, you’re among the few exceptions. We spend an average of 4.8 hours a day using a smartphone. Although this is a lot, it is perhaps easier to understand if we consider that the mobile phone is also used a lot of time on weekdays, as it has become an indispensable accessory with many work obligations.

Most of the time we spend on a mobile phone is spent on social media, but a smartphone can also be turned into a personal gadget that will help us achieve greater productivity, guide us on the path to greater relaxation and even enable us many charitable acts. Check out helpful tips for smart smartphone use.

The goal must be balance

Start at the beginning. All operating systems today allow you to monitor mobile phone usage. Check how much time you use it per day and for which applications. Reflection will allow you to ask yourself what changes would be welcome when using your smartphone. Of course, this does not mean that you have to immediately give up the biggest consumer of time, ie the use of social networks, but you can change the settings or download new applications that will help you get more organized and use your smartphone more efficiently.

The constant beeping of notifications greatly affects our ability to concentrate. Their frequent review disrupts the thought process and thus the workflow, which means that even for relatively short commitments we spend more time than would be necessary. So reduce the number of apps that have permissions to send you notifications. Make sure that only those apps you really need have such permissions.

Hang digital sign “do not disturb”

Not only in the evening when you go to sleep, but also during the day when you have the most work ahead of you, turn on the feature does not bother. You can find it in the settings, and it is enabled by all smartphones. It will make sure that your phone receives all notifications and calls without interruption, but will not constantly alert you to them. Once you take a break from work, however, you will be able to safely check all the notifications that have come in the meantime. This will make you work more focused and in less time.

Deepen your knowledge with podcasts and audiobooks

Sitting in the waiting room at the doctor’s or driving a bus can no longer be imagined without the use of a smartphone, which offers us a mental escape into an otherwise virtual, but more varied and thus interesting event behind the screen. Make the most of this unproductive queue time, not just for checking different notifications and constantly skipping between different applications. Rather, listen to your favorite podcast, audiobook, or longer article to deepen your knowledge of your favorite topic.

Be charitable using a smartphone

With the technical support of smartphones, today we can work for charity through the use of various applications, even just by using smartphones. For example, some smartphone manufacturers allow us to support the operation of individual charity projects while charging, using their app. Similarly, there are other applications through which we donate images of landscapes that we take ourselves to charity. There are even more apps to be found, each working in its own way, linked by a desire for a better world for all.

Also watch out for virus intrusions when using your cell phone

Our mobile device is, so to speak, a small computer, so it is also exposed to similar risks. Among the most common are viruses, which are usually transmitted without the knowledge and will of the user, but when they multiply, there are unfortunate consequences, such as data deletion. The main signs that our mobile phone is infected are improper operation of applications, (too) fast battery discharge, increased data transfer, uncontrolled sending of SMS messages and calls. To avoid viruses, pay attention to the websites you visit and the links you follow, even if you received them from known senders.

Don’t run out of battery when you need it most

Nowadays, mobile phone batteries are much more powerful, but they still remain the most sensitive part of our devices, so handle them as much as possible to serve you for as long as possible. Remember that it used to be that the phone only needed to be charged when the battery was completely discharged? Forget it. The opposite is true today. Most of our devices are equipped with lithium-ion batteries, and it is considered that it is best to charge them a little and often. If you first fully discharge the phone and then fully charge it, you will greatly shorten the battery life.

10 healing areas for CBD oil and its effects

In recent years, researchers have proven the undoubted positive effect of the oil on various diseases. According to a 2013 study by the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, CBD oil heals and works: Anti-inflammatory (anti-inflammatory), as an anticonvulsant (prevents seizures, eg epilepsy), antioxidant, antiemetic (prevents nausea), anxiolytic (beneficial effect on anxiety) and is an antipsychotic […]

10 healing areas for CBD oil and its effects