> Because we in the U.S. like our beef well-marbled, most of our bee f
> is "finished" in feedlots where they are fed grains and other
> supplements. But by and large, most ruminants eat grass. And its a
> good thing they do because most grass grows on soils which will not
> support grain and food crops that people eat. Enormous areas of
> land in the western U.S. are suitable only for grazing livestock
> (including wild animals).
Agreed, there is such land. I used to live right next to some in
Kansas, called the Flint Hills, some of the most nutritional beef in
the states comes from there. But I challenge the assumption that just
because we cannot farm it, we should graze it. We have plenty of food
without the need to graze such land. And grazing in great quantities
often causes soil erosion, and could even lead to a dust bowl effect
again. Maybe those enormous areas of land should be given back to the
bison, and we can let our cattle breeds die out.
> Yes, I have killed my own meat, butchered my own chickens, and no, I
> do not like to do so. Hence, I limit my meat intake for several
> reasons. But we are omnivores. As a menstruating woman who is
> chronically anemic, I can't not eat meat at all.
I have to challenge this assumption as well, there are vegetarian
sources for ALL of you dietary needs. Even if you did not want to eat
the iron rich seaweeds and vegetables that would provide you with what
you need, you could take iron supplements. Even the chronically
anemic can survive on a healthy vegetarian diet. If you choose not
to, it is your choice, but it is not a choice that is forced upon you
by your health.
If all livestock production was limited to some portion of range or
pasture and were not finished off in feed lots, then eating meat would
not be as environmentally destructive. But that isn't the case in the
US. Until it is the case, I choose not to support an industry that is
destructive to the environment. Others may choose to only support
those people who raise livestock in a non-destructive manner. I can't
sort it out myself, so I don't support any of them.
On the other topic of discussion. Yeah, I think that was pretty
strange that your students were not interested in learning about
ecosystems. Sounds like you have a great class going there.
--Stephen
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 3 14:03:11 1996
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Laura Franklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Carolyn Feser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 'Wild' and 'beautiful'?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Carolyn Feser wrote:
> i just got a notice off the environmental news network that states
> "According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the environmental
> benefits of replacing half the residential walk-behind gasoline mowers
> in the contry with electric mowers is the air quality equivalent of
> ellimination the hydrocarbon exhaust of more than two million cars. For
> more information, contact Lori Telson, EPRI, (415)855-2272."
> That includes the emissions from the power plant. Think how much we
> could change with manual mowers !
> peace,
> CArolyn resOn Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Stephen R. Figgins
> >
Hey, what about hydro-electric plants that dam the rivers (I am thinking
specifically of the mighty Columbia)? Even when they don't pollute the
air, they end up slowing the rivers to a crawl and stifling the Salmon
and other important wildlife (it is all important). So I am all for push
mowers too, or nothing at all if it isn't on the damn lease.
- laura
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 3 14:15:47 1996
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:15:28 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Meat-eating = anti-ecofeminism
>Guess we have to have this discussion every 6 months?! Here we go again...
>Meat-eating and its consequently devastating, degrading, and genocidal
>effects on the environment and animals are atrocious and frankly speaking,
>anti-ecofeminist.
I'm with Jackie on this one. The "anti-ecofeminist" stuff above seems
rather doctrinaire to me. Meat is fine I think as long as it doesn't
extinct the animals, and this will hardly be the case with cattle, hogs,
chickens and carp.
>Essentialism unlimited! Since when do *ecofeminists* believe in "survival
>of the fittest," a.k.a. social darwinism?!?
I don't know about social darwinism, but the natural kind sure works in
nature. Lots of species disappear of natural causes, that is, they get
eaten at a faster rate than they reporduce. Eaten by other animals I mean.
Some speciaes just got over specialized or too narrow in range and a minor
change in the enviroment wipes them out.
>consideration (don't forget this me-me-me-attitude has brought about
>things like the subordination of women, slavery, colonialism, imperialism,
>genocide, etc.).
Sounds a lot like Marx's stuff. He's a DWEM isnt he? I think what brought
about the isms above was a failure to recognize and or respect individual
rights.
TTYL
Betty
