Hi Greg!
Your posts in defense of the meat industry address primarily the
humanity or inhumanity of raising animals for food and the treatment
of such animals. While I share the concern of the original poster,
that the meat industry is often cruel, that is not my main reason for
giving up meat. I am more concerned about the environmental impact of
the meat industry, which I consider to excessive. I believe it is
impossible for our currently population to simultaneously live lightly
upon the earth, and consume meat. It seems to me that if we are to
survive as a species most of us will have to give up this practice.
I think the eco-feminist connection in this case is the core point of
ecofeminism, that our attitudes towards the environment and nature are
basically the same as men's attitudes toward women. It is an attitude
of domination and separation. Humanity is considered above the rest
of nature, and as if it were separate from nature. We begin to see
these domesticated animals as the raw materials for our food, as
something inanimate, something less feeling than ourselves, something
less worthy of life or freedom. This feeling then extends to animals
and the rest of nature. We end up with everything being a Natural
Resource, defined only by its immediate and largely financial benefit
to humanity. In terms of value heirarchical thinking, it is humanity
over nature.
I think I am most swayed by the arguments of those who rightly point
out that humans are by nature an omnivorous animal, capable and
willing to eat just about anything to survive. While I don't believe
we evolved as hunters as much as we did gatherers, our ability to hunt
to supplement gathering is certainly to the benefit of our survival,
and allows us to live in inhospitable places where there is little to
gather. So eating meat is a natural thing for us. Okay, I can buy
that. But maybe it is time we evolved a bit more. If eating meat is
something we can do, it is also something we can choose not to do.
Looking at the impact our meat eating habits have on nature we are
faced with what is more important, our meat eating habit, or the whole
of nature itself. Ah, now hear is where the ecofeminist connection
comes in. If nature is seen as dismembered pieces that exist for our
consumption, then we wonder, how much damage are we talking about? Is
this damage that science can repair? How about in the future? How
immediate is our danger? If nature is seen as a whole, including us,
then we wonder about the damage done to our system, and how we can
heal it.
If you had some open wound on your body, that was relatively painless,
but is beginning to fester and might at some point cause you the loss
of a limb... would you keep picking the scab off? I mean, you can
feel any pain, and your natural inclination is to pick at the wound.
Or would you do what you can to fix it? If we are a part of the
whole, then the damage we are causing, is damage we are causing
ourselves. To what end? Is this really for our benefit?
The eco-feminist viewpoint is a wholistic viewpoint. It is a
viewpoint that heals our dismembered world, puts it back together. It
is a viewpoint that can heal our separation from nature. It
completely changes how we look at the world. Domination is a part of
separation, the separation that cuts things in two and assigns one
part greater value than the other.
I think the facts are clear, that raising animals for food is more
environmentally taxing than raising food for a vegetarian/vegan diet.
I think it is clear that this has taken a toll on our environment, and
negatively impacted our ecosystem. I think it is clear that the
damage is getting worse. It is silly to argue otherwise. That
raising animals for food could be less environmentally damaging than
it currently is, is a moot point. The damage is still being done.
Greg, it isn't just the homology between animal exploitation and
sexism. It is a similarity in attitudes toward nature, and attitudes
toward women. It is a part of the same value hierarchical thinking.
I don't see this as an insult to feminism. It is rather, an insight
into how we have come to see our world, and what affects those
attitudes have on our society and environment.
Men exploit women because they are other; because they can; because
they think they are better; because it is economically beneficial to
them; because they believe it to be natural; because they see the
world as separated between the dominator and the dominated, and they
do not want to be the dominated; because it was what society says they
should do; because sex sells; because of even more things that I could
continue to list. What all of these things have in common is value
hierarchical thinking.
Well, that is enough rambling for today.
Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 16 14:47:23 1996
From: "Eric Hepburn, ITC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: women adventurers
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:48:37 -0400
>R Furbank wrote:
>> Hello there! I am currently looking at whether there is gender differences
>> in the meaning/value and perception of wilderness experience(
>> mountaineering, trekking, sailing etc) and otherwise adventuring and
>> exploring 'raw' nature. There seems to be a lot of literature on man's
>> wilderness expeditions, relating often to conquest, dominance and
>>>victory over nature. Do women adventurers take on masculine values
>>like >these or retain more feminine values? Are their experiences more
>>>spiritual and identification with nature as opposed to utilising and
>>>overcoming the natural elements and do the have different motivations
>>for >their adventuring?
My partner and I were recently discussing this issue in relation to an
article she was reading which discussed, in part, men using hunting as a
way to identify with nature. Intrinsic to this identification was the
"kill." We began discussing whether or not there were gender
differences in attitudes about doing other outdoor activities, such as
hiking or climbing or camping. I feel that in a wholesale average way
there probably are differences such as the ones you mentioned, conquest
v. identification. However, I think that it is more of an individual
issue. If one wants to climb a mountain then that person must analyze
his/her own feelings about the expidition. Would they consider a
successful climb as a victory over the mountain and/or nature; or would
it be a personal triumph over their own fears; or perhaps it would just
be feeling awe inspired and satisfied with their proximity to natural
forces. Although these possible attitudes, and innumberable others, may
be influenced by gender I do not think that gender is a key to
understanding the attitudinal differences.
Relating to an earlier post I made, I think that climbing a mountain can
be a way to individually develop a closer relationship "with" nature.
In order to climb one must "feel" the rocks and begin to understand
their strengths and weaknesses and patterns, the conscious effort to
move with the rock, and not against it, is one possibility in coming to
a better understanding with nature.
Have a nice day,
Eric
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 16 17:24:54 1996
; 17 Sep 96 10:55:54 +1200
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:54:48 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: global warming/fwd
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
Dear ECOFEMers,
While this is not explicitly about ecofeminism, I thought it might
raise some discussion re: links between "global warming" and women's
roles, activities, responsibilities, etcetera. Any comments from
people in the southern hemisphere since the study neglected this part
of the planet?
I know of recent discussions in NZ about "global warming" and the
potential consequences for agriculture, landscapes, and overall
population concentrations. These all have potential impacts on women
and deserve analysis from a feminist environmentalist perspective.
Anyone out there doing such work?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
X-URL: http://www.yale.edu/opa/96-07-17-01.all.html
YALE News Release
7/17/96
Return to: All News
_________________________________________________________________
CONTACT: Cynthia L. Atwood #6
For Immediate Release: July 17, 1996
Yale Analysis of Seasonal Temperature Trends for Past Century Differs from
Computer Models of Greenhouse Warming: Trend Toward Earlier Onset of Seasons
Surprises Scientists
New Haven, CT -- In one of the most intensive analyses ever made of
seasonal temperature trends in the northern hemisphere drawing upon
more than a century of data, Yale University scientists found striking
differences between the average onset of seasons and those predicted
by two of the most sophisticated computer models on which many
scientists have based their forecasts of global warming.
"According to the computer models, if global warming were occurring
because of rising carbon dioxide levels from pollution and
deforestation, the seasons would arrive gradually later each year,"
said co-author Jeffrey J. Park, associate professor of geology and
geophysics at Yale. "Instead, we found the opposite trend -- that the
seasons on average have been arriving gradually earlier each year
since shortly after the turn of the century. Furthermore, we found
regional patterns that the models don't explain."
The study focused on regional seasonal shifts in temperature and not
just on the average worldwide temperature, which is known to have
risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century, Professor Park
explained.
The findings could mean that two leading computer simulations of
global warming -- that of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab --GFDL--
in Princeton, N. J., and the Community Climate Model --CCM1-- from the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. --
have significant shortcomings, said Professor Park, whose research
with Yale graduate student Michael E. Mann was published in the May 15
issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
"If you find a trend opposite to that predicted by the models, you
worry that the models are failing to capture the complicated physics
of climate," said Professor Park, who explained that both computer
simulations attempt to predict changes in atmospheric circulation and
temperature patterns caused by rising CO2 levels. "Our comparison
underscores the difficulty of attributing the observed global warming
trend to either the greenhouse effect or normal climate variability,
or to a combination of the two."
While no tell-tale signs of global warming were found in the Yale
study, the unexpected shifts in the onset of seasons could be related
to the burning of fossil fuels, he cautioned, because they began early
in the 20th century and correlate to the rise of industrialization and
the use of automobiles. But just exactly what impact those season
shifts might have on climate or their relationship to global warming
are unknown.
Another possible explanation for the discrepancies between the
computer models' predictions and actual seasonal temperature trends
could be that the models respond largely to changes at higher
latitudes where ice sheets are melting -- a region where historic
temperature records are sparse. "If we had more data from the Arctic
at the turn of the century, we might see a better match with computer
predictions," Professor Park noted.
The Yale study drew upon temperature records from thousands of
monitoring sites dating from 1854 to 1990 and compiled by the
University of East Anglia in England. Professor Park calculated the
onset of summer and winter by noting subtle changes in average monthly
temperatures using "complex demodulation," a specialized data analysis
technique. The study focused on the northern hemisphere because
long-term records are not widely available from the southern
hemisphere.
Differences Found Between West and East Coasts While the Yale study
found that, on average, the seasons are changing about one day earlier
than expected since the turn of the century, some areas are
experiencing significant delays in season shifts, especially western
coastal regions of continents in the northern hemisphere. Professor
Park attributes these regional variations at least in part to
prevailing winds moving from adjacent oceans to coastal land.
Central and eastern regions, however, are shifting from one season to
the next gradually earlier each year since early in the 20th century,
pushing the average for the entire northern hemisphere to an earlier
arrival of seasons, Professor Park said. He speculates the earlier
shift could be caused by changes in regional weather patterns, winter
snow cover, water vapor in the atmosphere and changes in the
reflectivity of clouds and vegetation in the continental interiors.
The Yale study is the first to note that the trends in seasonal shifts
are moving in opposite directions on the east and west coasts of
continents, which could produce unexpected climate dynamics, Professor
Park said.The Yale scientists also found smaller than expected
extremes between winter and summer temperatures in scattered regions
throughout the northern hemisphere, regardless of whether the seasons
were delayed or earlier than expected in those locations -- an effect
predicted by global warming models.
"It could be that a model that doesn't capture large regional climate
patterns or adequately take into account land-surface conditions in
the interior of continents can't predict the future," said Mr. Mann,
who has collaborated with Professor Park to study short-term weather
fluctuations that occur every decade or so. "When you superimpose
these climate fluctuations on long-term cycles, such as century-scale
oscillations in ocean circulation patterns, it becomes more difficult
to untangle greenhouse effects from natural climate changes, given our
current knowledge."
A Smoking Gun for Human-Caused Climate Change In their analysis, the
Yale scientists also confirmed an unexpected acceleration in the delay
of season shifts in some locations first reported last year by David
J. Thomson of AT&T Bell Labs, which appears to be linked to the
burning of fossil fuels beginning early in the 20th century.
For example, the seasons start two days later on average in southern
Germany than a century ago, five days later in western Greenland and
about one day later in northern California, although Dr. Thomson found
localized sites with even greater delays -- an eight-day delay in
Paris and nearly three weeks in San Francisco. While the delays do not
prove global warming is occurring, they indicate rapid unexpected
changes in climate that could be related to human activity, Professor
Park said.
Going a step farther, the Yale scientists confirmed that the earlier
onset of seasons in central and eastern regions of continents -- for
example, a two day advance in southern New England -- began about
1920, further supporting the notion of a link to the burning of fossil
fuels but contradicting predictions of delays.
"The bottom line here is we were looking for a 'fingerprint' of global
warming as predicted by two respected computer models, but we didn't
find it," Mr. Mann said. "What we did find could provide clues about
how scientists can revise their models to make them more accurate in
predicting climate change in the next century."
Questions, comments, suggestions? Send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************
Stefanie S. Rixecker
Department of Resource Management
Lincoln University, Canterbury
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************
