On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Brian A. Luke wrote:
>
> > Yes, this clarifies a realization I was coming to. As I said from
> > the beginning of the discussion of the vegie issue, the fundamental
> > point there is whether farmed animals are oppressed. That's the issue
> > that divides us, but instead of focussing on that, our discussion
> > continually returns to how we feel about someone standing up for
> > animals (meat-eaters feeling not welcome at vegetarian conferences,
> > meat-eaters feeling like the vegies are "holier-than-thou," etc.)
>
> define the "issue" so definitively in this case. It seems to me that
> what is going on here is that people are operating within constructed
> worldviews which differ in some significant respect, even as they overlap
> in others.
>
> Specifically, presumably everyone on this list is here
> because they see some kind of connection between the social oppression of
> women and our domination and destruction of the planet. Beyond that, we
> may not agree on how these concerns are connected to other issues --
> e.g., the oppression of "other" groups besides women (even who can be
> considered oppressed) or the oppression of farm animals. So, for you to say
Can we not agree that animals _are_ a part of the environment/planet that
is being destroyed? At the very least, can we all acknowledge the
connection between the mass production of meat in this and other
countries and environmental devisation (its contribution to the ozone
problem, deforestation for grazing land, etc)? You don't have to be
ethically opposed to eating animals to recognize the connection, or at
least I didn't think so.
Lori T.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 26 05:08:07 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 26 05:08:07 1994
Received: from mason1.gmu.edu (mason1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id FAA02710 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct
1994 05:08:04 -0600
Received: by mason1.gmu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3/GMUv3)
id AA20996; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 07:10:35 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 07:10:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: animals and the environment
To: Goddess of Disco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, Goddess of Disco wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Brian A. Luke wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, this clarifies a realization I was coming to. As I said from
> > > the beginning of the discussion of the vegie issue, the fundamental
> > > point there is whether farmed animals are oppressed. That's the issue
> > > that divides us, but instead of focussing on that, our discussion
> > > continually returns to how we feel about someone standing up for
> > > animals (meat-eaters feeling not welcome at vegetarian conferences,
> > > meat-eaters feeling like the vegies are "holier-than-thou," etc.)
> >
> > define the "issue" so definitively in this case. It seems to me that
> > what is going on here is that people are operating within constructed
> > worldviews which differ in some significant respect, even as they overlap
> > in others.
> >
> > Specifically, presumably everyone on this list is here
> > because they see some kind of connection between the social oppression of
> > women and our domination and destruction of the planet. Beyond that, we
> > may not agree on how these concerns are connected to other issues --
> > e.g., the oppression of "other" groups besides women (even who can be
> > considered oppressed) or the oppression of farm animals. So, for you to say
>
> Can we not agree that animals _are_ a part of the environment/planet that
> is being destroyed? At the very least, can we all acknowledge the
> connection between the mass production of meat in this and other
> countries and environmental devisation (its contribution to the ozone
> problem, deforestation for grazing land, etc)? You don't have to be
> ethically opposed to eating animals to recognize the connection, or at
> least I didn't think so.
>
*I* can sign on to that as a definition of the part of the problem. I
would even add that from my perspective in conflict resolution another
effect of the mass production of meat is the displacement of people
(usually indigenous, always "poor" subsistence farmers) from their
lands. This leads to social upheaval, war and violence which not only
destroys people, but is one of the most underrated causes of
environmental destruction in the world.
However, I would also point out
that it is *not only meat production* which is part of this process.
When farmers in less developed countries (large, wealthy, corporate
farmers) decide that they can make more money producing *exotic fruits
and vegetable products* for consumption in the U.S. and other wealthy
countries, they also displace the rightful occupants of the land and
create the same cycle of violence and environmental destruction.
So, when I see people who are either completely vegetarian or who limit
their consumption of meat products to once a week or so, BUT who also
purchase strawberries in January, or asparagus in February even though
those are grown in Mexico and the production of those products has helped
create a cycle of displacing people which is partially responsible for:
1) the uprising in Chiapas, and 2) the movement of displaced people into
fragile rainforest environments in the south of Mexico -- I am not
convinced that simply being a vegetarian is adequate. (Whew -- hell of a
run on sentence there -- sorry).
Perhaps the issue needs to be expanded
from simply a matter of eat meat/don't eat meat to looking at *how* and
*where* and *by whom* what we eat was produced. It may turn out that we
should be tailoring our diets to our bioregional environment the way
people did when transportation costs were higher. Thus, someone who
lives in a region of natural grasslands where careful grazing practices
(natural and organic) are a non-destructive possibility may have a higher
content of meat in their diet than someone who lives in a different
environment. On the other hand, they may have less of a variety of
exotic fruits and vegetables. (I realize that this is not an acceptable
answer to those for whom vegetarianism is a deeply held personal belief
related to the ethical treatment of animals.)
But, I think that spending time defining the issues like this (before we
begin thinking about possible solutions and necessary changes in
behavior) is crucial
if we want to really discuss *how* we change the patterns of oppression
and environmental destruction which have gotten us into the mess we are
in today.
Jayne
