damn! didn't mean to start up the whole veg debate *yet again* with the cookie story! it was supposed to be a quick break from the normal routine. so much for that! :) Natalie >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 1 10:13:54 MST 1994 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:17 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: animal suffering on ecological scale There has been considerable discussion on the list recently about animal suffering as it relates to human diet choices. While not suggesting that this discussion lacks merit (the issues ARE important), I would be interested to read more from listers about the impacts of humans on animals (plants, too) that we DON'T eat -- but which we affect on a more massive scale. I'm referring specifically to the suffering that surely occurs within all populations when we destroy habitat, introduce deadly diseases, predators, and competitors, and generally drive species to extinction. This is occurring on a global scale, and is affecting tens or hundreds of thousands of species. It seems to me valid to suggest that ecofeminists (if the "eco" part has SOMETHING to do with ecology) should devote comparable attention to these issues, and the solutions to the conservation problems they entail. Cows and chickens are going to be around for a while regardless of whether we all turn to a vegan diet; millions of other species are going to be GONE **VERY SOON AND FOREVER** if we do not find ways to reverse the trends. Apart from the moral and practical problems raised by anthropogenic extinctions, there is also the very real FACT that organisms suffer at our hands in ALL ecosystems that we affect -- NOT just the few species that we happen to have domesticated. I would truly like to know whether ecofeminism has anything to offer toward solving these problems, beyond what is already being done by conservation biologists such as myself. R. L. Curry, Villanova University >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 1 18:54:56 MST 1994 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 20:59:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Jodi E White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ecofeminism's solutions to large scale extinction To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, 1 Dec 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > I would be interested to read more from listers about the impacts of > humans on animals (plants, too) that we DON'T eat -- but which we > affect on a more massive scale. I'm referring specifically to the > suffering that surely occurs within all populations when we destroy > habitat, introduce deadly diseases, predators, and competitors, > and generally drive species to extinction. This is occurring on a global > scale, and is affecting tens or hundreds of thousands of species. > It seems to me valid to suggest that ecofeminists (if the "eco" part > has SOMETHING to do with ecology) should devote comparable attention to > these issues, and the solutions to the conservation problems they > entail. > > I would truly like to know whether ecofeminism has anything to > offer toward solving these problems, beyond what is already being done > by conservation biologists such as myself. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ not eating meat IS something ecofeminist ideas can offer towards solving these problems. although a lot of the discussion surrounding vegetarian and vegan diets has focused on the cruelty aspect of omnivory, meat eating also has INCREDIBLE environmental effects. much of habitat loss is directly linked to livestock farming - ecosystems everywhere are being destroyed so that people in the western world can eat their "all beef paties". deforestation in developing countries to produce grazing land does not often benefit the people living in those countries either, as meat is often too expensive for them to consume. instead, it is imported by north americans. in short, it is OUR habits that are killing species at a global level. livestock agriculture also uses huge amounts of water, which further compromises the futures of so many ecosystems, and thus the continued existence of many species. there are many other environmental consequences of meat eating that DIRECTLY affect the survival of other species, but i will stop at these. the choice NOT to eat meat, for me, is a very sound and important decision that benefits the WHOLE earth, and not just those animals i'm not eating. perhaps vegetarian and vegan "alternatives" are fast becoming necessity. also, for me, ecofeminism is an idealogy which supports resistance to over-consumption, and other aspects of north american culture such as its obsession with disposability and private vehicles (except for bicycles and feet). it's fairly obvious to me how pollution and waste dumps negatively impact species which are trying to survive alongside humans. changes we can make in our own lives, such as buying bulk, not taking a bag at the grocery store, or not using disposable menstrual products (well okay, only half of us can make that decision) can not only help reduce waste production but help reduce production itself, which ultimately contributes to pollution and resource depletion, as well as habitat destruction. and there are many more ways in which ecofeminist principles offer solutions to these problems that can be carried out at a personal level. academic and legislative solutions don't do everything either - a conservation biologist could do all the studies they wanted and then go home in their air conditioned car and cook up a steak which they bought in styrofoam packaging and wonder over dinner why the rainforests are still being cut down. (i'm not dissin' science - that's what i'm studying, i speak from experience). we have power in our own lives. what PRACTICAL solutions to these problems is conservation biology offering? jodi >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 2 08:55:33 MST 1994 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:58:31 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Margaret Thielke) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Apology Sorry about the confusion with my subscription to ECOFEM - just learning.
