Thanks to Lisa for the reprinted stats re: the meat industry. I just
have to say I was rather shocked that humans produce 12,000 lbs
of excrement every second. Now there's some food for thought!
Actually, I believe it is quite natural for humans to eat animals.
It's part of the food chain ecological principle. However, I feel we
treat animals in our culture as "crops," and are very cruel and
disrespectful to them.
This is where, for me, it becomes a moral dilemma.
--Thea
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 3 15:07:38 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:07:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Noah R.Olenych" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Thea Deley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: global responsibility
On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Thea Deley wrote:
> Thanks to Lisa for the reprinted stats re: the meat industry. I just
> have to say I was rather shocked that humans produce 12,000 lbs
> of excrement every second. Now there's some food for thought!
>
> Actually, I believe it is quite natural for humans to eat animals.
> It's part of the food chain ecological principle. However, I feel we
> treat animals in our culture as "crops," and are very cruel and
> disrespectful to them.
>
> This is where, for me, it becomes a moral dilemma.
>
> --Thea
>
I must agree with Thea in that it is truly natural for human to consume
animal flesh. Yet we need not exploit it. As a vegetarian myself, I feel
that the entire production of livestock is a ridiculous waste of land and
resources, especially considering all of the facts graciously passed on
by Lisa. We don't eat the rest of the ecological system is just plain
ignorant. We are part of the ecological system and must live in
conjunction with all of the other inhabitants. By engaging in such
practices as the huge-scale ranching, we "go against the grain" of what
nature would intend. Unless you are ignorant, one must realize that
nature knows the best way to manage any system, otherwise it wouldn't
manage that system in that way.
I realize this is a motley of ideas and feelings inspired by Lisa, Thea,
and everything else, so bear with me. I would like to hear what others
out there feel about the place of humans in the whole of the ecosystem.
Thanks all,
Noah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 3 15:43:20 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 15:48 MST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cathy Bray)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: global responsibility
In response to Lisa, Thea and Noah.... I am a relatively naive,
soemwhat guilty omnivor. If eating meat goes "against the grain",
which grain does it go against - the vast expanses of agricultural
land devoted to one crop which is farmed using herbicides etc.?
If I want to reduce or eliminate beef, what ecologically sound
substitutions can I make? Are Kellogs cornflakes ecologically correct?
Catherine Bray
Athabasca University, Alberta. Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 3 20:06:45 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 22:11:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: global responsibility
To: Cathy Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I want to reduce or eliminate beef, what ecologically sound
> substitutions can I make? Are Kellogs cornflakes ecologically correct?
Relatively speaking, yes. Living on a plant-based diet (i.e. more
Cornflakes) implies that one is consuming less corn overall, given that a
small amount of meat requires a large amount of corn.
Nonetheless, your question raises an excellent question about
trade-offs. In my opinion, the *ideal* food ethic would be composed of
organic, locally-grown, wholesome, genetically-'natural', vegan food.
Off course, we have to make choices given a limited selection and
resources... Joel
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 3 21:22:39 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 20:27:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Vanessa Micol Vanderbrug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In response to the discussion started on global responsibility.
I would like to applaud Diana for her involvement with children on
this crucial issue. We can only work on a small level and the next
generation is the best "small" way to start. I work as a teacher at a
school for toddlers. We focus on non-bias education, which involves
respect for the environment as well as respect and love for human life.
We serve only healthy food and teach the children to respect the time
they spend eating.
I have noticed something very interesting in my work with such young
children. That is their awe at nature. Last week during the afternoon
myself along with five small three year olds spent almost an hour
watching an earthworms progress through the mud. Three year olds have a
very small attention span and I was thrilled to see their interest in
a part of nature which some politicians would consider meaningless. This
hour I spent with these children made me realize again the amazing aspect
of life on this planet and the importance of every part of it. Please
let's not take the beauty of the world away from our children, but save
the environment for the sake of our children.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 4 07:12:29 MST 1995
id OAA03405; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 14:17:46 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: global responsibility
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 09:17:46 -0500 (EST)
Hello all.
Thea Deley wrote:
|
|of excrement every second. Now there's some food for thought!
Interesting choice for metaphor.
|Actually, I believe it is quite natural for humans to eat animals.
|It's part of the food chain ecological principle. However, I feel we
|treat animals in our culture as "crops," and are very cruel and
|disrespectful to them.
Someone could say it is also quite "natural" for humans to kill each
other. I am often confused as to why people think that "natural" things
are morally sound things too. Nature, though I love it and would never
want to change it, is "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson, I believe) and
is certainly NOT a moral guide. The meat issue will be decided on moral
grounds, not evolutionary ones.
|This is where, for me, it becomes a moral dilemma.
|
|--Thea
Is there any non-cruel, respectful way to kill?
Jim
_______________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | "The infliction of cruelty with a
University of Pennsylvania | clear conscience is a delight to
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | moralists. That is why they invented
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 | hell."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bertrand Russell
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 4 09:34:52 MST 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 08:37:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Kiera Aviya Koester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: non-cruel, respectful ways of killing
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FWIW, it's said in the Jewish tradition that the laws of kashrut
("kosher") teach Jews compassion.
The knife used by the shochet (expert in ritual slaughter) "must be
razor-sharp and absolutely free of nicks and dents. It must be twice as
long as the throat of the animal, so it can be drawn through only
once...the shochet knows how to sever the cartoid artery and jugular vein
...with one deft stroke so that the chicken or calf loses consciousness
instantaneously and dies a swift and painless death." (from Blu
Greenberg's HOW TO RUN A TRADTIONAL JEWISH HOUSEHOLD)
I of course realize this is arguable (and don't eat chicken or calf
myself), but submit it in the spirit of cross-cultural education.
People have been struggling with this issue for ages.
Kiera Aviya Koester
