I've enjoyed the recent postings on the role of livestock in an
ecologically sound system. I'd simply suggest considering the enormous
range of livestock production techniques as context for this debate.
A contented herd of 20 Jersey cows foraging peacefully on organic
pastureland is a far cry from 300 chemical-filled Holsteins crammed
into a cement dry lot pumping manure into a pit. I have no problem with
the former, but we seem to be moving hell bent toward the latter with
each passing day.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 4 11:29:20 MST 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 12:33:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: global responsibility
To: Ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 4 Feb 1995, James Roper wrote:
>
> Someone could say it is also quite "natural" for humans to kill each
> other.
Some could, but I have no idea what their basis would be.
> 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.
>
I have always wondered how anyone could come up with a moral foundation
that was not based on nature. To me, to do so is the epitome of the
arrogance of humanism. Exactly the sort of ideas that got us into trouble
in the first place.
As for the idea that nature is "red it tooth and claw," I have heard fewer
more naive accounts in my life. If you want to have a deep understanding of
the workings of nature, of the cycles of life and death, study Native
American philosophy and animal stories, then read Gaia by James Lovelock.
Among other things, this study will help you realize that death is not
the worst thing that can happen to a living thing: disrespect is. After
all, we all die. Our plant and animal sisters and brothers, even the
rocks. But none of us need to suffer disrespect during our time here in
the physical world.
> Is there any non-cruel, respectful way to kill?
Yes. Of course you no doubt disagree. This is most likely because we
have very different ideas of what cruelty and respect are. I take my
views from nature, not from an ivory tower philosophy class.
Respectfully,
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 4 11:55:44 MST 1995
4 Feb 95 14:00:59 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 14:00:46 EST
Subject: Re: global responsibility
>
> > Is there any non-cruel, respectful way to kill?
>
> Yes. Of course you no doubt disagree. This is most likely because we
> have very different ideas of what cruelty and respect are. I take my
> views from nature, not from an ivory tower philosophy class.
>
Are you suggesting that philosophy classes are not part of nature?
What about the of-the-earth chalk I use? :)
Seriously, how does it work to "take your views from nature"?
Brian
