> > 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. > > 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". This conversation interests me because frequently I've seen discussions polarize along somewhat similar lines. Environmentalists with a "hard science" bent often don't seem to want to consider the issue of animal suffering (as opposed to species extinction, though I'm not sure how it can be decoupled from the anthropogenic destruction of the kinds of creatures that *can* suffer) or the importance of a personal choice to give up meat-eating (even in the face of acknowledging its staggering environmental impact). On the other hand, many who *are* concerned about animal suffering sometimes seem reluctant to address the impact on nonhumans of continued human population growth, which will be massive *even if* most of the additional humans are mostly vegetarian--more people means more "needs," more habitat loss, etc. even so, though, of course, the more supposedly "developed" the lifestyle, which generally includes large quantities of meat consumed, in addition to much else, the greater the toll per person, way more. On a smaller scale, I went thru my own period of learning about what goes into "meat" some years ago by living on a couple acres of land and trying to confine the animal products I consumed to what came from the animals I took care of--at least I could see to it that they had happy lives. I felt OK about using some eggs (how much a hen "minds" her eggs being taken seems to depend on the breed) and milk from my goats, but I very quickly lost any desire I might have had for meat--after killing several rabbits and one chicken, I realized there just wasn't anything on the positive side of the balance sheet to make it worth continuing the practice (being able to buy pre-cut, plastic-wrapped "meat" just makes it all too easy to ignore what goes into it!). And even then I ran first-hand into some of the other problems that go along with raising animals "free -range" just for eggs and milk--you will have to keep breeding them to keep them "producing," and if you take good care of your animals, pretty soon you will end up with too many of them, and face the problem of "placing" them elsewhere, for one, and for another, even a few goats can really do a job on vegetation, native and otherwise, even with (nonsustainable) constant inputs. I juggled these issues for a number of years--it was quite an education in trying to think about what an appropriate "role" for a human being living on the land might be (still struggling for an answer). On the larger scale, however, it seems to me that maybe one way to try to depolarize some of these discussions might be to begin with an acknowledgement that, to deal with the problems of the years ahead, *ALL* established cultural practices, including both dietary and reproductive practices, are going to have to change to some extent across the board, and then start discussing, as respectfully and nonethnocentrically as possible, the how and why and wherefore of the changes. Ronnie
