Digest Number 4813

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply.  But I'm being honest.

I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food.

I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the same

as

 

" would I eat my fellow human if they died "     Today, cannibalism is seen as

atrocious.

 

I believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are food

and here to feed us.

Again,  that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I believe

that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my fellow

human.

 

I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the

difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or  another animal?

To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he

died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger.

 

That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as

child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food.  Fellow creatures that

share the earth with us.

 

I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an individual

animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has died.

 

Anouk

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I agree with Jo,  Veganism is not about being perfect. That is impossible. Just

to walk down the street would kill an ant by accident and to take a bath would

kill all the small bugs that live on skin.

 

It is not about being perfect, but about doing the least harm possible.

 

There is a song that says to seek here for heaven,  is to live here in hell.

 

The way I see it, like this.. Just because I can't feed all homeless people..

does not mean I will not give bread to one. Just because I can't save all the

animals from death..does not mean I won't try within my own means.

 

I need carrots to live.. but I do not need the flesh of animals to live.

 

Anouk

 

 

 

 

3a. Re: Sorry Vegans, Brussel Sprouts like to live

    Posted by: " lhundrup108 " lhundrup108 lhundrup108

    Thu Jan 7, 2010 7:38 pm ((PST))

 

but you know that insects die when you pull carrots out of the ground or cut

wheat from the field.  Is that vegan to harvest veggies when bugs die?  Lets

think about it.

[Guest guest]

I wholeheartedly agree with you! I also abhor the notion that animals are food and here for that purpose.BeaAnouk <zurumato Sent: Fri, 8 January, 2010 18:14:17 Re:Digest Number 4813

 

 

Hi

 

I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply. But I'm being honest.

I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food.

I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the same as

 

"would I eat my fellow human if they died" Today, cannibalism is seen as atrocious.

 

I believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are food and here to feed us.

Again, that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I believe that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my fellow human.

 

I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or another animal? To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger.

 

That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food. Fellow creatures that share the earth with us.

 

I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an individual animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has died.

 

Anouk

[Guest guest]

You make perfect sense, Anouk.Patricia--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Anouk <zurumato wrote:Anouk <zurumato Re:Digest Number 4813 Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 10:14 AMHi I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply. But I'm being honest. I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food. I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the same as "would I eat my fellow human if they died" Today, cannibalism is seen as atrocious. I

believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are food and here to feed us. Again, that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I believe that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my fellow human. I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or another animal? To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger. That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food. Fellow creatures that share the earth with us. I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an individual animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has died.

Anouk---To send an email to -! Groups Links<*> /<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: /join ( ID required)<*> To change settings via email: -digest -fullfeatured <*>

[Guest guest]

Anouk, I think what you wrote was beautiful and I agree with you completely.Elizabeth

[Guest guest]

Anouk,

 

That is good and healthy I think to see veganism as not being perfect and

also it is admirable I think to try to save what animal you can rather than

being obsessed with all of them if you can't save all.

 

The point I made about killing insects when we pull a carrot, I guess I

should clarify. One argument is that actually farming kills more living beings

to feed the amount of people you can from the crop then to kill one cow or other

cattle. So if the goal is like you say to harm less animals, then I am

wondering if we scientifically proved that less animals die by eating a cow for

the amount of people that are fed with the number of animals that die when

farming for the amount of people that are fed, would any vegan be willing to

change their diet? Maybe some yes, and some no.

 

Myself, I am vegetarian, and I doubt I would want to start eating meat, so I

think my sense of compassion for animals and avoiding flesh might be genuine in

motivation but it may not achieve the non-harm that I think it does. The only

way I can reconcile it, is that I see insects as somehow less evolved and

therefore lower creatures than mammals, birds and so forth.

 

But I wonder what you would think?

 

, Anouk <zurumato wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> I agree with Jo,  Veganism is not about being perfect. That is impossible.

Just to walk down the street would kill an ant by accident and to take a bath

would kill all the small bugs that live on skin.

>

> It is not about being perfect, but about doing the least harm possible.

>

> There is a song that says to seek here for heaven,  is to live here in hell.

>

> The way I see it, like this.. Just because I can't feed all homeless people..

does not mean I will not give bread to one. Just because I can't save all the

animals from death..does not mean I won't try within my own means.

>

> I need carrots to live.. but I do not need the flesh of animals to live.

>

> Anouk

>

>

>

>

> 3a. Re: Sorry Vegans, Brussel Sprouts like to live

>     Posted by: " lhundrup108 " lhundrup108 lhundrup108

>     Thu Jan 7, 2010 7:38 pm ((PST))

>

> but you know that insects die when you pull carrots out of the ground or cut

wheat from the field.  Is that vegan to harvest veggies when bugs die?  Lets

think about it.

>

[Guest guest]

I was thinking about what you said, Anouk, about whether we would be comfortable

eating a cat, dog, or fellow human if they died and we didn't want to waste

their flesh?

 

I am not convinced that these are issues of ethics as much as they are social

conditioning or moral standards that are subject to time, place, and

circumstance of a partiular culture.

 

For instance, I heard that a particular native tribe of the United States, they

have a type of guard dog that they use, I guess something like a wolf which

guards the territory of the tribe, and when they dog dies, they eat it out of

respect for his service and to sort of join in spirit with the animal.

 

And I think when folks who were trapped on a deserted island with no food, and

were approaching starvation, the morality of eating one another after dying one

by one, probably isn't an issue. Survival probably is. The morality probably

changes and the folks eat the flesh with some remorse but knowing that it is

necessary.

 

In the same way, some very sensitive vegans, may actually think about the death

of the insects when eating a carrot. If so, they eat the carrot remorsefully

but knowing that they aren't perfect.

 

You also mention this as not being perfect, but is that just a logical

acceptance, or is there remorse for the death of any creature who is a causalty

of your appetite?

 

I agree with you that we should view animals on the same level as humans and

think twice about eating roadkill, but I think it isn't an ethical issue and it

is more like a social standard. Ethics change according to time.

 

I would say that we might also think that we can start to view insects with the

same level of compassion as animals or humans.

 

chirag

 

, Anouk <zurumato wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply.  But I'm being honest.

> I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food.

> I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the

same as

>

> " would I eat my fellow human if they died "     Today, cannibalism is seen as

atrocious.

>

> I believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are

food and here to feed us.

> Again,  that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I believe

that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my fellow

human.

>

> I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the

difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or  another animal?

To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he

died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger.

>

> That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as

child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food.  Fellow creatures that

share the earth with us.

>

> I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an

individual animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has

died.

>

> Anouk

>

[Guest guest]

it takes a whole lot more energy, food, and water to raise, feed and murder a cow, then it does to gorw a field of crops.

you have to FEED the cow, which is food you could be feeding directly to people, without having it "processed" thru a cow (or pig, chicken, sheep, fish, etc)

cattle take a HUGE amount of water. both during growth and when they kill them.

according to Eathsave, to produce one pound of beef it takes:12 pounds of grain55 sq feet of rainforest2500 gallons of water

 

lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 3:05 PM Re: Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

Anouk,That is good and healthy I think to see veganism as not being perfect and also it is admirable I think to try to save what animal you can rather than being obsessed with all of them if you can't save all.The point I made about killing insects when we pull a carrot, I guess I should clarify. One argument is that actually farming kills more living beings to feed the amount of people you can from the crop then to kill one cow or other cattle. So if the goal is like you say to harm less animals, then I am wondering if we scientifically proved that less animals die by eating a cow for the amount of people that are fed with the number of animals that die when farming for the amount of people that are fed, would any vegan be willing to change their diet? Maybe some yes, and some no.Myself, I am vegetarian, and I doubt I would want to start eating meat, so I think my sense of compassion for animals and avoiding flesh might be genuine in motivation but it may not achieve the non-harm that I think it does. The only way I can reconcile it, is that I see insects as somehow less evolved and therefore lower creatures than mammals, birds and so forth.But I wonder what you would think? , Anouk <zurumato wrote:>> Hi, > > I agree with Jo, Veganism is not about being perfect. That is impossible. Just to walk down the street would kill an ant by accident and to take a bath would kill all the small bugs that live on skin. > > It is not about being perfect, but about doing the least harm possible. > > There is a song that says to seek here for heaven, is to live here in hell. > > The way I see it, like this.. Just because I can't feed all homeless people.. does not mean I will not give bread to one. Just because I can't save all the animals from death..does not mean I won't try within my own means. > > I need carrots to live.. but I do not need the flesh of animals to live. > > Anouk> > > > > 3a. Re: Sorry Vegans, Brussel Sprouts like to live> Posted by: "lhundrup108" lhundrup108 lhundrup108> Thu Jan 7, 2010 7:38 pm ((PST))> > but you know that insects die when you pull carrots out of the ground or cut wheat from the field. Is that vegan to harvest veggies when bugs die? Lets think about it.>

 

 

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!

[Guest guest]

but, none of us is on a deserted desert island, where we NEED to eat other beings to survive. its a moot argument.

actually, we are actively destroying our "desert island" (earth) by intensively raising animals for slaughter

and, isn't everything subject to the moral compass of the time we are styanding in, or looking back on?

we live in this time, and we have mores developed over thousands of years. we have years upon years of human experience and civilization to look back on (neither rome, nor today's society, was built in a day). and, today, we can say "hmm..i don't have to eat animals" or "i don't want to eat animals because of..."

(this is also neither saying we are any better or worse then anyone else either today around the globe or at some point in history. it just is, we are products of the society we live in)

for our next discussion, please choose from the following

1. how many angles can dance on the head of pin (and subsequent discussions of: A. are the angles hurt by dancing on said pin?, B. are the angels dancing of their own free will?)

2. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

wait, scratch number two, i don't think they are vegan....

tongue in cheek will get me far in life i predict............

lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 3:18 PM Re:Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

I was thinking about what you said, Anouk, about whether we would be comfortable eating a cat, dog, or fellow human if they died and we didn't want to waste their flesh?I am not convinced that these are issues of ethics as much as they are social conditioning or moral standards that are subject to time, place, and circumstance of a partiular culture.For instance, I heard that a particular native tribe of the United States, they have a type of guard dog that they use, I guess something like a wolf which guards the territory of the tribe, and when they dog dies, they eat it out of respect for his service and to sort of join in spirit with the animal.And I think when folks who were trapped on a deserted island with no food, and were approaching starvation, the morality of eating one another after dying one by one, probably isn't an issue. Survival probably is. The morality probably changes and the folks eat the flesh with some remorse but knowing that it is necessary.In the same way, some very sensitive vegans, may actually think about the death of the insects when eating a carrot. If so, they eat the carrot remorsefully but knowing that they aren't perfect.You also mention this as not being perfect, but is that just a logical acceptance, or is there remorse for the death of any creature who is a causalty of your appetite?I agree with you that we should view animals on the same level as humans and think twice about eating roadkill, but I think it isn't an ethical issue and it is more like a social standard. Ethics change according to time.I would say that we might also think that we can start to view insects with the same level of compassion as animals or humans.chirag , Anouk <zurumato wrote:>> Hi > > I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply. But I'm being honest. > I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food. > I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the same as > > "would I eat my fellow human if they died" Today, cannibalism is seen as atrocious. > > I believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are food and here to feed us. > Again, that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I believe that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my fellow human. > > I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or another animal? To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger. > > That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food. Fellow creatures that share the earth with us. > > I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an individual animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has died. > > Anouk>

 

 

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!

[Guest guest]

I am quite glad you brought up these points Fraggle. I believe that you might

be right and also Earth Save who has measured the amounts of grains and so forth

used to feed factory farm cows raised for slaughter.

 

For this reason I am vegetarian. But I don't think this information leads to an

absolute conclusion. I guess I was referring to a more non-manipulated example

of a cow or yak or other cattle that grazes freely in the open country like

somewhere like Tibet. Nobody is creating private lands to feed the animals

because the lands are already there and isn't enough protein sources in the

higher plateaus other than the meat source. So in this case, I think the

killing of a cow is less killing than farming.

 

But still although you have calculated the amount of grain needed to FEED a cow,

you still have to calculate the amount of land it takes to produce not only

grains, but fruits and vegetables and so forth that make a balaned vegetarian or

vegan diet and count how many people it feeds vs the amount of people that are

fed by one dead cow. Then you have to calulate the number of living beings who

died in both processes and then come to a decision.

 

Your calculation is probably accurate in terms of the idiocy of waste and

expense in feeding one cow for us to eat, but I am not comparing expense of land

and resource but ethics of killing a cow or an insect. That is an important

distinction in this discussion.

 

But I do agree with your point for the point it makes and that is why I am

vegetarian.

[Guest guest]

To that, I'd like to add, Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic

Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. - Paperback (Sep 1, 1997) by D. S. Allan and J. B.

Delair. Written by two geological scientists, they cite over 200 global legends

recounting the day the earth nearly died.

 

They propose that the world was largely vegetarian, and after the cataclysm, all

sun was blocked out, no plants could grow, and the earth everywhere had frozen.

with nothing else to eat, people ate frozen mammoth meat, animals caged with

them inside caves, etc.

 

They speak of a bottleneck of the human race--it happened around that time.

EATING is for the purpose of survival--it has no other reason for being build

into our bodies.

, " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote:

>

> I was thinking about what you said, Anouk, about whether we would be

comfortable eating a cat, dog, or fellow human if they died and we didn't want

to waste their flesh?

>

> I am not convinced that these are issues of ethics as much as they are social

conditioning or moral standards that are subject to time, place, and

circumstance of a partiular culture.

>

> For instance, I heard that a particular native tribe of the United States,

they have a type of guard dog that they use, I guess something like a wolf which

guards the territory of the tribe, and when they dog dies, they eat it out of

respect for his service and to sort of join in spirit with the animal.

>

> And I think when folks who were trapped on a deserted island with no food, and

were approaching starvation, the morality of eating one another after dying one

by one, probably isn't an issue. Survival probably is. The morality probably

changes and the folks eat the flesh with some remorse but knowing that it is

necessary.

>

> In the same way, some very sensitive vegans, may actually think about the

death of the insects when eating a carrot. If so, they eat the carrot

remorsefully but knowing that they aren't perfect.

>

> You also mention this as not being perfect, but is that just a logical

acceptance, or is there remorse for the death of any creature who is a causalty

of your appetite?

>

> I agree with you that we should view animals on the same level as humans and

think twice about eating roadkill, but I think it isn't an ethical issue and it

is more like a social standard. Ethics change according to time.

>

> I would say that we might also think that we can start to view insects with

the same level of compassion as animals or humans.

>

> chirag

>

> , Anouk <zurumato@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi

> >

> > I hope that I don't offend anyone by my reply.  But I'm being honest.

> > I am not a freegan because to me, animals are not food.

> > I have never eaten an animal nor plan to do so. In my mind it would be the

same as

> >

> > " would I eat my fellow human if they died "     Today, cannibalism is seen as

atrocious.

> >

> > I believe that to eat road kill would reinforce the notion that animals are

food and here to feed us.

> > Again,  that is just my opinion. I was raised seventh day adventist. I

believe that animals would deserve the same respect that I would give to my

fellow human.

> >

> > I understand that freegans do not want to be wasteful.. but what is the

difference between your dog or cat getting killed by a car or  another animal?

To me there isn't a difference and the same way I would not eat my cat if he

died, I would just feel sorrow, not hunger.

> >

> > That is my point of view.. I am no longer seventh day adventist, however as

child I was taught that animals are my friends, not food.  Fellow creatures that

share the earth with us.

> >

> > I hope that someday people will come to respect the personhood of an

individual animal just the way we respect the personhood of a human who has

died.

> >

> > Anouk

> >

>

[Guest guest]

A cow has to eat lots of plant food – therefore killing lots of

insects while it does so. Humans then kill the cow to eat.

 

Isn’t it better for us to just eat the plant food, even if it

means accidentally killing lots of insects, but not also purposefully adding

the death of a cow. By the way, that is a rhetorical question, as obviously

the answer is yes

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of lhundrup108

20 January 2010 21:43

 

Re: Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am quite glad you brought up these points Fraggle. I believe that you might

be right and also Earth Save who has measured the amounts of grains and so

forth used to feed factory farm cows raised for slaughter.

 

For this reason I am vegetarian. But I don't think this information leads to an

absolute conclusion. I guess I was referring to a more non-manipulated example

of a cow or yak or other cattle that grazes freely in the open country like

somewhere like Tibet. Nobody is creating private lands to feed the animals

because the lands are already there and isn't enough protein sources in the

higher plateaus other than the meat source. So in this case, I think the

killing of a cow is less killing than farming.

 

But still although you have calculated the amount of grain needed to FEED a

cow, you still have to calculate the amount of land it takes to produce not

only grains, but fruits and vegetables and so forth that make a balaned

vegetarian or vegan diet and count how many people it feeds vs the amount of

people that are fed by one dead cow. Then you have to calulate the number of

living beings who died in both processes and then come to a decision.

 

Your calculation is probably accurate in terms of the idiocy of waste and

expense in feeding one cow for us to eat, but I am not comparing expense of

land and resource but ethics of killing a cow or an insect. That is an

important distinction in this discussion.

 

But I do agree with your point for the point it makes and that is why I am

vegetarian.

[Guest guest]

I used to think the same. Then I took a college course on Global Issues and

studied the " food problem " in Bangladesh. Food availability has so much more to

do with culture, knowledge of what to eat and how to prepare it then it does

number of acres. In Bangladesh, natives there claim they but drop a seed into

the ground and food grows. There struggle is to preserve their knowledge of

storing and procuring seed, maintain the economic status of their women, and the

rights to their land. In a single yard, they often have enough food for everyone

in their household and then some.

 

My statistics are rusty, and my info on an old laptop--but I think I may still

have that article if you want it uploaded.

, " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote:

>

>

> I am quite glad you brought up these points Fraggle. I believe that you might

be right and also Earth Save who has measured the amounts of grains and so forth

used to feed factory farm cows raised for slaughter.

>

> For this reason I am vegetarian. But I don't think this information leads to

an absolute conclusion. I guess I was referring to a more non-manipulated

example of a cow or yak or other cattle that grazes freely in the open country

like somewhere like Tibet. Nobody is creating private lands to feed the animals

because the lands are already there and isn't enough protein sources in the

higher plateaus other than the meat source. So in this case, I think the

killing of a cow is less killing than farming.

>

> But still although you have calculated the amount of grain needed to FEED a

cow, you still have to calculate the amount of land it takes to produce not only

grains, but fruits and vegetables and so forth that make a balaned vegetarian or

vegan diet and count how many people it feeds vs the amount of people that are

fed by one dead cow. Then you have to calulate the number of living beings who

died in both processes and then come to a decision.

>

> Your calculation is probably accurate in terms of the idiocy of waste and

expense in feeding one cow for us to eat, but I am not comparing expense of land

and resource but ethics of killing a cow or an insect. That is an important

distinction in this discussion.

>

> But I do agree with your point for the point it makes and that is why I am

vegetarian.

>

[Guest guest]

ok, two parts here.

first..the yak wanderin thru tibet being chased by sherpas. i don't live in tibet or nepal. i couldn't tell you what the growing season is like in bhutan

however, i reside in the western hemisphere, and here, cattle, even cattle that is "free range" is generally detrimental.

1. cattle are not native. they destroy native habitation. they eat everything in sight, and often leave the nasty "imports" (thistles, tumbleweed, et al) after munching away on the native vegetation.

2. cattle, even free range, don't just wander willy nilly. they are penned in in some manner er other. meaning they exhaust the resources, land and water in said area

3. and my own personal lil "beef"..we aren't the only creatures on this planet. we don't have to control, destroy, pave, farm, build on every stretch of land. there are other species out there we do share this planet with. it isn't all about "us" and our needs. what about the other 99.999999 % of creatures and plants that exist on this lil orb spinning thru space? just cuz a meat cow or a goat can survive where we have a hard time planting corn doesn;t mean we SHOULD put a cow there.

part deux

a vegan diet is still has a way smaller footprint. remember, each pound you feed to mr or miss cow could feed someone, yes? cattle and animal farms use up ENORMOUS amounts of resources. most soy grown in the world doesn't actually feed people. it goes into animal feed (then there's all the other things soy gets turned into, plastics, paints, etc). tofu is lowman on the totem pole when it comes to soy use.

as for ethics....umm..well, yes, many things come down to ethics. peoplke here in the US get all up in arms when they here of kitties being killed for food or fur in asia, but have no qualms about killing bunnies and bovines.

HOWEVER, a vegan in china is going to be just as upset over a dead cat as a dead cow. same a vegan in the US, Europe, Mexico, Guam, or the Moon..........

 

lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 4:42 PM Re: Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

I am quite glad you brought up these points Fraggle. I believe that you might be right and also Earth Save who has measured the amounts of grains and so forth used to feed factory farm cows raised for slaughter.For this reason I am vegetarian. But I don't think this information leads to an absolute conclusion. I guess I was referring to a more non-manipulated example of a cow or yak or other cattle that grazes freely in the open country like somewhere like Tibet. Nobody is creating private lands to feed the animals because the lands are already there and isn't enough protein sources in the higher plateaus other than the meat source. So in this case, I think the killing of a cow is less killing than farming.But still although you have calculated the amount of grain needed to FEED a cow, you still have to calculate the amount of land it takes to produce not only grains, but fruits and vegetables and so forth that make a balaned vegetarian or vegan diet and count how many people it feeds vs the amount of people that are fed by one dead cow. Then you have to calulate the number of living beings who died in both processes and then come to a decision.Your calculation is probably accurate in terms of the idiocy of waste and expense in feeding one cow for us to eat, but I am not comparing expense of land and resource but ethics of killing a cow or an insect. That is an important distinction in this discussion.But I do agree with your point for the point it makes and that is why I am vegetarian.

 

 

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!

[Guest guest]

I read an article once that claimed if everyone in the developed world became vegetarian (not even vegan, we're talking just giving up meat here), and all of the pasture currently used to farm meat cows and other meat animals, were used instead to grow wheat and other crops, there would be so much food that it would pretty much wipe out world hunger forever. The theory was that one cow gives enough meat for something like ten people, but the amount of grain you have to feed that cow during its (shortened) lifespan would have fed a hundred people if they'd eaten it directly instead of feeding it to the cow. (These figures are from my memory of reading them a long time ago, so they may be a little wrong - but the point is the same, that raising a cow for meat is an incredible waste of resources compred to using the land for plants). Now imagine if everyone went VEGAN??? All that free land...*boggles*

 

>>>One argument is that actually farming kills more living beings to feed the amount of people you can from the crop then to kill one cow or other cattle.

"This e-mail is intended for the recipient only. If you are not theintended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print,or rely upon this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error hasmisdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail."

 

"Recipients should note that all e-mail traffic on MOD systems issubject to monitoring and auditing."

[Guest guest]

add to that that many of the world's food woes eminant from the way we deal with crops and agriculture internationally. places that easily used to be able to feed themselves and export excess crops instead have turned to growing "money" crops over the years, going back at least a hundred. they are encourged to to pay off debt owed by lending nations, the IMF, World Bank, etc.

Zanna Jan 20, 2010 7:14 PM Re: Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

I used to think the same. Then I took a college course on Global Issues and studied the "food problem" in Bangladesh. Food availability has so much more to do with culture, knowledge of what to eat and how to prepare it then it does number of acres. In Bangladesh, natives there claim they but drop a seed into the ground and food grows. There struggle is to preserve their knowledge of storing and procuring seed, maintain the economic status of their women, and the rights to their land. In a single yard, they often have enough food for everyone in their household and then some. My statistics are rusty, and my info on an old laptop--but I think I may still have that article if you want it uploaded. , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108 wrote:>>

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!

[Guest guest]

Hey Fraggle,

 

So I wish you were at least willing to admit that if you don't live in tibet

or nepal, then you kinda lack information. That is what a discussion is

for...to get information. I live in Nepal, but I can't say exactly that we

don't have the same problem here as the cattle feeding industry in the west.

 

I am willing to investigate the matter with environmentalists here regarding

the problem of sustaining a slaughterhouse mentality with animals here. For me,

while I already said that I agree with the environmental impact argument, it is

more an issue of ethics than environment, or at leat for the points that I

originally raised.

 

Midian

 

 

ok, two parts here.

 

first..the yak wanderin thru tibet being chased by sherpas. i don't live in

tibet or nepal. i couldn't tell you what the growing season is like in bhutan

 

however, i reside in the western hemisphere, and here, cattle, even cattle that

is " free range " is generally detrimental.

 

1. cattle are not native. they destroy native habitation. they eat everything in

sight, and often leave the nasty " imports " (thistles, tumbleweed, et al) after

munching away on the native vegetation.

 

2. cattle, even free range, don't just wander willy nilly. they are penned in in

some manner er other. meaning they exhaust the resources, land and water in said

area

[Guest guest]

Dear Zanna,

 

I am not sure about what you used to think the same about? My comment or

Fraggles comment.

 

I am intersted in that article you might have so please send me a link in my

IM because this chat system is confusing to follow threads.

 

thanks,

Midian

[Guest guest]

Cattle may not be native to this continent, but they eat the same thing that the bison ate, so I can't see the problem.Patricia--- On Wed, 1/20/10, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:fraggle <EBbrewpunxRe: Re: Digest Number 4813 Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 4:54 PM

 

ok, two parts here.

first..the yak wanderin thru tibet being chased by sherpas. i don't live in tibet or nepal. i couldn't tell you what the growing season is like in bhutan

however, i reside in the western hemisphere, and here, cattle, even cattle that is "free range" is generally detrimental.

1. cattle are not native. they destroy native habitation. they eat everything in sight, and often leave the nasty "imports" (thistles, tumbleweed, et al) after munching away on the native vegetation.

2. cattle, even free range, don't just wander willy nilly. they are penned in in some manner er other. meaning they exhaust the resources, land and water in said area

3. and my own personal lil "beef"..we aren't the only creatures on this planet. we don't have to control, destroy, pave, farm, build on every stretch of land. there are other species out there we do share this planet with. it isn't all about "us" and our needs. what about the other 99.999999 % of creatures and plants that exist on this lil orb spinning thru space? just cuz a meat cow or a goat can survive where we have a hard time planting corn doesn;t mean we SHOULD put a cow there.

part deux

a vegan diet is still has a way smaller footprint. remember, each pound you feed to mr or miss cow could feed someone, yes? cattle and animal farms use up ENORMOUS amounts of resources. most soy grown in the world doesn't actually feed people. it goes into animal feed (then there's all the other things soy gets turned into, plastics, paints, etc). tofu is lowman on the totem pole when it comes to soy use.

as for ethics....umm..well, yes, many things come down to ethics. peoplke here in the US get all up in arms when they here of kitties being killed for food or fur in asia, but have no qualms about killing bunnies and bovines.

HOWEVER, a vegan in china is going to be just as upset over a dead cat as a dead cow. same a vegan in the US, Europe, Mexico, Guam, or the Moon..........

 

lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 4:42 PM Re: Digest Number 4813

 

I am quite glad you brought up these points Fraggle. I believe that you might be right and also Earth Save who has measured the amounts of grains and so forth used to feed factory farm cows raised for slaughter.For this reason I am vegetarian. But I don't think this information leads to an absolute conclusion. I guess I was referring to a more non-manipulated example of a cow or yak or other cattle that grazes freely in the open country like somewhere like Tibet. Nobody is creating private lands to feed the animals because the lands are already there and isn't enough protein sources in the higher plateaus other than the meat source. So in this case, I think the killing of a cow is less killing than farming.But still although you have calculated the amount of grain needed to FEED a cow, you still have to calculate the amount of land it takes to produce not only grains, but fruits and vegetables and so forth that make a balaned

vegetarian or vegan diet and count how many people it feeds vs the amount of people that are fed by one dead cow. Then you have to calulate the number of living beings who died in both processes and then come to a decision.Your calculation is probably accurate in terms of the idiocy of waste and expense in feeding one cow for us to eat, but I am not comparing expense of land and resource but ethics of killing a cow or an insect. That is an important distinction in this discussion.But I do agree with your point for the point it makes and that is why I am vegetarian.

 

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!

[Guest guest]

so, to turn it about

is there a reason why someone CAN'T be vegan in nepal?

besides cultural mores and attitudes, is there a compelling argument that states "i can not be vegan in nepal(or where ever) because the government will arrest me" or "i can not be vegan because of local crops resemble rocks and are about as nutritious"

or something similar?

 

lhundrup108 Jan 21, 2010 1:11 PM Re: Digest Number 4813

 

 

 

Hey Fraggle, So I wish you were at least willing to admit that if you don't live in tibet or nepal, then you kinda lack information. That is what a discussion is for...to get information. I live in Nepal, but I can't say exactly that we don't have the same problem here as the cattle feeding industry in the west.I am willing to investigate the matter with environmentalists here regarding the problem of sustaining a slaughterhouse mentality with animals here. For me, while I already said that I agree with the environmental impact argument, it is more an issue of ethics than environment, or at leat for the points that I originally raised.Midianok, two parts here.first..the yak wanderin thru tibet being chased by sherpas. i don't live in tibet or nepal. i couldn't tell you what the growing season is like in bhutanhowever, i reside in the western hemisphere, and here, cattle, even cattle that is "free range" is generally detrimental.1. cattle are not native. they destroy native habitation. they eat everything in sight, and often leave the nasty "imports" (thistles, tumbleweed, et al) after munching away on the native vegetation.2. cattle, even free range, don't just wander willy nilly. they are penned in in some manner er other. meaning they exhaust the resources, land and water in said area

 

 

 

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!