[Glitch]

> Bruce,
> I believe this comes down to a matter of personal conviction, as opposed to
> wanting to obliterate the entire beef industry.
> It¹s like the tobacco industry.  Try living in the south ­ you will hear this
> exact same argument about tobacco.  Many people choose not to smoke, but not
> necessarily because they wish harm on the millions of parents and kids who
> will be driven off the farm and into the cities when we cripple the tobacco
> industry.
> By the same token, there are people who believe it is morally wrong to kill
> other people, and who therefore will not participate in the military, but not
> necessarily because they wish harm on the millions of parents and kids who
> would be out of a job and a home if we were to cripple the military machine.
> Ultimately, I can only make the decision for myself about what I will put in
> my body and/or what I will spend my money on.  That, I believe, is what it¹s
> all about.  I, personally, choose not to support the meat producing industry
> because I object to how animals are raised and killed.  I do, however, eat
> locally-raised organic/free-range poultry, dairy and eggs.  This is my own
> personal choice about what I want to put in my body and what I want to spend
> my money on.
> Whatever choice(s) you make about your body and your $ are yours to make.
> JMHO.
> Julian?  Your thoughts?
> -Glitch

             ----------------------------------------------------
            got your last meal filled up with pesticide
            hamburger chain third world infanticide
            got robot car your job will disappear
            it's called the politics of a brand new year
            some say that's progress i say that's cruel

            --midnight oil
             ----------------------------------------------------

> *********************************************************
> Greetings Powdered Omnivores, Carnivores and Herbivores,
>  
> I must bite...
>  
> Eating vegetables exclusively is one thing, bringing down the beef industry is
> quite another, as I believe Julian was alluding to.
>  
> Q. How does your compassionate treatment of animals play out in the lives of
> the millions of parents and kids who would be driven off the farm and into
> cities - here and abroad - if we cripple the meat producing industry?
>  
> Also, is somebody suggesting that you can alter 6 000+ years of agricultural
> evolution by not buying leather or beef? Let's not forget that beef producers
> are responding to centuries of societal demand. Bringing on the Change in such
> a sudden manner would appear heartless indeed, if we are not prepared to
> support farm families during another agricultural revolution...
>  
> I may be as dumb as a stump, and a prairie boy to boot, but isn't the natural
> human state one of omnivorous gluttony? (I feel more akin to the badger than
> the rabbit.) There are after all many of God's creatures (kind and gentle as
> they are) for whom I am just another menu item. And they would feel no guilt
> whatsoever about eating me alive - starting with the nether regions - as I
> screamed my bloody guts out. Some would even make sport of it with their
> young.
>  
> So how is it unethical - in some folks' eyes - for us to eat them? Would I be
> a more moral person if I went out and shot, skinned, gutted and dressed the
> beasts myself? Just curious to know how you veggans make sense of things,
> given what would appear to be our natural state of omnivory...
>  
> Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner,
>  
> bruce on the great northern plains
>  
> "There is plenty of room for all Gods creatures -
> right next to the mashed potatoes."
>  
> - billboard for the Saskatoon Restaurant and Grill
> 
> Kate Parker Adams <kate at dnki.net> wrote:
>> Julian, and all ...
>> 
>> I don't think your moral issues surrounding animals are at all silly ...
>> they are what runs your life and your choices. I'm just an oddball
>> scientist with a head for policy who frequently moonlights for a
>> sustainability think tank, so I tend to think in terms of what can
>> reasonably be done to create a more precautionary and sustainable society
>> and reduce harm. I really don't disagree with your take on abortion either -
>> its not for me, but not for me to say that it's not for you either.
>> 
>> Therin lies the HUGE difference between practicing one's personal morality
>> and creating ethical public policy solutions. I think this is also a point
>> of confusion on the Peter Garrett as polician front and will remain so until
>> he clarifies things - and it sounds like he should do so right quick. In
>> the past, Pete has advanced initi! atives aimed at creating a sustainable
>> Australia that balance the need for jobs and local economic development with
>> the fragility of the environment, all with the implied ethical mandate for
>> fair distribution of costs and benefits. Some of these programs and values
>> clearly conflict with Labor platform and policy positions and the "new" PG
>> stance seems to be quicksand. Pete has also led a personal life of devout
>> Christian conviction and maintained fairly conservative personal beliefs and
>> values. He's kept these moral mandates at home ... so far.
>> 
>> It remains to be seen how PG resolves this in the public governmental
>> sphere. I do hope, however, that Pete does not get lulled into thinking
>> that private moral values can be directly imposed as public policy. That's
>> Asscroft and W thinking - and it collides with important policy values and
>> documents like the constitution. Morality-as-policy does little to advance
>> larger social objectives, alleviat! e the root problems, or even accept basic
>> human nature (like the failed alcohol prohibition experiment). Much better
>> to say "what is the problem here and how can we effectively reduce the harm"
>> (e.g. reduce the rate of abortion by identifying reasons for termination and
>> creating more alternatives) than proclaim "thou shalt not our you will burn
>> in hell" as law.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>> [mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Julian
>> Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:37 PM
>> To: Powderworks at Cs-Lists. Cs. Colorado. Edu; kate at dnki.net
>> Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's forests
>> stance
>> 
>> 
>> Kate
>> 
>> I know you may think I live in a "dream world" but for me it is ethically
>> unacceptable to use animals as we please. So buying anything that is a
>> product
>> of their death or mistreatment is wrong. That'! s my view and I know I have
>> about zero chance of ever seeing the majority of people in this world see it
>> the same way, so I never try and force my view upon people. There is no
>> middle
>> ground if you believe it's ethically wrong to harm animals - an animal isn't
>> any less dead if we eat less of that animal - we are just killing less
>> animals
>> collectively.
>> 
>> However I agree if you are trying to reduce environmental impact then
>> getting
>> people to eat less beef is good...
>> 
>> So I think we are coming at this issue in different ways.
>> 
>> Julian
>> 
>>> >===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
>>> >Ah Julian, we meet again ...
>>> >
>>> >In the US at least, beef is the reason for cattle, followed by dairy. The
>>> >less beef eaten, the less grazing land, etc. and the less the environmental
>>> >impact.
>>> >
>>> >The cattle industry could not survive on the leather trade. Period. It is
>>> >entirely argurable that it is more tradi! tional than economically
>>> feasable,
>>> >actually. Leather is essentially value-added trash, and the cattle
>> industry
>>> >doesn't see much of that added value. That's why the cattle industry
>> throws
>>> >subsidized tizzy fits when beef consumption drops, but doesn't launch huge
>>> >"wear REAL leather" campaigns in the face of challenges from ultrasuede and
>>> >pleather.
>>> >
>>> >Furthermore, why "bring and end" to it? Everything doesn't have to be so
>>> >absolute - and there are sustainable and organic cattle operations as well
>>> >as local suppliers to consider. Furthermore, if you are aware of organic
>>> >farming techniques or read Guns, Germs, and Steel, the traditional farm is
>> a
>>> >poop-based ecosystem and many farms have gotten into the business of
>>> >ranching because they need all that crap to keep the veggies growing and
>> the
>>> >land . Even devoted vegan/vegetarian producers either keep animals around,
>>> >keep dairy animal! s, or use manure from other sources. Otherwise, farmers
>>> >must use chemical fertilizers and that becomes unsustainable and damaging
>>> >rather quickly.
>>> >
>>> >Of course, the dynamics of this are extremely skewed by large scale
>>> >operations driven only by dollars in/dollars out. Those should be the real
>>> >target.
>>> >
>>> >Modest reductions in beef consumption by a very large number of people are
>>> >more likely to happen than convincing a select few to abstinence - and thus
>>> >more likely to make an extensive dent in mainstream factory cattle
>>> >production (and the attendent impacts)and skew the economics toward
>>> >sustainable local production. People tune out moral judgments, but can be
>>> >convinced to buy less of a better product.
>>> >
>>> >Yes, some people would like to bring an end to ranching, but it isn't going
>>> >to happen. Let's not even go into the cows versus pigs either, given the
>>> >extreme animal welfare and environmental disasters in factory farming of
>>> >swine. I go for the impact, not a pure society or self. Not eating cows
>>> >reduces the beef demand that drives the industry. Reduced demand means
>>> >fewer cattle and less environmental impact. It goes to the dominant term
>> in
>>> >the economic equations of unsustainable production. By comparison, wearing
>>> >or not wearing leather is so economically trivial to the cattle industry as
>>> >to be a matter of fashion or taste or ideology. Third-world sweatshops and
>>> >the treatment of the humans who add value to that leather on the other hand
>>> >are a far more compelling reason to forego the fancy jacket or the Nikes.
>>> >
>>> >-kPa
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>> >[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Julian
>>> >Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:21 AM
>> ! t;To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu; David; kate at dnki.net
>>> >Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's forests
>>> >stance
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I disagree Kate. If you are a veggie and want to bring an end to the meat
>>> >trade you do that by making it unprofitable. The best way of doing this is
>>> >to
>>> >stop eating meat and cut out all meat by-products (leather, dairy, etc)
>> from
>>> >what you consume. What is the cow killed for exactly? Why do people assume
>>> >it's the meat first? Many cows are killed just to keep milk production
>>> >flowing
>>> >and leather just keeps the whole system more profitable.
>>> >
>>> >Julian
>>> >
>>>> >>===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
>>>> >>Hey all,
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Actually, it makes perfect sense to use the woodchips to protest if you
>>>> >>understand that woodchips are generally a byproduct, not a primary
>>>> product
>>>> >>of forestry - at least ! with most old growth timber. Until other markets
>>>> >>were found, mills simply burned the stuff for heat. I remember giant
>>> >wigwam
>>>> >>burners going day and night at the sawmill where my uncle worked, until
>>> >they
>>>> >>were shut down for emissions issues. When my mom was little, pacific
>>>> >>northwest residents bought truckloads of chips from the sawmills or had
>>>> it
>>>> >>delivered for use in residential furnaces much the way coal was used on
>> the
>>>> >>eastern seaboard.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Plenty of vegetarians don't eat cows, but wear leather shoes because the
>>> >use
>>>> >>of leather does not drive the unsustainable aspects of the cattle
>>>> industry
>>>> >>like the use of beef does. Traditionally, the relationship between
>>>> >>woodchips and lumbering is similar.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Then again, way too many trees are chipped for paper these days, at least
>>> >on
>>>> >>this side of the ocean. Most trees chip! ped for paper on the eastern US
>> are
>>>> >>what is called "pulp wood", or knotty, half-rotted, or otherwise unusable
>>>> >>for lumber. That does not justify clearcutting, however, nor the
>> attendant
>>>> >>erosion and habitat destruction that happens regardless of whether the
>>> >trees
>>>> >>cut down had a lot of knots or are diseased or stunted. I don't know what
>>>> >>the practices are in Tasmania, but I suspect they aren't chipping this
>>> >stuff
>>>> >>but shipping it to the same asian lumber mills they rip out Pacific
>>>> >>Northwest old growth for - there are no mills left in the states that can
>>>> >>take the monster trees.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Kate Adams
>>>> >>
>>>> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>> >>Kate Parker Adams
>>>> >>University of Massachusetts - Lowell
>>>> >>Department of Work Environment
>>>> >>Kitson 202A
>>>> >>Kate_Adams at uml.edu
>>>> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>> >>Practice Abstinence: No Bush, No Dick in 2004
>>>> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>-----Original Message-----
>>>> >>From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>>> >>[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of David
>>>> >>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:37 AM
>>>> >>To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>>> >>Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's forests
>>>> >>stance
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Some protesters just don't get it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>They buy a tonne of woodchips to try and reduce woodchip production?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Next they'll be chaining themselves to buried combi vans to protest
>>>> >>against landfill.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>Powderworks mailing list
>>>> >>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>>> >>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>>>> >>
>>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>Powderworks mailing list
>>>> >>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>>> >>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Powderworks mailing list
>>> >Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>> >http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Powderworks mailing list
>>> >Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>> >http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powderworks mailing list
>> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powderworks mailing list
>> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> 
> 
> 
> Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
> <http://ca.personals.yahoo.com/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Powderworks mailing list
> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/pipermail/powderworks/attachments/20040929/f7e83adc/attachment-0001.html