View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Jun 22, 7:03*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 21, 1:26*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai

>>
>> >> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> >> >Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist

>>
>> >> >Hinduism Today Magazine
>> >> . . .
>> >> >having a
>> >> >tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
>> >> >the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet

>>
>> >> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> >> in order to be successful:

>>
>> >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>> >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>> >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>> >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>> >> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>> >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>> >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

>>
>> >> * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> >> being vegan.
>> >> * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>>
>> >I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.

>>
>> >http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....anic-beef.html

>>
>> >So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
>> >less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?

>>
>> * * That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
>> dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
>> times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
>> and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
>> maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
>> if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
>> and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.

>
>My mind has always been open on the question.


Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.

>I have just thought that
>it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.


Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.

>For
>example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
>associated with the production of grass fed beef


No.

>and some sources of
>information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
>killed to protect the cattle.


It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

>I will be interested to hear what the
>farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
>research about the matter.


It seems to me she avoided my specific question, saying it's not the point.
It IS the point in my email to her and I let her know that. If she writes
anything worthwhile back I'll let you know. Here's part of what she did write:

"It is difficult to say eating only tofu would result in less animal deaths
because the animals would never have lived and therefore could not die. As you
point out, we believe our cattle have a happy, contented life while they are
alive. The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife"
friendly. Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less
wildlife is killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of
wildlife (I assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the
argument down to deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is too
many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I do
wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a world
would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human consumption.

However, I am prepared to argue very strongly against those who say we should
stop eating animals for environmental reasons. Of course, the animals need to be
raised humanely (there is something inherently wrong with that word) and
ruminants should only eat pasture plants but to argue a vegan diet is more
sustainable is, I feel, very wrong. Soybean production would have to be one of
the most destructive crops around - not to even begin to take into account the
GM debate. The infatuation with carbohydrates in our diet is leading to severe
problems - most come from annual crops and therein lies the problem. Billions of
lives are lost every time a field is ploughed for a crop - be it soy, wheat corn
or vegetables - it is just that these lives are fungi, bacteria, protozoa and
all the other soil micro/macro organisms that are not "animals" so are not on
the radar. It is only lunatics such as myself that mourn their loss! I'm not
alone though, techniques are being developed to eliminate ploughing and so on,
but they often then rely on herbicides.
A spoonful of tofu results in many thousands of deaths - but not "animal"
deaths. I could rave on for a while."

If there are animals in the area it results in animal deaths whether she'll
agree with it or not. When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.