On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 8:10*am, dh@. wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
>to take into account.
The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...
>> >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.
She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
message she said:
"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."
It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
she had, when she said:
"Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.
In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
deaths per mouthful......."
Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture, and in other
places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
lying to you about any of this, and never have. In contrast...there's Goo...
Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
animals at all to speak of, like this:
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg
I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded...
.. . .
>> 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.