View Single Post
  #5 (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 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Jun 28, 5:26*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 24, 8:10 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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...
>>

>
>Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?


Exactly? LOL! The number varies with the environment. See below:

>> >> >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.


She referred to an area where there would not be many deaths any more,
because the local wildlife in general was killed off years ago.

>> 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,



Try to keep that part in mind. Move on....

>> 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.


Learning to think openly about the big picture could change your life for
the better.

>> 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...
>> . . .


Different numbers of animals die depending on the different types of
situations.

>> >> 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.