View Single Post
  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 10 Sep 2006 18:12:00 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, wrote:
>> > Ok, there it is. That's my third try at a comment on this subject.
>> >If this one doesn't work, I give up. The frogs are on their own.
>> > Well, except for the frogs on our property, where they are treated
>> >as worthy fellow critters who have as much right to be there as we do.

>>
>> So far I don't really know where you're coming from or what
>> your position is on this.

>
> In all seriousness, I think that frogs are likely to be essential to
>some complex system involving bugs, pond & stream life, vegetation,
>etc. Without getting googly-eyed sentimental about it,


There's no need for all that. It's just basic consideration for other
beings, or not. How much consideration? We're going to kill some,
and we know it...it goes from there....

>I meant what I
>said - they have as much right to be there as we do, so we are careful
>not to do things that would kill them wholesale, like spraying, mowing
>brush close to the stream, and so forth.


So there ARE plenty of frogs around for you to worry about. We
have an "ara" from Ireland who can't understand how thousands
of frogs could possibly inhabit rice fields in Texas. Is there any chance
you could help the poor gal get some kind of clue?

>> If you farm rice, I'd be interested in what
>> you have to say regarding details about the whole thing.

>
> No, we past the age where we could choose to farm. We
>feed-the-extended-family gardeners with a lot of different
>infinitesimal ecosystems on our 10 acres, brushland, meadow, forest,
>stream, and pond. The property is all natural, but it's so varied that
>it almost looks as if someone was deliberately putting together a
>science project.


Sadly, the "aras" are still stuck on the concept of frogs in rice fields.
Since that's a thing of interest though, would you say that flooded rice
fields support by far the highest population of vertebrate life...sometimes?

>> Also if you're a farmer, would you agree that some livestock have lives
>> of positive value and some don't, and that their lives should be
>> given as much consideration as their deaths?

>
> Not sure I understand the question,


Would you agree that:

1. some livestock have lives of positive value *to them*?
2. the lives of livestock should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths?

>but since we have chosen to live
>in the country among real farmers whenever we could for some decades,
>let me just say what my opinion is: I *don't* believe that all life
>equals all other life,


That could be taken a number of ways.

>or that city dwellers should be allowed to
>decide how many deer countrymen have to deal with. Or for that matter,
>how many mice, rats, shrews, racoons, skunks, squirrels, wild dogs,
>rabbits or bears.


I'd damn sure agree with that. In fact, I think it should be left up
to each idividual. If you want to kill a bear that gets on your property,
then I'd say you should be able to do it. If the wildlife refuge down
the road can't keep up with their own bears, then weed them out by
our new order of survival of the fittest...stay in their area or die. Of
course all of them will have to die sooner or later, so it gets down
to which ones will reproduce and why, and how successful their
offspring will be and why.

> Livestock, tho, well... now and then over the years, we have seen a
>few dairy farmers treat their cows with the same abuse and contempt
>that some congressmen use with their constituency. Dairy farmers who
>do that stuff usually don't do well; with congressmen it doesn't seem
>to matter.


My impression has always been that most dairy cattle have decent
lives, which would be lives of positive value for them. I don't feel the
same way about battery hens. "aras" insist that no animals' lives should
be given consideration, much less should lives of positive value for
livestock be given any appreciation. I believe pretty much the opposite,
and you alluded to it as well: Humans are having more and more control
over which animals live and die, and the conditions of their lives. Since
we are capable of providing the best lives for domestic animals, I believe
people should move toward appreciation of that fact and become more
interested in deliberately providing lives of positive value for all domestic
animals. "aras" are maniacally opposed to that idea, because it works
against their objective to do away with domestic animals.