The Environmental Side to Vegetarianism

by Erica Franklin


I wrote a paper in grade nine on the treatment of animals in livestock
production. The day that I started my research was the day that I cut
all meat out of my diet. My primary inspiration for this was an
ethical one. I did not want to support an industry that treated
animals only as commodities and harboured them in an environment that
would allow them to produce the most eggs, milk or animal flesh in the
shortest amount of time possible. In order to do this, the ethical
treatment of livestock is overlooked.

I could delve much further into the issue of how farm animals are
treated, but I am not here to talk about animal rights. I am here to
point out the environmental repercussions associated with the
livestock industry, of which there are many. The following reasons
were the push that made me opt for a vegan diet (no meat, dairy or
eggs).

The primary cause of climate change (also known as global warming) is
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. The amount of fossil fuels
needed to produce an animal product centered diet is 3 times more than
that which is required by a vegetarian diet. This can be accounted for
by the fuel used in transporting the animal feed, heating animal
shelters, transporting the animals to the slaughter house and then to
the retailer where the meat is sold, and in the operation of meat
packing plants. Cattle are particularly problematic in the erosion of
precious top soil. In the US 85% of topsoil erosion is due to the
raising of livestock. When a given area loses enough top soil, it
cannot support the growth of vegetation.

The raising of livestock uses enormous amounts of fresh water in
comparison to the amounts needed to produce food for a vegetable based
diet. It takes approximately 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of
wheat compared to 390 gallons to produce 1lb of beef. If the amount of
water used to produce beef was not subsidized by government funding,
the price of 1lb of beef would be $35.

Livestock production is associated with heavy water pollution due to
the high amount of feces from the animals. In the US, livestock
produce 130 times as much fecal waste as people. Runoff from livestock
production has been the cause of massive fish kills in lakes and
rivers where the runoff ends up.

Livestock production is also a huge source of deforestation in North
America and worldwide, leading to the near extinction of animal,
insect, and plant species. Forests are cleared making room for cattle
to graze; where forests once existed, grain and corn have been planted
in order to feed livestock.

If living lightly upon the planet is a principle that you go by, an
animal-free diet should be a part of it.

When I was in third grade I wrote a thesis on the ethical treatment of
vegitables in gardens. It was then that I decided to become a
nothinivoir. It seems that in the rush to get squash and turnip greens
to market no account is given to the well being of these poor little
helpless creatures. They are placed in the sun all day with rain,
bugs, and worms all over them. The lucky ones get some form of bug
spray to keep the critters off. Most, however must put up with this
injustice. The plants are arranged in rows packed so tight that they
have no room of their own. Then, just when they are reaching there
full life potential, some person with a knife comes and cuts them from
the ground where they were meant to be.
From here it is a long trip to the proccessing plant in some old
truck or refrigerated railcar. Many don't survive this dangerous and
uncompfortable trip and rot on the way. Those are the fortunate few.
The rest are brought in in the dead of night to a plant were work
torture and mame the still living creatures by removing body parts and
subjecting them to various forms of mistreatment. Some are skined
alive while others are boiled in their own juices. The poorest of the
lot are sent into large blenders and chopped to itty bitty pieces.
This all happens whithout any thought to the feelings and pain of
these creatures. From this point, their remains are blended together
in many sorts of ways to create "food" that so called civilized man
wants to eat. Believe it or not, some vegitables are even sent live to
supermarkets where people buy them and take them home to slaughter
them in their own homes. This is why I cannot think of eating
vegitables, knowing what these entities go through.

People for the Consumption of whatever's left

Thats it, I'm convinced. I'm now a non-foodarian. I'm not going to eat
another life form. All that is left is twinkies, spam and whiskey.

--
Harry in Iowa

"Land of mystery 'cause nobody really lives there"

I know you think you are trying to be funny, but your are trolling just
as much as the vegetarian kook. If you want to stay out of killfiles,
please ignore the trolls instead of feeding them.




Brian Rodenborn

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:47:15 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

>I know you think you are trying to be funny, but your are trolling just
>as much as the vegetarian kook.

The followup message looks suspicicious in itself. Probably just
the same troll again.

-sw

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:47:15 GMT, Default User
> > wrote:
>
> >I know you think you are trying to be funny, but your are trolling just
> >as much as the vegetarian kook.
>
> The followup message looks suspicicious in itself. Probably just
> the same troll again.


I thought of that, and actually canceled my reponse. Obviously it
slipped out to where you could see it.




Brian Rodenborn

<snip>

A Book of Food
by Morton P. Shand
(NY : Knopf, 1928)

Sentimental Vegetarianism
The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
frutarians, nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If
the pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic principal
of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of mankind should be
constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful persuasion, since the
offence is greater in the eating than in the killing -- to abstain
from meat nourishment for all eternity.

After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous animals
being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the outrage of
carnivorous animals preying on each other.

"Harry in Iowa" > wrote in message
8.50...
> Thats it, I'm convinced. I'm now a non-foodarian. I'm not going to eat
> another life form. All that is left is twinkies, spam and whiskey.
>
Goddamn good in my opinion.

On 26 Jan 2004 21:57:12 -0800,
(www.factoryfarming.com) posted this tasty recipe:

Asian Beef Skewers

3 tablespoons hoisin sauce
3 tablespoons sherry
1/4 cup soy sauce
1 teaspoon barbeque sauce
2 green onions, chopped
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon minced fresh ginger root
1 1/2 pounds flank steak

In a small bowl, mix together hoisin sauce, sherry, soy sauce,
barbeque sauce, green onions, garlic and ginger.

Cut flank steak across grain on a diagonal, yielding thin, 2 inch wide
slices. Place slices in a 1 gallon, resealable plastic bag. Pour
hoisin sauce mixture over slices, and mix well. Refrigerate 2 hours,
or overnight.

Preheat an outdoor grill for high heat.

Thread steak on skewers. Grill 3 minutes per side, or to desired
doneness.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:10:40 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:

>On 26 Jan 2004 21:57:12 -0800,
>(www.factoryfarming.com) posted this tasty recipe:
>
>Asian Beef Skewers

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that no repsonse is better
than any, Kevin. No matter how meat related it is - he's still
got your goat.

-sw

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:15:02 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:10:40 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Jan 2004 21:57:12 -0800,
>>(www.factoryfarming.com) posted this tasty recipe:
>>
>>Asian Beef Skewers
>
>I don't think I'm alone in thinking that no repsonse is better
>than any, Kevin. No matter how meat related it is - he's still
>got your goat.
>
Nope. I honestly couldn't care less about a bunch of easily ignored
flame-bait.

I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
with recipes.

Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:

>Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

How about you just post decent, new recipes regardless and
separate from what veg-boy does (No Was: or References: lines)

-sw

Default User wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>> I don't think I'm alone in thinking that no repsonse is better
>> than any, Kevin. No matter how meat related it is - he's still
>> got your goat.
>
>
> I agree with Steve. I don't even believe the troller is really a veg
> fanatic anyway, he's just figured that this is the optimum troll for
> this group. He probably has different ones for other groups.
>
> The best thing is for the troll messages to disappear without a
> ripple.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Agree with Brian again (twice today).
Jack Curry

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:15:02 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:10:40 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Jan 2004 21:57:12 -0800,
>>>(www.factoryfarming.com) posted this tasty recipe:
>>>
>>>Asian Beef Skewers
>>
>>I don't think I'm alone in thinking that no repsonse is better
>>than any, Kevin. No matter how meat related it is - he's still
>>got your goat.
>>
>Nope. I honestly couldn't care less about a bunch of easily ignored
>flame-bait.
>
>I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
>that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
>flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
>with recipes.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?

>
>Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
the trolls?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk >
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
>>that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
>>flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
>>with recipes.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?

Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

>>Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>>flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>>leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.
>
>How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
>the trolls?

What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
posting an on-topic recipe.

I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe. And the knife guy,
and everybody else who feeds the troll and then says, "Oh, I know I
should resist."

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk >
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
>>> that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
>>> flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
>>> with recipes.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?
>
> Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
> to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
> bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
> head hurt to think of someone that stupid.
>
>>> Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>>> flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>>> leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.
>>
>> How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs
>> of the trolls?
>
> What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
> posting an on-topic recipe.
>
> I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
> better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe. And the knife guy,
> and everybody else who feeds the troll and then says, "Oh, I know I
> should resist."

Lead, don't follow.
Jack Curry
-for those who know, "I am Infantry"-

In article >, Kevin S.
Wilson > wrote:

> I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
> better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe.

Me? I'm gonna call my congressman about it that's what I'm gonna do....

monroe(and the White House)

In article >,
Kevin S. Wilson > wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk >
>wrote:
>
>>>I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
>>>that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
>>>flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
>>>with recipes.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?
>
>Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
>to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
>bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
>head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

I'm with Kevin on this. The main point of trolling is to get
responses -- not reading them would be pretty much exactly like
masturbation without the happy ending.

>>>Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>>>flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>>>leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.
>>
>>How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
>>the trolls?
>
>What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
>posting an on-topic recipe.

And I'm with him on this, too. The technique works very well on
other newsgroups -- lurk a bit on alt.folklore.urban if you don't
believe me.

The worst thing to do is to respond to the troll with outrage.
Think of a toddler throwing a tantrum -- if you pay attention
to him, give him candy or some other treat to pacify him,
you're playing his game, and the tantrum behavior is just
reinforced. If you ignore him, on the other hand, he's more
likely just to run out of steam and go to sleep.

However, some of the AFB community seems not to have gotten
the hang of this Usenet thing yet -- and ignoring the troll
does no good if others won't. So the next best thing is to
respond with a non sequitur; it's like ignoring the troll
AND making it obvious to him that you're doing so. This also
has the benefit of reminding the outraged responders that
they're just feeding the troll.

The technique works best when more than one person uses it,
though. I'd encourage others to follow Kevin's lead -- think
of all the recipes that'll be exchanged, if nothing else.

--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage --> http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
================================================== ======================
"Grown men are not comfortable explaining why they want to use the sniper
rifle on fictional dogs with speech impediments." -James Lileks

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:00:31 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
>>>that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
>>>flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
>>>with recipes.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?
>
>Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
>to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
>bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
>head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

We often make the mistake of thinkng that *WE* set the bar for others.
Bad mistake.
>
>>>Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
>>>flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
>>>leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.
>>
>>How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
>>the trolls?
>
>What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
>posting an on-topic recipe.

There are many who will killfile the thread; they will not see your
recipes.
>
>I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
>better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe. And the knife guy,
>and everybody else who feeds the troll and then says, "Oh, I know I
>should resist."


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Mark Shaw wrote:

> And I'm with him on this, too. The technique works very well on
> other newsgroups -- lurk a bit on alt.folklore.urban if you don't
> believe me.

Well, AFU folks are . . . different. I learned a lot more about cabbits
and BOAs than I expected.

> The worst thing to do is to respond to the troll with outrage.

Absolutely.

> However, some of the AFB community seems not to have gotten
> the hang of this Usenet thing yet -- and ignoring the troll
> does no good if others won't.

That's certainly true.

> So the next best thing is to
> respond with a non sequitur; it's like ignoring the troll
> AND making it obvious to him that you're doing so. This also
> has the benefit of reminding the outraged responders that
> they're just feeding the troll.

It has the determiment that newbies reading it may interpret that as any
non-sequitur is a good response, such as the anti-vegetarian jokes and
stories, and the inflammatory reference to abortion that have shown up
recently.

I think it's better to encourage no response at all, with only gentle
admonitions about not responding to trolls for the new people who are
sucked in. Let the oh-so-clever trolls disappear with nary a ripple.

I had been posting what I was doing in response to troll posts: "block
this poster", "filter this keyword", kill this thread. Steve W. didn't
seem to like that, although the only way could see that was because I
was googling for another post of mine, if I've killed a thread, how am I
going to see a followup?

> The technique works best when more than one person uses it,
> though. I'd encourage others to follow Kevin's lead -- think
> of all the recipes that'll be exchanged, if nothing else.

Yes and no. As I said, I usually immediately kill the thread. The
exceptions are ones like this, where there are already followups or
meta-discussion underway. So I and others that do the same won't see
these.


Brian Rodenborn

"www.factoryfarming.com" > wrote in
message om...
> The Environmental Side to Vegetarianism
>
> by Erica Franklin
>
>
> I wrote a paper in grade nine on the treatment of animals in livestock
> production. The day that I started my research was the day that I cut
> all meat out of my diet. My primary inspiration for this was an
> ethical one. I did not want to support an industry that treated
> animals only as commodities and harboured them in an environment that
> would allow them to produce the most eggs, milk or animal flesh in the
> shortest amount of time possible. In order to do this, the ethical
> treatment of livestock is overlooked.


**** the animals, they're food. Just groceries. That's their goal
in life, to end up on my plate.


>
> I could delve much further into the issue of how farm animals are
> treated, but I am not here to talk about animal rights. I am here to
> point out the environmental repercussions associated with the
> livestock industry, of which there are many. The following reasons
> were the push that made me opt for a vegan diet (no meat, dairy or
> eggs).
>

Well isn't that cute. I guess that just leaves more for the rest of
us folks that can actually kill and gut an animal before consuming it.


> The primary cause of climate change (also known as global warming)

Once again I spank you idiots for talking about global warming when
most of the USA is in a hard freeze. Think August, you parsnip headed,
sissy dress wearing lunatics!


> If living lightly upon the planet is a principle that you go by, an
> animal-free diet should be a part of it.
>

Who said we wanted to live lightly? We own this ****ing planet and
we'll do with it as we wish. If that includes consuming you in the process,
so be it.

TFM®

"TFM®" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "www.factoryfarming.com" > wrote in
> message om...
> > The Environmental Side to Vegetarianism
> >
> > by Erica Franklin
> >
> >
> > I wrote a paper in grade nine on the treatment of animals in livestock
> > production. The day that I started my research was the day that I cut
> > all meat out of my diet. My primary inspiration for this was an
> > ethical one. I did not want to support an industry that treated
> > animals only as commodities and harboured them in an environment that
> > would allow them to produce the most eggs, milk or animal flesh in the
> > shortest amount of time possible. In order to do this, the ethical
> > treatment of livestock is overlooked.
>
>
> **** the animals, they're food. Just groceries. That's their
goal
> in life, to end up on my plate.
>
>
> >
> > I could delve much further into the issue of how farm animals are
> > treated, but I am not here to talk about animal rights. I am here to
> > point out the environmental repercussions associated with the
> > livestock industry, of which there are many. The following reasons
> > were the push that made me opt for a vegan diet (no meat, dairy or
> > eggs).
> >
>
> Well isn't that cute. I guess that just leaves more for the rest
of
> us folks that can actually kill and gut an animal before consuming it.
>
>
> > The primary cause of climate change (also known as global warming)
>
> Once again I spank you idiots for talking about global warming
when
> most of the USA is in a hard freeze. Think August, you parsnip headed,
> sissy dress wearing lunatics!
>
>
> > If living lightly upon the planet is a principle that you go by, an
> > animal-free diet should be a part of it.
> >
>
> Who said we wanted to live lightly? We own this ****ing planet
and
> we'll do with it as we wish. If that includes consuming you in the
process,
> so be it.
>
> TFM®
>
>
TFM,
AMEN!!!