Axel,
you try to imply that _all_ animal husbandry have bad results.
As usual, trying to claim "all" anything is generally unhelpful - not only
to an argument, but also to allowing for possible alternate solutions.

It is a fact that there are methods of animal husbandry that are _very_
beneficial.  Generally, certified organic requirements fall into this category.

Actually, there are many vegetable-growing practices that are worse than
many animal-growing ones.   As an example, farmers that continually crop the
land year after year.

Before they were killed off earlier this century (or was it last c.?) there
were millions of bison on the plains in USA, soil was very fertile.  Look at
it now.

You would be better arguing that many farming practices are turning the land
to desert - it is man's stupidity that is ruining the planet: don't blame
the cattle for being forced to live in a certain way.

Lynton

At 12:25 AM 3/11/99 -0300, you wrote:
>At 14:52 09/03/1999 -1000, you wrote:
>
>>axel:
>>>hi, kirt. i saved this message for later answering. i am busy right now,
>>>otherwise i would quote a zillon things for you, but i have read about=
> this,
>>>i am not making it up. read for example "beyond beef", by jeremy rifkin
>>>(comprehensive analysis of the many impacts of animal husbandry in the=
> past
>>>and currently),  "waste of the west", by Lynn Jacobs (an AMAZING book,
>>>eventhough i do not live in the states, but the guy did an incredible
>>>research into all aspects of cattle ranching in the west of the united
>>>states). there are other things damaging in the earth, but if you have to
>>>single out a human activity, the worst  is animal husbandry.
>
>kirt:
>
>>Perhaps you can explain these various levels and how damage
>>is done...?
>>
>>Saying a couple guys did "research" and wrote pop books
>
>axel:
>
>just, by chance, did you read any of the books? i mean, since you have not
>read them, you have no idea whether they are "pop" books or "scientific"
>books (that maybe explain how "viruses" do all sorts of things). i know you
>eat animal products and think they are good for human beings, but you seem
>to know nothing about the environmental impact of them. does it bother you
>that something SO good and healing and biologically appropiate is by far the
>worst environmental offender in the history of mankind? no, i am not
>exaggerating, we have been raising too many animals for a long time, and
>they have destroyed the world in untold ways. of course if you have never
>read about this, you can go like "what is this dude talking about?". same
>thing happens to many people when they hear for the first time that maybe,
>just maybe, the food they eat has something to do with their health.
>
>cattle is bad for the environment. not a little bad, but very bad. they are
>like big  locusts that are all over eating eating eating, walking all over,
>displacing native species, forcing forests to be cut and burn so they can
>eat eat eat, so we can eat eat eat them (not me, though :)), eating a lot of
>the world=B4s grain, wasting, oh wasting so much FOOD no matter how=
> imperfect,
>that starving people could potentially EAT, what else, creating deserts out
>of good land, poluting the world with billons, yes, billons of tons of shit
>all over (just try to imagine hundred of millons of animal=B4s excrements.=
> do
>you think all this manure might be slightly harmful for the environment? no,
>it is not like the manure in a natural ecosystem, no, because there are
>feedlots, there is cattle ranching with many animals in not that much space,
>etc). cattle is also responsable in part for the current use of pesticides,
>because A LOT of the world=B4s grain is given to animals! do you guys get
>this? less animals eating our food, less pesticides being used! and now that
>i think about it: less people being harmed by the existence of this=
> pesticides.=20
>rifking also talked about social problems caused by cattle, but i guess this
>is enough for me for today.
>=20
>kirt:
>
>  does't leave me any
>>wiser. Certainly not enough wiser to share such hyperbole as animal
>>husbandry is the worst human activity.=20
>
>axel:
>
>ok, i will try to find some decent web page and report back, though i do not
>think i can find something as good as Rifkin=B4s book. but be certain that
>animal husbandry being the worst evil environmentally-wise is as much an
>hyperbole as saying that food has a lot to do with human health.
>
>no matter how good animal products are for your health (something i do not
>know about) they are a nightmare for the environment unless of course the
>population is drastically reduced.=20
>
>i am baffled, kirt. there is no way you have never heard of the problems
>that cattle cause on the earth.=20
>
>
>regards,
>             axel makaroff
>
>