At 20:41 25/02/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Axel,
>
>I agree with much of what you said, but
>
> -I think if all animals were organically raised (in particular fed
>grass, organic grains and legumes) then this would considerably reduce
>agriculture-related pollution: pesticides wouldn't be poured in our
>rivers; fields would be fertilized by non-soil-depleting techniques,
>etc. In addition, the fact that animals are free-range means that
>they would eat mostly grass (instead of grains) in summer.
axel:
all this could be done in a world with much less people. in a world like
ours, it is not possible to come up with a sustainable way of having all
people have meat if they want. it is just impossible, considering the size
of the earth and the number of people. but there are other things, too.
in my opinion, the world does not belong to the human race. we have no
spiritual/natural right to use the land of the world to produce meat, even
if done organically, sustainably, permaculturely, instincto, whatever! there
is just not enough land.
organic food for all people is not enough, also we need plenty of forests,
rain forests, trees, trees, trees, abundance of species, diversity, etc. the
less we mess the world the better
.
raising animals take up TOO much space.
of course we are lucky wealthy people having an exchange, but even then, the
more people that cut animal products, it is better for the environment, and
you set an example for others to follow, and you are using less land, water,
energy, for your food needs. this is from a environmental and economic point
of view only. this guy does not know about RAF for health reasons.
the following is from a WorldWatch paper by Alan B Durning and Holly B.
Brough, called "Taking Stock: animal farming and the environment"
"Large areas of the worldīs cropland now produce grains for animals. Roughly
38 percent of the worldīs grain -especially corn, barley, sorghum, and oats-
is fed to livestock".
"An alien ecologist observing...earth might conclude that cattle is the
dominant animal species in our biosphere, writes University of Georgia
bioligist David Hamilton Wright. Cattle and other ruminant livestock such as
sheep and goats graze one-half of the planetīs total land area. Ruminants,
along with pigs and poultry, also eat feed and fodder raise on one-fourth of
the cropland. Ubiquitous and familiar, livestoch exert a huge, and largely
unrecognized, impact on the global environment."
"Cattle play a prominent role in global desertification -the reduction of
drylandīs ecological productivity. The process, however, id far more complex
and varied than the word "desertification," conjuring images of sand dunes
swalloing the range, implies. Initially, cattle overgraze perennial grasses,
allowing annual weeds and tougher shrubs to spread. This shift in species
composition is the most prevalent form of range degradation. The new weeds
anchor the topsoil poorly, and can leave it vulnerable to trampling hooves
and the erosive power of wind and rain. Without the cover of perennial
grasses, fires that naturally control bushes lose their tinder, so shrubs
expand unchecked. As the variety of plants species dwindles, wildlife
species also vanish."
"Livestock accout for 15 percent to 20 percent of global methane emissions
-about 3 percent of global warming from all gases."
jean louis:
> -Suppose that we converted the world to vegetarianism (which is
>implausible, of course).
axel:
we MUST dramatically reduce the consumption of animal products on a
world-wide scale merely to STOP destroying the whole world! it is not a
choice. it is a survival imperative.
jean-louis:
Since probably most people will still want to
>eat cooked food, it would mean they would start eating more cooked
>grains (bread, pasta, boiled rice...) and cooked legumes (tofu, etc.)
>Certainly people won't want, or won't be able, to stick with a 100%
>vegan diet and therefore will eat dairy and/or eggs.
cooking is wasteful in a way, but again, here i do not speak in terms of
health or dietary preferences. in third world countries, using wood for
cooking is very common and wastes a lot of trees.
dairy and eggs are also very world-destroying activities. sustainable
methods are far better, but still wasteful and inefficient.
also i think we all agree on this list that regardless of the percentage,
most of the diet should be raw. people can be educated to know this simple
fact.
They won't eat
>much more fresh produce, since fruits and vegetables--especially the
>high-quality ones--are relatively expensive.
they are expensive because of transportation, because we eat organic food
form far away, because of the health food store, etc. ideally we can have
descentralized small towns with nearby abundance of organic food, and it
would me much cheaper. if i include all factors, organic food is not
expensive. it is the best for your health, you help reduce the poisoning of
your world with deadly chemicals of unknown effect, you support organic
growers. i have read of a group that teaches permaculture in third world
countries that has success in getting the people to grow their own food
sustainably, they have done it in cuba, in africa, and in some other places.
The result will be a diet
>overloaded with gluten, phytates, and potential allergens.
this is just a possible scenario. you can educate people to eat good food.
no need to eat a lot of grains.
> -The mere fact that we are civilized creates pollution.
true.
Agriculture
>pollutes, but also industries, cars do. Most of us use clothes,
>computers, paper, bleach, plastic, electricity in our houses, etc.
this is not the point. it is very simple to avoid animal products if you
want. besides, there is no comparisson between the environmental damage of
modern animal husbandry and the other things you mention. if you want to
comunicate, create, learn, etc, you need electricity, computers, books,
clothing, etc. there are ways to produce many things in a more
environmentally friendly manner, but again this is not the point. nothing in
the world is more damaging at all levels than animal husbandry. i am not
exaggerating at all.
>lot of the pollution could in principle be reduced (like by recycling,
>using trains instead of cars, buying things out of necessity and not
>because it's in fashion, etc). Perhaps planting fruit trees and/or
>eating the grains we are cultivating to feed animals would reduce
>ecological damage, but I am not sure it is the most urgent or useful
>thing to do.
you can be sure it is. whatīs more, the potential changes for the
environment derived from a reduction of animal products consumption are
breathtaking.
"diet for a new america", by John Robbins, and "beyond beef", by Jeremy
Rifkin have tons of evidence of this.
> -As I suggested, the climate and soil in some countries (like France
>or the US) is favorable enough to feed the entire population with
>meat, fruits and vegetables, and in addition eliminate hunger in one
>or several African countries.
you are overlooking the fact that this implies using most of the land to
produce food, and this is a very weird and unnatural, imbalanced greedy
thing in itself. instead of this, food production should take a part of the
land, and the rest be used to have forests, natural reserves, wildlife
flourishing, etc.
i do not know about France, but have read quite a bit about the way it works
in the states, because there are no such research in my country, and it is
an environmental tragedy! there are huge areas turned into barren lands just
because of animals "eating grass".
you know, before humans decided to use the whole world to raise animals,
there were not so many cows and sheep and poultry in this planet! they were
just another species. all this actually is very simple in a way: abolish as
soon as possible animal husbandry in all places where it can be abolished!
it is not a worthy human activity.
>But of course, most of the food in excess is not sent to
>Africa. Instead, African people are, either working like slaves for
>delocalized industries, or unemployed and starving in slums, or
>working in mines extracting some raw material that will be sold at low
>prices to industrialized countries, or struggling to cultivate a few
>acres of dry land. Tell them to become vegetarian, and they'll laugh
>at you, because either they have no money to buy food at all (whether
>meat or vegetables), or are anyway almost vegetarian because they only
>cultivate cereals (and are malnourished as a result: protein and
>vitamin A deficies, etc).
vegetarianism is not THE answer for human suffering. but it is a fundamental
part of it. it will not solve social, historical, emotional problems, but as
a species, solely for survival reasons, we have to head in that direction.
donīt get me wrong: it is ok if you are sick and eating anything makes you
well, go for it. but there must be a way to harmonize the health part with
the environmental part.
about africa, Rifkin has this to say:
"Nowhere is the problem of overgrazing more severe than in Africa, where
millions of acres of rangeland are being swallowed up each year - making
desertification the single greatest threat to the ecology of the contintent
and the survivability of its human population.[...] "Over 50 percent of the
surface area of East Africa is given over to the grazing of some 23 millon
head of cattle."
"There are now 186 millon cattel grazing on the African continent, or one
cow every three people. This is in a region where agricultural production
has been unable to keep pace with the demands of a growing human population
for close to two decades. In the nince nations of southern Africa, the
number of cattle now exceeds the carrying capacity of the land by 50 to 100
percent".
In addition, we should keep in mind that
>civil wars, natural disasters and population displacement also contribute
>to under- and malnutrition.
sure, but animal husbandry is much, much worse overall.
i am tempted to keep quoting rifkin about how deserts are created in africa
by the overpopulation of cattle, but i guess the above ilustrates my point.
the important thing to me is realizing that no matter how much you "improve"
animal husbandry, the basic problem remains, because it is the mere
existence of hundreds of millons of animals everywhere what creates all this
havoc.
hope you guys donīt find it unrespectful that i get too carried away with
this subject, for me there is great potential for world healing in it.
axel
|
