>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 love good pop books. It wasn't meant as a disparaging remark. No, I
haven't read the books, which is part of why I was interested in your
summary of the arguments presented. But truth told, from your comments I
suspect the books to be full of hyperbole and overgeneralizations. FWIW, I
love reading Rifkin books once in a while. It's part of the big picture.
It's just not the gospel, you know?
>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.
I know more than you imagine. My point was against your hyperbole and
overgeneralization. My point to Alan is the same. I feel like all I do is
repeat myself on this issue of overboard claims. It puzzles me that I can
not make myself understood better, but so it goes...
>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. Because it is simply your opinion that it is "by far the worst
environmental offender in the history of mankind". An opinion you haven't
supported much at all. It is an interesting topic, but my curiosity is more
along the lines of "what non-obvious repercussions are there in particular
animal husbandry practices?" Not finding out what is the worst srcouge of
all history.
>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.
Untold ways. Yeah, I agree with that adjective. ;)
>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
Again, it sounds like monocropping grains are the culprit.
> 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).
Feedlots are problematic, I agree. Cattle ranching on pasture is much less
problematic. Indeed, many such ranches are on land that wouldn't support
most other kinds af agriculture. Cattle and sheep eat grasses which are
indigestable by humans. It is part of a healthy and sustainable ecosystem
which benefits humans. Why people don't rally for better livestock
practices instead of flaming meat or cattle ranching in general has always
puzzled me.
>cattle is also responsable in part for the current use of pesticides,
>because A LOT of the world=B4s grain is given to animals!
Most pesticides are used on fruits and vegetables, axel. It is often
impractical to use them on the acreges involved in grain agriculture.
>rifking also talked about social problems caused by cattle, but i guess this
>is enough for me for today.
People talk about all sorts of things, axel. That doesn't make it fact. All
conclusions are jumped to--sometimes the jump is small and sometimes it is
huge. If you wish to research the topic of agricultural impact you must
look into all the different conclusions that are jumped to. Not just the
writers with particular agendas. That would be like relying on the pro-beef
folks to form all your opinions. Assuming you need to have an opinion.
>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.
Why would you tell me to be _certain_ of that--indeed, of anything?
>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.
That's the problem with most of the deep ecology arguments. In the end, the
best thing one can do to help the cause is die early. ;) The vegetarian
propaganda doesn't take it that far. They seem to stop at: "don't eat
animals and everything will be OK"
>i am baffled, kirt. there is no way you have never heard of the problems
>that cattle cause on the earth.=20
I have probably heard of most of them--surely not all of them. Again, what
seems off base to me is your hyperbole and overgeneralization. Whether
modern agriculture can support a human population of 8 billion (high meat
eating) or 40 billion (rice and beans) makes little difference to me. I
just try to get on in a reasonable susatinable way myself. It would break
my back to carry the world's problems on my shoulders.
Why is it such an important issue to you? Actually, I tend to think that if
it were such an important issue to you you would look into it more
carefully--ie, read a variety of points of view and see if you can get the
bigger picture. The better question might be: why is it so important to you
to believe that cattle of the biggest environmental problem on the
planet--ignoring grain agriculture, clorine compounds, politcal genecide,
etc etc etc?
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
