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 worldīs 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 animalīs 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 worldīs 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.
rifking also talked about social problems caused by cattle, but i guess this
is enough for me for today.
kirt:
does't leave me any
>wiser. Certainly not enough wiser to share such hyperbole as animal
>husbandry is the worst human activity.
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 Rifkinīs 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.
i am baffled, kirt. there is no way you have never heard of the problems
that cattle cause on the earth.
regards,
axel makaroff
|
