Moon Cat
|
Re: So why are you a veggie?
Feb 03, 2001, 20:52
|
Hey Izzy, I know this is something of a lengthy thread, but going back to your original four points as to why you're veggy...
Don't points one and two kind of contradict each other? I know from experience the veggy life lends itself to much parpsome pant activity.
Point 3: Well I have met plenty of veggies and also vegans that are well into the realms of rotunditude, so that doesn't always work.
Can't argue with point 4 mind
Blessin's
|
Merrick
|
Re: Why am I still vege?
Feb 04, 2001, 00:20
|
My dear IzzyOrange, I am most certainly not ignoring you, merely being away from computeryness for a while.
The enviromental thing is indeed a real issue. I have a friend who lived in Egypt, and he was proudly vegetarian. Until he saw his Egyptian housmate go out and catch a fish for tea, and it hit him that he was eating overpirced vegetables that had been grown with pesticides and shipped half way around the world, and as such was doing far more damge than the fishy guy.
I chalenge any meaty Brit to argue they could get a sound diet without imports. The word 'protein' leaps to mind. But then we have to ask what our present livestock are fed on; grain and other foodstuffs grown abroad and shipped in.
We also have to look at the environmental impact of grazing animals on the environment. Bare mountains and moors are seen as natural countryside, in the same way that rotting piles of animal shit constitute a 'natural countryside smell'.
The sheep, cattle and deer love new shots, thus preventing any new tree growth. The Romans called the northern part of Britain 'Caledonia' or 'mountainous land of forest'. We cut the forest to graze our animals, and the animals prevent new forest.
As great and worthy an organisation as Trees For Life spends a lot of its time not growing trees, but fencing saplings from foraging sheep, deer and cattle.
Faced with the protein choice of a cow having (probably GM) imported animal feed and saplings, or else imported Turkish lentils, I find myself being firmly a lentil guy every time.
|
grufty jim
|
rainforests and corruption
Feb 06, 2001, 18:05
|
i spent a few months in the rainforests of brazil (mostly in the subtropical areas in the south of the country, but also in the Amazon forest itself), and from my experience working with conservationists, the problems there are so intertwined and complex that just saying "corruption" doesn't get to the heart of the matter - and can actually be a bit misleading.
the simple fact of the matter is that clear-cutting an area of rainforest (or even simply burning it for extra grazing land) results in a significant local economic boost. of course the corporate greedheads at the top of the heap rake in the vast majority of that benefit and spirit it away to their villas on the coast (and overseas), and there's only a pittance left for the local people. but it's a pittance that they don't have without the deforestation.
the rainforest is the only easily exploitable resource in a nation of extremely impoverished people. to deny the brazillians the right to chop down their own forests so that they can get better food for thmselves and their families, is ludicrous unless we offer them an alternative (especially considering the fact that "we in the west" long ago clear cut 95% of our forests for economic benefit).
The rainforest is a vital global resource that must be preserved as best we can. but until the local populations have an alternative method of raising their standard of living, we can hardly blame them for exploiting their resources (as "we in the west" are wont to do).
of course, the root cause of the issue is global capitalism (the practice of placing a monetary value on everything and placing a higher priority on that monetary value than on any other consideration - ecological, ethical or even long-term survival).
'corruption' plays its part in the tragedy that is the Brazillian situation, but the root cause is something far more nebulous.
|
grufty jim
|
rainforests: an addendum
Feb 06, 2001, 18:16
|
upon re-reading my message, it seems as though you might get the impression that i'm saying "it's alright for the brazillians to destroy the rainforest"
that is NOT my belief (as anyone who knows me will tell you). i'm just pointing out that the a lot of poor people in brazil are not willing to listen to well-fed westerners insist that they refrain from exploiting an easily exploitable resource (and remain less well-fed) unless an alternative is offered.
i'm not claiming that much of the profit from the forest goes to the hungry of brazil, but some of it does. and to a hungry person "some" is a lot better than "none".
if i had my wish, the tree-felling would stop completely tomorrow. but while we live in the era of global capitalism, the rainforest (like all natural resources) will continue to have a very tempting monetary value attached to it. unless we offer the poor, aspirng capitalists of brazil a better route to their desired standard of living; i don't see an end to deforestation.
bloody profit-motive! it's killing the planet!
|
