In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:45PM PT
(This is the second in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. The first part of my response can be found here.)
To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture. I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.
Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold. This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically. There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.
It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist. In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.
This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture. Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit. We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.
In addition, his assertion that industrial animal farming is both more environmentally sound and produces a safer supply of meat is just plain ridiculous. What he fails to mention in his discussion about manure use is that most of the shit (literally) that is produced by factory feedlots is contaminated with dangerous microbes, antibiotic resistant bacteria and unsafe nitrate levels. Spreading this manure over many acres (as Hurst says farmers love to do) helps to further contaminate our air and water supply. I'm not convinced that this is really better than the "dozens of tons" of synthetic fertilizers that Hurst says would be used instead.
One thing I've never heard of is someone getting sick from the hamburger they purchased from a local farmer (not to say it has never happened). Unfortunately, what I have heard more and more about lately is people getting very sick from factory produced meat. For example, on August 6, 2009, nearly one million pounds of salmonellosis tainted ground beef was recalled from Beef Packers, Inc. (owned by Cargill). So far the FDA has not even released information on where exactly this beef went (even though 28 people in three western states have already reported salmonella-type infections.)
On the other hand, eating less meat and consuming less dairy is not as simple and straight-forward as some make it out to be. Should most people eat much less meat and consume much less dairy? Of course. Not only are diets high in these products unhealthy, they also drive the demand for large amounts of cheap animal products.
But in my opinion, a truly sustainable food system consists of both crop and animal farmers selling their products directly to consumers and to businesses and institutions (restaurants, hospitals, school districts, prisons, etc.) that have a commitment to serving locally produced food.
Lets face it: being able to eat a strictly meatless diet is only possible because of worldwide industrial food production. (Not to mention that it is a diet only able to be adopted by people who can afford, financially or health wise, to be so picky about their food.)
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to eat a local meatless diet--although I suspect it would be difficult through those long, cold New England winters I grew up in--but that to assume this type of diet is a realistic possibility for everyone on earth is naive and underestimates the dramatic changes that would need to take place to make that possible.
I'm sorry, but I will just never be able to feel as good about eating an off-season pepper from Argentina as I can about eating a hamburger from one of my neighbors.
At the same time, we cannot continue to produce meat the way that Hurst so adamantly supports. It's destructive to our environment, it's bad for our health and it lacks any soulful connection to the way we used to view food production. And despite Hurst's claim that "people will go hungry" without a steady supply of factory produced meat, I think everyone knows that no one needs to eat meat (or dairy for that matter) to survive.
So where does this leave us? At a really difficult sticking point, in my opinion.
One thing that I think everyone needs to realize is that consuming animal products is a privilege, not a right. We should not assume that each and every meal we eat should contain meat or dairy or both. Because, of course, it doesn't have to.
I'd love to tell you all to only purchase meat and dairy from farmers you know and trust. But the reality is that locally produced meat is outrageously (but justifiably) expensive, and out of reach of the majority of the population.
What I would ask everyone to do is think about if they really want to support the type of animal agriculture Hurst thinks we need to survive. Why don't we prove him wrong? Why don't we show him that there is no demand for factory farmed animal products, that we value farmers who haven't abandoned their soulful roots for the lure of mass produced profits.
This will require that we go without sometimes, that we say, "you know what? I really feel like a steak tonight, but since the farmers market isn't until this Saturday, I'll just have some eggplant and pasta instead."
It's supply and demand people. If we show farmers like Hurst that we would rather not eat meat than eat the kind of meat he advocates for, things will change. Slowly but surely, they'll change.
But it's up to us.
(Photo credit: Nicholas_T on Flickr)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (43)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Greg Plotkin is a local food enthusiast, former farm laborer from Connecticut, and current grant writer at American Farmland Trust in Washington, DC. The views and ideas he shares here are his alone, and do not represent those of American Farmland Trust. Follow Greg on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gplot.
Featured Sustainable Food Actions
-
-
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
3035 People
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
"Lets face it: being able to eat a strictly meatless diet is only possible because of worldwide industrial food production. (Not to mention that it is a diet only able to be adopted by people who can afford, financially or health wise, to be so picky about their food.)"
This statement is completely wrong. 40% on Indians are vegetarian, and have historically been vegetarian. Large numbers of Chinese people have traditionally been vegetarian. It may approach some sort of truth if the statement is limited to northern and colder regions, or mountainous regions like Tibet, but even in those regions there have been strict vegetarians. Shabkar, a Tibetan monk, was a vegetarian. There is also no real basis for saying that full vegetarianism depends on "worldwide industrial food production". Industrial food production is not a necessary part of international trade in foodstuffs. Quite likely we could have rice trasnported all over the world without the negatives associated with industrial agriculture. In fact, there are many organic farmers who sell all over the world. Products like coffee are produced on a small scale, organically, with concern for the land, and shipped all over the world. There is no reason to believe that a vegan can't eat a full and healthy diet without depending on "industrial agriculture." The transportation of food only accounts for about 10% of the energy cost of that food, and efficient shipping and transport methods from ideal growing climates to less-ideal climates can be more effiecient even than many small-scale local farmers inefficiently trucking their produce to a farmer's market.
Leaving your justification for negative statements like this to your feelings doesn't do the issue real justice. We need to do true cost accounting - something which shouldn't be left to your "opinion" or how you "feel."
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 08/28/2009 @ 11:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Not to mention that [a meatless diet] is a diet only able to be adopted by people who can afford, financially or health wise, to be so picky about their food."
Greg, having visited the animal rights blogs on change.org, I would have expected a little better from you. You know that a vegan's decision to be vegan isn't about being "picky about their food"; it's about trying to prevent unnecessary suffering and death of other sentient beings.
And as Glenn pointed out, millions upon millions of people around the world have been, and continue to be, vegetarian, and these are not people who are financially well off.
"On the other hand, eating less meat and consuming less dairy is not as simple and straight-forward as some make it out to be."
It's only difficult if you want it to be difficult.
"I'm not saying that it isn't possible to eat a local meatless diet--although I suspect it would be difficult through those long, cold New England winters I grew up in..."
Have you ever heard of canning? I'm a 10-year vegan living in rural Canada on a low income wage and I haven't starved to death yet.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Posted by Daniel Wilson on 08/29/2009 @ 09:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There's a lot of the planet's surface which is extremely unsuitable for row crop cultivation, land that needs to be kept under steady cover of vegetation and not dug up every year.
Unless you want to rely heavily on petrochemical dependent crops that strip the land of it's nutrients and provide insufficient cover even without tillage, and that often requires unsustainable fossil water use, that land is mostly unsuitable for producing food for humans. Poultry and ruminants can turn grass and scrub and bugs we can't eat into high quality, nutrient-dense food that we can eat. Their waste, when not contaminated with pharmaceuticals and heavy metals, builds vibrant soil communities that sequester carbon and preserve nutrients.
And while it's certainly possible to have a vegetarian diet in areas where the land is better suited for milk-producing animals than grain, there are no pre-industrial vegan societies. Without manufactured foods and synthetic agriculture, most people and particularly children, need milk and eggs at least to grow up as strong and healthy as their genetic template allows. While we may be nearly drowning in fat, it was a prized, if more occasional, part of a diet that didn't rely on an industrial food chain, high calorie sugar hits, and revolting levels of soy consumption.
A sustainable agriculture requires a vision of agricultural production communities as functional, self-repairing ecosystems. There are no such ecosystems without animals.
There need to be things grown for animals to eat out on land that resembles their natural habitat, ways to recycle their waste immediately into productive soil, predators to cull their excess numbers and keep them in balance. That would work for a long time, it could continue. That agriculture could sustain itself without fossil fuel-derived pesticides and fertilizers, without exhausting mineral phosphate reserves, without poisoning the rivers and seas.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 08/30/2009 @ 12:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It really doesn't help vegans' case to say that some populations, especially in and around Asia, have "traditionally" been vegan or vegetarian. "Traditionally" the vast majority of these populations have simply been too poor to afford meat, they didn't choose their vegan diet. They've also traditionally been too poor to afford much in the way of healthy food, making them malnourished. This is where our stereotypes of Asians being short comes from.
Posted by Cole Burns on 08/30/2009 @ 09:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That vegetarianism is a significant aspect of religious practice in Asia and India would seem to indicate that there is more to their vegetarian lifestyle than simly lack of resources.The longest-lived people in the world are Asian...
@Natasha: Moving farmed animals into these areas where crops cannot be grown isn't a necessity - and would push the existing wildlife out. We also don't need to farm animals in order to co-exist with them in a mutually beneficial and sustainable way. It's a bit anthropocentric to suggest that in order for there to be balance, we need to bring in non-native animals, farm them, exploit and kill them. Animals live on the land without us and do just fine.
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 08/30/2009 @ 02:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Anthropocentric? Guilty.
I'm not insulted by the suggestion that I care more about my own species than other species, because it's true. There isn't a single animal anywhere whose life I'd put equal to the life of a human. Any human. Not one. You can feel differently if you want to.
And the point of integrating animal and plant agriculture is that plants need the nutrients animals provide. Without the synthetic agriculture that's poisoning the world, some or all of dung, bones, urine and blood are necessary for plants to thrive. If you exclude animals from the ecological systems where our plant foods are cultivated, you must use the planet's dwindling supply of fossil fuel and mineral resources to get a harvest out of them, you must poison animals and fungi and plants with horrendous chemicals that cycle around the food chain for generations. That's your choice.
But exploring the other main alternative for plant fertilization, fossil fertilizers, that's also an animal product. That's all oil is. Compressed, dead animals, that offgassed more or less 'natural' gas.
Plants need to eat animal products, themselves, or they can't sustainably feed us. You can try it at home. Try to raise plants that haven't been fertilized, see how it goes. This is what I mean when I've said there are no vegan ecosystems, because it's the ecosystems themselves that need animals, whether we're growing food in them or not.
It may be a nobly-motivated sentiment not to want anything to die so you can live, but that's not how it works.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 08/31/2009 @ 02:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually I do grow vegetables at home without any animal by-products. Just ate a batch of gooseberries yesterday, and a whole bunch of kale. In fact, there's a network of farmers all across North America and Europe who are farming veganically, without using any animal manures or other by-products on their farms. More info can be found on their website: http://www.goveganic.net/.
I also have friends who are much better gardeners than I am who also farm veganically, one for over 15 years. Compost works very well for growing vegetables. I mean, think about it, it's not like shit falls everywhere in the wild - but plants manage to grow. They primarily feed on decomposing plant matter. We add manure because we have a whole lot of it and because it's more convenient, that's all.
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 08/31/2009 @ 08:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you have healthy soil to start, you're working with organic matter added previously by animals, perhaps birds and small rodents, and by microfauna in the soil, even if it happened over a very long period of time imperceptible to the current occupants.
Unless worms and beetles, etc., are really misclassified plants or fungi, you're just wrong about how that all works.
If you only care about animals that remind you of yourself, you're as anthropocentric as I am. Take some biology classes.
And gods, gooseberries and kale. Nice side dishes. That reminds me of how, whenever I'm forced to eat vegetarian meals, I'm always grimly unsatisfied no matter how much I chew through, not even counting the inevitable blood sugar crash. If I never eat another nasty, undercooked lentil dish (and really, lentils? one of the fastest cooking beans?) proferred by earnest vegan potluckers, it'd be too soon.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 09/01/2009 @ 02:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Cole, I was responding to Greg's statement that a meatless diet "is a diet only able to be adopted by people who can afford, financially or health wise, to be so picky about their food," so echoing Glenn's example of vegetarians in India and China is a valid argument. The fact is, whether they can afford meat or not, they can survive fine without it.
Still, I don't think you can have it both ways. Greg says that only people who are well off can afford to be vegan, and you say that Asians have "simply been too poor to afford meat." Which one is it?
And while many vegetarians in India and China are malnourished, as you say, many are not. There are many meat-eaters here in North America that are malnourished. What's your point?
And your stereotype of Asians being short: sorry, never heard that one.
Posted by Daniel Wilson on 08/30/2009 @ 06:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's both. Just depends and where and how you live.
In industrialized countries, access to food is not really the problem. There's plenty of food out there for consumption, it's just that the things that vegetarians and vegans tend to build their diets around are often seasonal, expensive (if fresh) and only able to be accessed by multi-continental transportation networks for the vast majority of each year.
Yes, people can grow things and can them and survive through the winter in cold weather places, but really, assuming that the majority of people have the time and expertise to do that isn't very realistic.
In non-industrialized countries, people eat for they can afford and have access to. There are some cultural beliefs that keep communities from eating animal products, but there largely isn't much choice involved in the matter. It is a lack of access to the resources--land, water, knowledge--that force many cultures to survive on only what they already know how to grow.
We're all creatures of convenience, and all that i'm saying is that having fruits and vegetables available year round in grocery stores makes it much more convenient for vegans and vegetarians to survive.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 08/31/2009 @ 10:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I'm not insulted by the suggestion that I care more about my own species than other species, because it's true. There isn't a single animal anywhere whose life I'd put equal to the life of a human. Any human. Not one. You can feel differently if you want to."
Oh, Natasha. You are the very reason I stopped reading the Sustainable Food blog at change.org. I see that nothing anyone says can change your ignorance and lack of compassion for anyone or anything other than yourself.
This quote just makes me sad for you. Sad that you consider yourself so superior to all other beings, when all I see is someone who takes up more space on this planet than she deserves.
Knowing this about you...if you were in a burning building along with another animal (any species other than human)... I would choose to save the animal. You are right. You are not equal to an animal. You are the lesser of the two. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? If humans were so superior of a species...why can't we humans survive without animals? They do fine without us.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/01/2009 @ 06:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How hateful. Shame on you. It is this kind of vegan vitriol that makes me feel very sorry for you, Michele. Unfortunately, this type of nastiness is so common that it is one of the main reasons why I quit being vegan. I won't be a member of a group whose members consistently show such disrespect and outright malice in their hearts for their brothers and sisters.
tsk tsk...
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/02/2009 @ 11:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That is not to say that all vegans are this lacking in compassion and decency toward fellow humans, but it is an "us vs. them" attitude I have found all too common in vegan circles, and it completely and totally undermines the message.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/02/2009 @ 12:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Don't feel sorry for me, Dawn. I am not a hateful person. Just trying to make a point about the superior species justification by Natasha. I found it to be very ignorant.
You are assuming that I am a vegan. I have never claimed to be a vegan, and am not part of this "group" that you mention. I am a realist, yes, in that I believe that humans need to take more responsibility for their actions.
It is so easy to make excuses, calling it "human nature". All that does is pass the responsibility for our actions onto someone else. "I'm only human" is one of my favorites. What does that mean? Is it an excuse for living an unconscious life?
Loving animals does not mean that you have to hate humans. It is about treating all species with the respect and kindness in an equal way.
Look at Natasha's quote. No animal is equal to her (as a human). You may feel the same way, but that is exactly the reason that people had slaves. Racist beliefs stem from the fact that people fear what is different and what they don't understand. They cannot feel empathy for another living thing, so they assume they are better than someone or something else.
Because we are different from animals...does not make us better. It makes us different. They feel. They have families. They love. They hurt. They do not kill just for fun. They kill to survive. Humans do not. They kill for greed and power.
Humans are not supreme beings. Until everyone "gets it" that we are the ones destroying the planet, nothing can be done to get us out of this mess. At this time- we are the weaker species. We cannot survive unless we destroy everything else in our path. And for what? The best cell phone or car? It's time to get real. It's time to look in the mirror and stop blaming everyone else. Humans have the power to make the change for the better, and until we stop exploiting what makes us more powerful, we become our own worst enemy.
If you knew anything about me, you would not assume that I lack in compassion or decency toward fellow humans. My statement may have been controversial. Because I choose to treat all species equally...if that makes me less compassionate than you in your eyes...I'm okay with that.
You don't have to hate people to fight for animals. You just have to treat all species with the respect that they deserve. Just because you are bigger than a bug does not give you the right to squash it because it gets in your way. This way of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place, and the reason we try to find a more "sustainable" way of doing things. Because life as we know it is not sustainable. Bottom line. When you know better...you do better.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 01:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You show me a species of non-humans that have built cities, harnessed the power of electricity, and found ways to treat polluted water, and then I'll accept your position that we are in no way superior.
And ugh, I'm so tired of the slavery argument. It's just an inflammatory statement and has nothing to do with what's being discussed. The reason people held slaves was not speciesism, but rather racism. Two totally different things.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 09/02/2009 @ 02:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Other species can survive without building cities to accomodate them, and can live without electricity. Why can't humans? Does it make us better because we know how to treat the water that WE polluted? Why do you think it is polluted? Not from other animals and species, but by humans and industrialism that is caused by our own greed and endless pursuit of unnecessary things.
Humans do not have a history of equal rights, and it is not about the "slavery" argument.
We "need" cities to accomodate our over-population, which for some reason cannot be "harnessed".
We cannot continue to sustain our food needs if we do not first realize the real problem of over-populating the earth.
Every other species can survive without electricity and structures that pollute and take up space for hundreds of years. If a deer needs protection from the weather, they go under a tree. We, as humans seem to need much more than food, water, or shelter. We "need" or want what other species do not. Mostly out of boredom and lack of creativity.
Just want people to think. It's time to go back to basics and simpler times. That is the only sustainable way.
Racism can be compared to speciesism. All "isms" determine a group, which segregates one from another. Are they really that different?
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 02:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Unfortunately, this type of nastiness is so common that it is one of the main reasons why I quit being vegan."
The nastiness of humans made you quit being a vegan?
That makes no sense at all. You obviously did not choose to become vegan for the right reasons.
You are also saying that humans are nasty, right? So we agree. And...you say that the nastiness of humans is common? Hmmm. Sounds like you yourself finds a certain distaste in human behavior. I think we're getting somewhere..
If humans could be divided into different species (like animals), does that mean that you also find certain "types" of humans to be less superior? Hmmm.
I think you had better look into what you are saying, Dawn. I think that you agree with me more than you realize, by your statement.
Would you break it down by race and nationality, religion, sex, age, vegans & vegetarians, or intelligence? Who is superior to you or Natasha? Who is YOUR equal? Is it only those humans who are just like you? Or humans that you know? Would you choose the life of a human that you KNOW over someone who is a stranger, if you had to choose? Of course you would. That is why, even as humans, we do not treat each other equally.
Be impeccable with your words. Maybe you don't love all of your "brothers and sisters" like you say? It's like saying I don't hate humans- just the "nasty" ones. Hmmm. Your statement and mine have more in common than you will want to admit.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 02:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michele, you have *completely* misconstrued my message. The nastiness and sometimes outright malicious hatefulness was what, in part, made me want to never associate with the *vegan movement,* although I refrained from eating animals products for almost 15 years until my health failed from lack of cholesterol and fat soluble vitamins. (But that's a whole other thing irrelevant to this article)
Humans with their capacity for self-awareness and self-reflection, who have the ability to decide laws, rights and responsibilities in a way that no other creature can, are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Does this make us superior--in intelligence and impact on the world, yes--but in the grand scheme of the world's ecosystem, no... We are simply another species whose population has gone unchecked and thus can't help but shit where we eat.
Which is why people of conscience who recognize our unique human ability to both destroy our planet and create sustainable alternatives write about their experience creating those alternatives, like Greg, Natasha and myself, among others.
I'm sorry if I assumed you were vegan. You're right and have clearly demonstrated that vegans don't have a monopoly on being nasty. And no, I don't care it from anyone.
Nevertheless, I am more than a bit defensive when I hear someone say something as hateful as preferring to save the life of a rat over a human being. Such words often come out of the mouths of many vegans I have known. And it is shameful and it gives the AR cause a very bad rep. But if you are not indeed vegan or an AR activist, then you are simply giving yourself a bad rep.
And by the way, going into a burning building to save an animal while ignoring the human also there would get you jail time. Rightly so.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/02/2009 @ 03:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Not saving a human can get you jail time? What law is that exactly? Please share.
By the way, I did not say that I would save a rat over a human. I never said that I would ignore a human in need. I only said that knowing how Natasha feels about animals and their "place" on this planet, that I would think about my choice if SHE was in a burning building. Yes, I am singling her out, and yes, I am presenting a scenario, to make a point.
If counting myself as an equal to all others is nasty, then I can accept that. I do not see people as enemies. I do not belong to a certain race or religion or group, except the human race. That does not make me better than anyone else. That makes me different than other species. Not better.
I think you missed the whole point. Maybe you cannot see us down here from your pedestal.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 04:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michele, they are called bystander (or sometimes, Samaritan) laws, and by intentionally choosing not to save a human in danger when you are fully able to assist, you are committing a crime.
Singling Natasha out to make a point in a very nasty and personal way obviously failed to make your point, and only led this reader to believe you mean-spirited.
You said, in effect, Natasha, your life is worth less to me than a mouse, and if I had to choose between any animal and you, I would intentionally let you die. This is an abhorrent thing to say.
If I had to choose between, say, saving my dog and my baby, I would choose my baby EVERY SINGLE TIME, without regret. If I had to choose between saving my dog and saving you, I would pick YOU, every single time, without regret. (And I don't even know you.) To do otherwise is just twisted. And believing so doesn't make me an evil speciesist; it makes me human.
And the continued personal nastiness directed this time to me about pedestals, especially after I *agreed* with you about how humans are not superior in evolutionary, ecological terms, is just plain ad hominem and unnecessary.
And this is now waaay OT. Peace out.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/02/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dawn,
Please don't put words into my post that were not said. First a rat, now a mouse? Come on.
I suppose a bystander law or samaritan law, as you say- makes us all criminals. We stand by and let our "troops" go to other countries and kill innocent people. Yet, we applaud them and say "thanks for serving our country?" Doesn't that make all military supporters criminals? Why don't we stop them if it is a law? Because we justify the murders as "protection" of a better class of humans? Really?
This is totally off topic, and I will not try to explain. I just finished reading Natasha's old post from "April Fool's Day" about Skinny B*tch (book), I stand by what I said.
It is the "quality" of a person's character that is important. Taking one life for the sake of another's? Why do we get to choose who is more important. In an animals's eyes, their offspring is just as important to them, yet because we can't feel their pain and loss, we assume they don't have any. How sad that humans are "superior", yet lack empathy for another species because they are different.
How sad that you just don't "get it". Maybe you do, but you, as a human think that defending what we do is more important than doing better.
It is not about being more powerful or intelligent as humans. If we were as smart as other animals, why are we the ones destroying the planet and have to find ways to sustain our habits? We are the only animals that cannot sustain a normal habitat without destroying others lives. It is that simple. Stop making excuses for being human and thinking we are superior. It gets us nowhere. Over-extended and over-populated. We should be able to co-exist without harming another life.
I am not nasty. I am not mean. I would not stand by and not save another's life. Why is it nasty to want all species to be treated equally? Let them live their lives and have families and space to roam. It does not make me hate humans. That is always what anti AR people say. "You must hate humans if you think animals are equal." Why is that? Humans are animals. Just a different species of animal.
One more thing. I just saw someone speaking on a news program about another human who murdered someone else. When asked to comment, a family member just said, "He's an animal!"
Yes, he's upset. Yes, he's angry. But the person who murdered is a HUMAN. Humans murder without reason, not animals. I hate the reference, yet people always seem to relate animals to something bad, when it is humans that murder each other for no reason. If he was an animal, he probably wouldn't have killed someone without cause.
Open your eyes. Open your mind. Treat all species as you would want to be treated and do not condemn those that do.
I have saved humans' lives. It used to be my job. I once saved the life of a man only to have him come back into my life and needlessly kill one of my cats. He is one of the worst poachers in this area and is a sportsman that hunts for fun. Do I regret saving his life, after I found out what kind of human he is? I won't answer that. I did my job. I did what I "humanly" was supposed to do. And now, countless animals are still dying because of this human that I chose to save. Regrets? Maybe. Would I still save his life? Maybe. But I live my life knowing that hundreds, if not thousands of animals will die because in our eyes, every human is more important than any animal. I saved a human who has no respect for others. For someone who ended up taking my pet's life. And...you think I am the nasty one?
I do not weep for hunters. I am not sad for the loss of a human life that takes the lives of others. If that makes me the indecent and nasty one, I can live with that. You cannot be pro-life if it does not include ALL lives. The "right to life" should include all species, not just humans.
Way....off....topic.
Peace.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 09:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Surely you are talking to someone else. I have agreed with you on many points and yet you continue to put words into my mouth as if I didn't.
It's not either/or. Either I see animals as equal or even superior to humans OR I am an evil speciesist with no compassion. These are straw men.
Humans have unique abilities that no other creature on earth has. For better or worse, we are distinct from all other species in our ability to consciously impact and manipulate our environment and control the underpinnings of our very survival. This gives us rights, privileges and responsibilities that no other species share, simply because we are the only ones with any concept of these things and the ability to make any difference.
This doesn't make us superior to other species, but it does make us responsible. Our own survival depends on that, and sustainable ag. folks are doing their best to not shirk that responsibility.
But here's the real issue...
I also think your way of making a point to Natasha was, at best, thoughtless, and at worst, downright mean.
You say you wouldn't stand by and not save another's life, and yet in your first post you said just that... in the case of Natasha. You said *any* animal was more worthy of life to you than she, and I filled in rat, mouse, dog.
That is what I am taking issue with... NOT all the other stuff you've been going off about: human stupidity, animal rights, hunting, murderers and right to life, etc.
I'm not anti-AR, and I do think human hubris will be the undoing of us all. But I'm still calling you out on being particularly nasty to another human in the name of your beliefs.
Next time you try to argue for animal rights, try doing it in a way that isn't overtly threatening, personally insulting and wholly disrespectful. You'll get further.
Since you obviously don't get how mean, personal and arrogant the words in your first post were, I'll quote them for posterity:
"...all I see is someone who takes up more space on this planet than she deserves. If you were in a burning building along with another animal (any species other than human)... I would choose to save the animal... You are not equal to an animal. You are the lesser of the two."
Nice way to make your point. Really compassionate, really humane, really great way to treat others as you would be treated.
I'm glad Natasha has a thick skin.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/02/2009 @ 11:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My opinion of Natasha has nothing to do with you. It stems from reading her posts for months and not wanting to waste my time with people such as her, who has little to no respect for lives that she feels are not her equal.
The front page of our local paper has a photo of the first wolf killed with the "hunter" who killed it. Dressed in camo, holding up the slaughtered animal, gun in hand.
Wow. Sure makes me want to step up and save his life if I had to. Yes, he makes me ill. Yes, I would walk past him if he was in need of my help. Why? Because of the countless animals that will live if he was not on this planet.
Controversial? Maybe. It is my RIGHT as a human to have my own thoughts, just as it is his right as a human to murder legally. We have the power to make the laws. Animals don't. Just like the Indians did not, because the white man came and took their land and killed them. Because they thought they were superior and had more rights?
If that does not make you ashamed of the actions of humans, then I wouldn't waste my time with you either.
What if there were two people in a burning building and one was a well-loved celebrity and the other homeless? One is white, the other black? One is God-fearing, the other a member of the KKK? One is a hunter and the other is the president of the Humane Society? One is the Dalai Lama and the other is Hitler? How do you choose if you can only save one? If they are both standing there and one is a good, law abiding citizen and the other is Jeffrey Dahmer? Are all humans also equal in your eyes?
Just wondering what makes one human superior over another? Like it or not, any honest human does not count everyone equally. You would save your child over a stranger any day. Someone innocent over someone guilty. A person who kills animals over someone who doesn't? What makes it decent. Who decides?
In an animal's eyes, saving their offspring is the same as a human's child. Their survival means to them what ours means to us. You just can't seem to put yourself in their place.
Does that make humans more shallow? Do we lack the empathy that we should have as humans? Is this why we kill what is different? Does that make us better? In my eyes...no. Just different.
"Humans have unique abilities that no other creature on earth has. For better or worse, we are distinct from all other species in our ability to consciously impact and manipulate our environment and control the underpinnings of our very survival. This gives us rights, privileges and responsibilities that no other species share, simply because we are the only ones with any concept of these things and the ability to make any difference."
There are so many things wrong with this statement, and I will not even respond to this ignorant way of thinking. You are wasting my time.
It is just plain wrong...on so many levels. Sad.
The words alone...Control. Manipulate. Rights. Privileges. The ability to make a difference? For better or worse?
Make a difference for who? To fix what we broke?
Ignorant, at best.
Until we all see that humans are not the "end all, be all" of this planet, we will be the end of this planet.
We only have to try to save it because we are the ones that are destroying it in the first place. The animals would survive fine without us.
Bottom line. I don't hate humans. I dislike irresponsible people who kill for no reason. It is ignorant to walk around and think that you are better than everything else.
It is my right to think that way. It is yours to disagree.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/03/2009 @ 10:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, you have the right to your opinion and I have the right to disagree.
And you even have the right to completely misread and put your own single-lensed interpretation on everything I write, even when most of it agrees with you. After all, it is a forum, and nuance and tone are hard to grasp here, especially when you are on the defensive.
And you have the right to be an arrogant, cynical curmudgeon who curses people out on a *public* forum. And I have the right to tell you what I think about you doing that.
(Though I seriously doubt you would have the guts to say such horrible things to Natasha in person. How nice you can use the anonymity of the net to behave in ways that would get you punched out in real life.)
And you also have a right to walk around thinking you are better than everyone else who disagrees with you, and that you own the moral high ground, and that you are certainly "right," and that everyone else is ignorant and sad, at best.
And I have a right to tell you your attitude is insulting and a severe discredit to your message. And to waste my time wasting your time.
You have as much right to choose between humans' worth as others have to choose between species' worth.
And I have the right to tell you that judging others for the same behavior you are doing is grossly hypocritical. And that makes you a very poor messenger for the cause.
And, finally I also have to apologize to you. I retract my earlier statement about you and my dog. I really get your original point now completely. You should be proud: You have now finally gotten me to understand what it feels like to want to choose to save an animal (any animal of any species) over a fellow human being if both were in danger of burning to death.
Thanks for being the one to "inspire" me to such a nadir of human experience.
Geez, what a depressing, angry place to live. I remain sad for you.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/03/2009 @ 11:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dawn,
Your anger of my personal opinion is what is troubling. My statement had nothing to do with you, did it? Why the defensiveness?
I don't remember using profanity or calling anyone any names. If I did, please show me where. My opinion on what Natasha said was just that. An opinion. My thoughts on her lack of compassion for another species. That's all.
You made this very personal. You have called me hateful, nasty, malicious, insulting, shameful, thoughtless, downright mean, threatening, disrespectful, arrogant, cynical curmudgeon who curses people out, and better than everyone else?
Again, please show me where having a (real) honest personal thought and opinion has made me such a horrible human being? I don't recall one time calling you any names. (Don't worry...sticks and stones.) I did say you were up on a pedestal, but your comment about humans being the ONLY species who is unique- "Humans have unique abilities that no other creature on earth has". (your quote) EVERY species is unique. Every one has different abilities. It is the idea of "I'm better than you are" that puts you above others. For thinking of myself as "equal", not better, you call me arrogant? That makes no sense.
Thanks for the comment about choosing your dog over me! That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to get across! Breakthrough! I think no worse of you for choosing your dog over me! Honestly! That is REAL human nature. That is the truth. THAT is the point I was trying to make. Does that make you nasty. No. It makes you human. Humans are flawed. Humans are arrogant. Humans would rather be right than do the correct thing. I am a realist. I am honest about what I think about people. Doesn't mean I have harmed people or will. It just means that I value ALL lives equally. One is not worth more than the next.
This began because Natasha said that she does not consider any animal as her equal. I will assume that my opinion made you angry because you feel the same.
I applaud you for finally realizing my reason for saying what I did. I harmed no one. I did not call names. I just stated an opinion. I do not hate you for knowing that you would really save your dog over me. That is the truth. That is real. It is honest. It is expected. I would expect nothing less of a real compassionate person. Everyone would save someone or something who is important to them. It is all in what YOU perceive to be important to YOU. It is exactly why when a plane crashes, the news reports how many AMERICANS were killed, not even taking into consideration the others. Why? they are not equals in their eyes. They did not know them. They are not one of us.
Bothers me every time I hear it. 220 killed...and four were Americans! Why does that make them more important?
Maybe I would think differently if I knew Natasha. I do not want to because I have read her posts. I stopped reading because she was so unwelcoming and not friendly to people. I base my decision on that alone. Calling people f*ing this and that? Not someone I would waste time defending.
Because of all the names you called me in these posts, I would have to think that you agree with her and that is why you feel you have to defend your position and hers. Calling someone ignorant is not bad. Ignorant is "not knowing". It is giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they have not "learned" better yet. It does not mean they are stupid or arrogant. It is not a negative term and should not be taken as one.
I am fine with the fact that you finally "got my point". Friends?
Peace.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/03/2009 @ 01:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Duh, every species is unique. You've misinterpreted, again, what I have said. Every species is unique, but only humans have the unique ability to push a little red button that could blow the whole planet to kingdom come and destroy all life for the next 10,000 years. Only humans manipulate their environment to clearcut forests for subdivisions and soybeans. Only humans have the kind of control that allows us to fill the ocean with miles of plastic trash and fill the air with tons of toxic chemicals. Only humans can create something called "rights" and "privileges" that justify decimating species, and enslaving and killing each other by the millions. Only humans have the hubris to think we can continue to live as we do and survive indefinitely. And only humans have the self-awareness and response-ability to possibly turn things around before it's too late. Do you get me now?!?!?!
Geez you're so tightly on your agenda you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you. You say purple, I say mauve. Whatever! It's irrelevant.
And oh yes it is personal. You finally get my point. Your AR rhetoric has nothing to do with anything in this conversation for me.
You made it personal: "...all I see is someone who takes up more space on this planet than she deserves. If you were in a burning building along with another animal (any species other than human)... I would choose to save the animal... You are not equal to an animal. You are the lesser of the two."
This is not opinion. This is a personal attack.
You did not say, "natasha, I disagree with you and here's why." You did not say, "natasha, I don't care for your posts and I'm frustrated with your cussing and your attitude, so I am going to unsubscribe."
You said: "...all I see is someone who takes up more space on this planet than she deserves. If you were in a burning building along with another animal (any species other than human)... I would choose to save the animal... You are not equal to an animal. You are the lesser of the two."
This is a public forum, and I am defensive because frankly I am at the end of my rope with people attacking me and others in very ugly, vitriolic, personal ways because their views differ. There are significantly more respectful ways to have a difference of opinion.
IMO, It is verbal violence, and it is sadistic and the complete antithesis of AR, pacifism, veganism and any other ism that espouses compassion to say:
"...all I see is someone who takes up more space on this planet than she deserves. If you were in a burning building along with another animal (any species other than human)... I would choose to save the animal... You are not equal to an animal. You are the lesser of the two."
You're free to continue to believe that calling someone less than an animal who you would gladly leave to burn alive constitutes civil discourse, but you'll never get me to agree.
They used to say these very words openly to Jews and blacks, of which I am *both*. So yes it is very personal, and I will call it out wherever I see it.
These words are just plain mean and seem intended to hurt. Would you say this to someone's face, if they were 2 feet in front of you, and not expect a fight? Then why would you say such a thing online?
And speaking of lashon hara (hurtful words) I sincerely apologize for calling you names. I shouldn't have attacked you personally. I felt very frustrated. It would have been more appropriate to call your writing cynical, arrogant and curmudgeonly. I don't really know you. I hope you are happier than you appear in your writing.
And it was in a fit of pique that I said I would choose my dog over you. I did not mean it. The point of yours I have come to understand is how easy it is to devalue another being's existence when angry and frustrated.
Perhaps you don't see how by telling natasha she doesn't deserve to take up space and is less than an animal, you appear to have devalued her existence in the same way you have been accusing the rest of us of doing in post after post. In the same way Germans devalued Jews, in the same way Americans devalued blacks, in the same way humans have been devaluing anyone or anything that doesn't agree with their worldview and agenda.
The truth is I know myself well enough to know that I would choose your life over my dog's any day, even if you hated me and wished me dead. And if I saw my enemy drowning in a river alone, I would try to save him if it was in my power.
I would do this because I believe life is sacred and that humans are capable of overcoming our more base emotions and wanton self-interest to make choices toward the higher good, precisely because we are uniquely self-aware enough to do so.
And it has to start with me and how I think about myself and others, how i speak to and about others and what I do out in the world. It starts with me trying to see the good and the godly, even in things that totally piss me off.
Maybe this makes me unrealistic or pollyanna, but to believe otherwise would make me depressed, cynical and angry.
Peace.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/03/2009 @ 04:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So we agree? It's a start. And we disagree. That's okay.
You don't like my choice of words. My personal thougts about someone. Thoughts and opinions cannot kill unless you put them to action. Everyone has thoughts. Good and bad. They don't always say them outloud or write them on-line. We, as humans have the right to free speech- that is- as long as it is politically correct to all.
You cannot kill someone with kindness.
You cannot kill with thoughts and opinions.
If I could, the "human" that shot a fawn (orphan fawn who comes to my yard for water) in my front yard would be lying there with it...due to my impure thoughts that ran through my mind as I watched and could do nothing. It is not within the human law to defend an animal (even on my own property). Yes, he broke the law, but he has the gun, which gives him the rights.
I helped keep this fawn alive for a year before this (excuse the profanity) bastard- took out his gun, walked into my yard, and shot it. At least he had the decency to throw the body into the back of his pickup so he could feed it to his hunting dog. He could have left it in my yard for me to deal with, but it was obviously a quick meal for his dog.
And, no. I would not save his life either.
Just a thought. I am not the killer here. I have the rights to my thoughts. I may have made an error in thinking out loud (on-line), but it is still my right, and it harms no one. I will not retract my statement, although if my thought insulted you, I apologize.
And...yes. I would have no problem saying that to Natasha's face. If she had to "punch me out" for my opinion, that is her problem. I am not violent and do not hit people for any reason. I would not hit back. That is my choice.
I am done. We agree to disagree on being "PC". I can live with that. All of this has nothing to do with sustainable food. It all started with a comment from Natasha who stated that she did not care if anyone thought differently than she did. Why does it bother you so?
For the last time- Natasha's statement:
"I'm not insulted by the suggestion that I care more about my own species than other species, because it's true. There isn't a single animal anywhere whose life I'd put equal to the life of a human. Any human. Not one. You can feel differently if you want to."
Peace out.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/03/2009 @ 06:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michele, how could you deign to ask why I care?!?!?
I care because people have used the very same exact words you used on my family members.
I know what it means to be considered less than an animal. It's one step away from a burning cross on my grandmother's lawn. One step away from choosing to look away when they hauled my grandfather's brother off to the ovens. It's one step away from being followed around a shopping mall as if I was going to steal, just because of the color of my skin. It's one step away from strangers thinking I am my daughter's nanny because she looks "whiter."
The moment someone openly and publicly devalues another's life, it opens a door for many others to devalue life based on whatever arbitrary reason--race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, belief system, species, or simply a disagreement over sustainable ag.
I would be remiss to let such an action go unchecked.
You are entitled to your thoughts, of course. But when you make them public, well, they are no longer thoughts, they are actions—writing—and they are in the public domain, and you leave yourself open to public opinion.
And now you unequivocally know mine.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/03/2009 @ 08:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Now you have crossed the line with me. "One step away from burning a cross on my grandmother's lawn?" Because I treat all species EQUALLY? I'm sorry but you really don't get it.
Because you consider an animals life LESS than a human's, you cannot see the disconnect. I am not devaluing another's life. I am trying to show you how you and Natasha are doing the same thing to animals. That is the WHOLE POINT. You are treating another life (different species) less than your own.
A THOUGHT about someone who is cruel to another species is not the same as taking an action toward someone.
You don't know me at all. You don't know my history. I am probably the LAST person that you would think that about if you knew me. I will not go into that. It is not personal. I shared my opinion because of Natasha's own statement that disgusted me...it wasn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last. She herself said "you can feel differently if you want to". Well, I do, and I am not afraid to be honest.
The truth is that I am SO TIRED of people getting away with not only speaking bad of animals and their lack of compassion towards them, but the ACTIONS of people who kill needlessly every day for fun, entertainment, and unnecessary food. Humans are terrorists to animals. Plain and simple. They have to live their lives in fear because of humans who think that they are lesser than them.
Like I said, if that makes me a horrible human being to you because I will not defend people such as Natasha for what she says and does to animals- I can live with that.
I would not take another human being's life. I also will not kill an animal. I am in the business of saving lives, not taking them. I rehab animals that people hurt and leave to die. I am so tired of people that do not value other lives other than themselves. That is the whole point to my original THOUGHT. Would you like me to take it back? The thought is still there. It just would not be on paper. Do you really think that people NEVER have bad thoughts when they are angry? You obviously do as well, since you have thrown your anger all over me for what I said.
A thought is not an action. It is a thought. Writing is an action, but it is not an action of the thought itself. It is an action of writing. Whether you put it on paper or not, it is still there (the thought). Same as an opinion.
Yes, I am entitled to my thoughts. Good or bad. That is my right.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/04/2009 @ 08:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wow do YOU not get it. By devaluing another's life, you open the door for the devaluation of all life. By making your metaphor personal to natasha, your intent to hurt her hurts your own cause that all life is sacred. "All life" means you don't get to pick and choose.
I did not say you would burn a cross on my grandmother's lawn. I did not say you dragged my grand-uncle to the ovens. They are dead.
But it was people who thought blacks were "less than animals" and who were willing to let my grandmother burn to death, that thought and said the EXACT SAME things you said to Natasha.
These sort of dehumanizing thoughts about another person—when made public for all the world to read or hear—are unacceptable if we wish for a peaceful world where all life is seen as sacred.
You're free in this country to say whatever you want, but if you used the same words you said to Natasha towards a person because they were black or Jewish or whatever, you'd have so many people up your ass right now, and for good reason.
I'm saying the line between saying such things to someone black or female or gay, and saying the same things to someone you just don't agree with is competely arbitrary. It's hateful speech either way. And while your free to say such things, I'm free to be up your ass for doing so.
And I believe all life is sacred, even the lives of people I can't stand. Even the lives of serial killers. (not that I want them roaming the streets). The moment we start saying this one deserves to take up space and this one doesn't, the moment someone says this one is less than an animal and this one isn't, we open a door to all kinds of atrocity. I would think you knew this...
I'm sure you are not a cross burner. But if I care at all about the sacredness of life, it behooves me to say something about the VERY PUBLIC writing of someone who thinks another human is less than an animal and doesn't deserve to take up space.
I don't care who you are and what you believe, saying anybody is less than an animal you would gladly leave to burn to death in a VERY PUBLIC forum and not expecting a fight is naive, at best.
I personally know the cost of someone thinking another is less than an animal. These thoughts are toxic, and I won't abide that sort of treatment of another being for any reason.
Thoughts, made public in writing, are no longer just thoughts. They are speech. And speech is an act. It takes action to make one's thoughts public. It takes intention to say something hurtful in writing.
Whatever intentions you may have had in telling Natasha she didn't deserve to take up space and was worth less than an animal, it went horribly awry because you also intended to be hurtful in public. Did you really expect a different outcome to saying such horrible things? Wow.
Wars have been started over thoughts made public by writing or speaking. And if you can't see the power your public writing has to tear down or to create understanding (in this case tear down), to uplift and inspire or belittle and dehumanize (the latter in this case), then I remain very, very sad for you.
Next time, if you don't want someone up your ass, don't tell someone they are less than an animal out aloud for thousands of people to read, or have the guts to share your hate for Natasha to her directly in private.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/04/2009 @ 09:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"You show me a species of non-humans that have built cities, harnessed the power of electricity, and found ways to treat polluted water"
@Greg Plotkin
Ants, bees, termites, and several other species of insect build cities, bridges, and other structures. Many animals are stronger, faster, and have better vision and sense of smell than humans. Humans learned to purify water because we're the ones who pollute it! Just because we've gotten better at wrecking the planet doesn't mean we are superior.
Show me a human who can fly or dig a burrow or dive to the bottom of the ocean unaided or see in the dark and I'll believe that humans are "superior."
Simply choosing some things that humans can do that many animals have not done is not a real way of showing superiority. It's like saying birds are superior to cats because they can fly.
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 09/02/2009 @ 02:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, Glenn! Exactly my point!
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 02:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They're called planes, excavators and submarines.
The fact that we've invented things that allow us to do the things that we can't should show some kind of superiority, no?
Electricity?
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 09/02/2009 @ 02:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Greedy maybe. Superior...no.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 02:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the technology that we've created. I think that it has gotten way out of hand though.
I worked in Yellowstone National Park for years. We had no television or phones. For four years, I stayed away from newspapers and magazines or any contact with people outside of our own area, with the exception of letters.
What did we do with our time? We sat in a group of friends from all over the world in front of the lake, talking about our different worlds and how we are so much alike, yet so different, depending on where we were from.
We "talked". We did not "text". We hiked. We enjoyed the outdoors. We cooked outside. We did not use cars and some people did not use electricity at all. It was one of the best times of my life and I made forever friends.
Yes, I enjoy technology. I could not be communicating with so many people as I am now on the Internet. But...at what cost? It was just as nice sitting in a group of people speaking to one another face to face. You could see them "tear-up" when they got emotional. You could watch a person's reaction to another's opinion. You would hug everyone before you went off to bed and know that you would see them the next day. A tourist came in one day to wonder what we thought of the war. We all looked at them and said "what war?" Who is fighting and why? We knew nothing about it and did not care. Our group of friends were from the USA, South Korea, Czech Republic, Japan, Taiwan, Scotland, British Columbia, The UK, Turkey, and Mexico. None of us would ever consider any of the others "enemies" after getting to know each other as people.
Planes, excavators and submarines cannot do that. Humans and their technology can be used to bring people together or destroy the planet we have. We don't always make the right choice. We survived just fine without the "city". We shared housing and food.
Most species need very little. Humans want...not need. How long can we keep it up? When will it be enough? Why is one's life more important than another's? I just want people to "think" and live consciously. Simple, yet so complicated.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 02:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michele, it sounds like you had a great experience in Yellowstone. I've had many similar experiences and agree that getting away from technology altogether is incredibly rewarding and necessary sometimes. We should all cherish the natural places we have left.
But to do what you're suggesting, for humanity to de-urbanize and go "back to the basics," is just not going to happen. I think you know that.
We're all looking to reduce the impact humanity has on the environment, even us meat eaters.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 09/02/2009 @ 03:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You are correct, Greg. It won't happen. I don't expect to de-urbanize, or get away from technology altogether. But, we are starting to move in the right direction by recycling and re-using by way of thrift stores and finding more sustainable ways of making things that we need, along with choosing more sustainable food.
Technology does not, however make the human race more superior. Right now, in Montana we are again in a fight to save the wolves from extinction, due to greed and "superiority" of the human race. The cattle and sheep ranchers want the wolves slaughtered in order to keep producing more meat, which will also be slaughtered in time, but for profit and greed and to feed the over-populated humans. (About 9 billion by the year 2050)
Kill the wolf. Save the calf. Kill the calf for the human. The wolf hunt began yesterday in Idaho and two wolves were killed almost immediately. There are less than 1000, and they plan to kill almost half of the population.
The wolves kill for survival. They kill to eat. People slaughter billions of animals annually for food and fun. Billions. The wolves kill a few calves or sheep, which will be used for human food anyway, but are shown no mercy by humans.
Thousands of calves are slaughtered for milk production or just "dumped" into landfills because they are not needed and cost too much to transport to slaughter to be dealt with. Yet, the ranchers feel that they need to get rid of one species to protect one that they "throw out" and waste?
Have you ever sat down to eat a steak or hamburger and not had the appetite to eat the whole thing? Have you seen other people throw out half a burger because they only paid $99 for the thing and weren't that hungry anyway?
That was a life. Thrown out. For our greed. If that makes us superior, then it makes me ashamed to be a part of the species that wastes life and destroys the planet.
If we are superior and smarter than other species, then why can't we keep our population under control before we try to "sustain" our way of life? Just a thought?
I agree with you, Greg, that it won't happen. Why? Because we are humans. We cannot see the root of the problem. We are better at causing problems and then trying to fix them. If we would have seen the impact of our greed ahead of time, maybe we would not be in this situation of climate control and sustainability.
The only way to reduce the impact humanity has on the envirionment is to stop producing more humans than the planet can handle. We will cause our own extinction eventually. No technology can save us when our natural resources run out.
I've recently run into two acquaintances (both women) who did not want to have children. Both were pregnant for the THIRD time. Both, upon seeing me, said it was their third "OOPS" baby. (Separate occassions) Neither one knows each other. They were people who had children so they would get government support and not have to work. Neither is married. Neither are what I would call "good parents". Both have created a negative impact on the future environment, and have extended their own carbon footprints by creating life that was not wanted or needed for survival. Superior? Smarter? I think not. They should be ashamed. They cannot feed their children. They depend on the government and our taxes. Do I hate children? No. I am a teacher. I want people to take responsibility for their actions. We don't have room and food for everyone to have "oops" babies. It is not a sustainable human behavior, and not smart.
We have to have a license to fish, to get married, to drive. No restrictions about having as many children as you want, but we decide for other species how many can be "managed" or killed. It is because we feel we are superior and the rules don't apply to us. We are are own worst enemy.
I don't disagree with your comments on the whole at all. I just think that thinking in the "typical" mindset can do more harm sometimes. The lack of thinking (before acting) is the problem.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 04:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Getting back to the original post...
Greg, your thoughts and comments are appreciated. You are on the right track.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but until we get a grip on the population problem, we are spinning our wheels.
Why are people starving? Lack of food? Or... too many people? When I was a child and didn't want to eat everything on my plate, my mom would say "there are starving children in China that would appreciate this meal". My response at first was "send it to them", and when I got a little older and found out that there were also starving people in Africa who didn't have water either, we (as teens) worked all summer and then purchased a well for an African town for $1500.
That did not solve the problem. As a student in high school, I realized that sending food to the people and building a well was not going to do the trick. We were spinning wheels because the Africans were still having more children when they could not feed the children they all ready had.
That is what never made any sense to me. We spay and neuter dogs and cats to control the population, but people keep breeding more to make money. People have children (some more than Octomom), yet they don't have the resources to feed them. Why? Can't we stop the problem before it becomes a problem? At 16 I wanted to send birth control pills to African women. Everyone thought that was so wrong because we cannot decide for other people whether or not they can re-produce. Then, why can we decide for other species how many are allowed to live? That was my question then, and still has not been answered years later.
We are not getting to the root of the problem. It is too controversial to say that we are causing our own destruction. It is wrong to limit the number of children that people can produce. Why? Every one that is born will need a home of their own and a job, not to mention food. We are running out of space. Those children will produce more children, and their children will need a home and jobs, and food. Where does it end?
A food problem or a population problem? Just wondering why people are so afraid to ask this question. Why am I pegged as hating humans because I want them to act responsibly? Hmmm.
Greg, you are looking in the right direction, sustainable food will not solve our problem. Yes, it may help for now, but until we get the population under control, we are still spinning.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/02/2009 @ 05:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I didn't read through this whole thread. I don't have the time or the energy. I stopped after just a couple of the exchanges between Michele and Dawn.
I will say only this: Michele representes herself--and only herself. I am a vegan. I am an animal rights activist. I am the animal rights editor on this site. And though Natasha and I had a rough start, and I have disagreed vehemently with things she's said at times, I came to know her beyond our posts and disagreements to find that she is someone I not only respect, but like. We will never agree on animal issues, not remotely, and her statements may infuriate me sometimes. But that doesn't make her someone not worthy of respect and kindness. And the remark made about her and how much "space on this planet" she takes up was outrageously offensive and over the line.
At the same time, Dawn, your comments in response about "vegan vitriol" and about how this is one of your primary reasons for not being a vegan anymore, I found just as baffling and offensive. The vast majority of vegans I know *wouldn't* make a remark like the one that sparked the long argument between you and Michele here, and "I'm going to kill and eat animals now because I don't like some of the other people who don't" is one of the most illogical excuses for eating animals that I've ever heard. Eating animals or not eating animals isn't about other people; it isn't about being in a club. It's about you, and it's about the animals. Participating in violence and suffering and the killing of animals out of spite because other human animals have offended you involves reasoning that I can't begin to comprehend.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 09/04/2009 @ 12:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Stephanie, I'm sorry you didn't read the rest of my posts where I qualified my statement.
I chose not to ally myself with the vegan movement after I met waaay too many people who said things like Michele and thought it was ok to do so. As an activist, I found myself surrounded by people I often couldn't stand, though I continued to be vegan eater until my health failed majorly several years later. A high-carb diet does not work for me.
In my initial post, I was plainly fed up with the regular disintegration of civil discourse that goes on on this blog as soon as an AR or vegan hurls the first personal insult. I'm sure the same thing happens as soon as the first meat eater gets ugly and personal on the AR blog. Such trolling is regretable.
My point to Michele is that saying "You don't deserve to take up space" just because you disagree with someone is the same behavior she was accusing Natasha of in her treatment of animals. And by saying that only some lives are sacred (animals and those that agree with her) she greatly undermines her belief and her cause that all life is sacred. And my belief and cause too.
Furthermore, as someone who personally knows the effect of letting someone with the belief that some people are "less than animals" go unchecked, she really hit a major button with me, and crossed a major line. These exact words have been levied at blacks and Jews like myself all too often. We have been "left to burn to death" by passive but hateful people with the same sentiments as Michele.
Such statements would be totally unacceptable if said because I was black, and I contend they are not acceptable under any circumstances.
Not all vegans or AR folks are vitriolic, by any means. I have many respectful relationships with people who I disagree with on certain issues, much like you and Natasha. And vegans have contributed very thoughtfully to this blog.
But here on this particular blog, it is also true that civil discourse about sustainable omnivory very often disintegrates over some incredibly disrespectful words from vegans, who unfortunately do the cause a grave disservice. And in my first post, I was expressing my exasperation.
No offense meant to you. Your comments are often very thoughtful, and when you get frustrated, you own it and often apologize. I apologize if you were offended.
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/04/2009 @ 01:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have to agree with Stephanie when she said:
"And the remark made about her and how much "space on this planet" she takes up was outrageously offensive and over the line."
I agree that I crossed the line. I admit that I was terribly angry and put off by Nataha's comment (and other posts) about animals being less important than humans, just as Dawn did not like my comment.
What I said was offensive, and although my anger over the lack of compassion for animals and their place on this planet by humans does not make it right to say what I said. I apologize for putting my thoughts out there to offend.
I was equally offended by what Natasha said, and as Dawn stated "in my first post, I was expressing my exasperation."
I may have crossed the line in what I said, but that does not make me a racist or one step from burning a cross on someone's lawn. It seems that everyone's opinion can offend someone else, depending on your background and history.
I don't suppose Natasha would ever apologize for crossing my line (many times), but I apologize for crossing yours, Dawn. My thoughts are my own, and have nothing to do with the AR cause or vegans, in general. The only "group" that I will claim to be a part of is the human race, and other than than, will not use any disclaimer for my beliefs or opinions.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/05/2009 @ 02:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/for-as-long-as-my-skin-is-black-i-will-be-a-devoted-anti-speciesist/
A good read...
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/05/2009 @ 02:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
accepted. I never believed you are racist or one step from burning a cross. What I meant is that ignoring or accepting speech that devalues human life for whatever reason opens the door for such things to happen.
peace and blessings
Posted by Dawn Gifford on 09/05/2009 @ 07:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.