Humanity

[Guest guest]

Hi Graham

 

I agree with most of what is said here - except...

 

> this would also mean the end of pasture and grassland ecologies which

> are primarily managed by grazing cattle and are in themselves

> valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

 

No, it's not desirable - but it is also not necessarily true! It is true

that with the current human desire to exploit every square inch of land they

can that this would probably turn out to be the case - but I see no reason

why cattle should not be left to their own devices - i.e. allowed to live

and breed " in the wild " so to speak. I haven't really given this a lot of

thought - it's quite probable that having been domesticated for generations

they would need some looking after, but I see no reason why this could not

be done :-)

 

> But by accepting that we are a part of

> the earth and it's natural systems, not apart from it (as is the

> belief of druid and pagan faiths as I believe)

 

Yep indeedy (although, to be ultra-pedantic (sorry), I disagree with the

term " faith " :-))

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02

[Guest guest]

Ian

 

LOL - amusingly pedantic!

 

Jo

 

> I agree, Jo. Except that to be pedantic, Kim would have to be right

> about the detail she is fixating on. Not only is she wrong to equate her

> idealogical cleansing with veganism, her use of language is too confused

> and imprecise (terrrorism equated with genocide, war confused with

> holocaust) to be pedantic.

>

> (I'm nit-picking about the meaning of the world 'pedantic'. How pedantic

> is that? . )

>

> <I have never compared veganism to nazi terrorists. I fail to see

> how

> you make this assumption from what I have said,

> unless you are

> being deliberately pedantic. I compare your

> suggestion to nazi

> terrorists, who, as you rightly say, act

> similarly to the meat industry.

>

> Controlling the breeding of non-vegans is not a

> part of veganism. It is

> your own personal opinion, and you cannot claim

> to be the voice of

> veganism. Nazi terrorists also removed the

> testicles and cut the

> fallopian tubes of the people they thought

> unfit to reproduce. This is

> exactly what you have suggested doing to

> non-vegans by stating that

> they should not be allowed to reproduce.>

>

>

>

> --

> Ian McDonald

>

> http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Cavaliergrrl

 

>Just a thought, instead of criticizing them you could put that energy towards >educating them! Maybe some people just don't know??? Negative people like you >are what make people scared of vegans and therefore think we're nuts.

 

Too true! and there are so many people who think vegans are nuts!

 

Jo

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter,

 

>

> > this would also mean the end of pasture and grassland ecologies

which

> > are primarily managed by grazing cattle and are in themselves

> > valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

>

> No, it's not desirable - but it is also not necessarily true! It is

true

> that with the current human desire to exploit every square inch of

land they

> can that this would probably turn out to be the case - but I see no

reason

> why cattle should not be left to their own devices - i.e. allowed

to live

> and breed " in the wild " so to speak.

 

The problem as I see it with what you suggest is that within

grassland or woodland ecologies there are no longer any species

filling the predator niche (peoplekind having hunted them all to

extinction), thus herbivorous species would simply continue to

multiply to unsustainable levels without some form of population

checks. There is nowhere in the UK that is a totally 'natural'

environment, all of our landscape has been managed and altered in one

way or another (see 'The History Of the Countryside' by Oliver

Rackham), so I cannot help but feel that it is a misnomer to imagine

that we could allow nature to 'return to it's own devices'... To use

an analogy if I may- if an apple tree which has been pruned for all

of it's life is suddenly abandoned and allowed to 'return to it's own

devices', within a few years it will become top heavy, congested,

tangled, unhealthy, unsustainable and eventually die. I think it

would be the same if we as a species were to suddenly withdraw from

the ecologies that we have helped to shape and create. It would also

be an abnegation of our responsibilities.

 

To me reconnecting with Gaia would be more about moving away from the

unsustainable practices of industrialised pharming of the last

century, and more about moving back towards a true 'partnership' with

the land, hopefully phasing back towards a tree based and intensive

home gardens/small holding/allotments/community growing scale

agriculture (or permaculture), although I can accept that there might

still be a role for some animal usage within the context that I

argued in my previous post (ie, as part of a complex food web and

cycle of life, death and rebirth, of which peoplekind are merely one

part, as opposed to simply exploiting animals as a resource wherin we

assume 'superiority'). This is completely different from the current

situation where we simply assume that we have the 'right' to

instantly available meat and dairy 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52

weeks a year and sod the global consequences (and don't forget to

flush the toilet and throw your packaging in the bin before you go).

 

I haven't really given this a lot of

> thought - it's quite probable that having been domesticated for

generations

> they would need some looking after, but I see no reason why this

could not

> be done :-)

 

I don't think that most of the cattle that has been highly

domesticated and specially bred to suit the economics of modern

industrialised animal pharming would be able to survive at all,

though some of the older, hardier breeds would perhaps be able to re-

adapt, not withstanding the points I made above re population. I'm

not convinced by the idea that we would 'look after' them in a purely

altrusitic way unless this was on some sort of 'wildlife

park/conservation' basis, an economic interaction (where they are

humanely and sustainably husbanded in return for their yields) would

make more sense and be more likely to work in the long term. For the

breeds that could not sustain themselves perhaps it would be better

to let them live out their lives without reproducing, which raises

another whole set of ethical questions from an Animal rights

perspective... Or maybe culling? again an ethically fraught one but

perhaps more kind in the long run than the slow deaths from disease

and starvation they would no doubt meet once removed from the

artificial and anti-biotics sustained environment of the factory feed

lot...

 

 

>

> > But by accepting that we are a part of

> > the earth and it's natural systems, not apart from it (as is the

> > belief of druid and pagan faiths as I believe)

>

> Yep indeedy (although, to be ultra-pedantic (sorry), I disagree

with the

> term " faith " :-))

 

Yes, sorry, bad choice of word and not at all reflecting what I

understand paganism to be about, which is reconnecting with gaia and

honouring her and her cycles....

 

Cheers graham

www.landandliberty.co.uk

[Guest guest]

 

Children of meat- eaters eat a very unhealthy and unnatural diet, of refined sugar, saturated fat, dairy pus, and growth hormones, is that healthy? I think its very sad and shocking what I see alot of kids are eating today , junk food, ice cream and industrial waste, and there is also an epidemic of childhood illnesses, obesity, asthma, high cholesterol levels, onset of early puberty,etc. These are all diet related and I never see vegan children with these illnesses.

I'm pleased you changed your diet ,if only for the sake of your children

 

Unfortunately I have known vegans who have raised vegan kids and they have given them just as much junk food as 'normal' kids.

Just coz you follow a vegan diet doesn't necessarily mean it's any healthier

*said munching on a bar of chcolate*

Shelloid

[Guest guest]

Hi Graham

 

> The problem as I see it with what you suggest is that within

> grassland or woodland ecologies there are no longer any species

> filling the predator niche (peoplekind having hunted them all to

> extinction), thus herbivorous species would simply continue to

> multiply to unsustainable levels without some form of population

> checks. There is nowhere in the UK that is a totally 'natural'

> environment, all of our landscape has been managed and altered in

one

> way or another (see 'The History Of the Countryside' by Oliver

> Rackham), so I cannot help but feel that it is a misnomer to

imagine

> that we could allow nature to 'return to it's own devices'

 

I see what you're saying, but I have much more faith in " nature " - of

course it won't return things to the way they were, but it will find

a new balance!

 

I'm not saying this will necessarily be a balance that humanity would

like - but life has managed to go on for several million, if not

billion years, through the extinction of numerous species of animals

and plants. But then, there's no reason that nature would need to fit

with the needs of humans.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm not saying this will necessarily be a balance that humanity

would

> like - but life has managed to go on for several million, if not

> billion years, through the extinction of numerous species of

animals

> and plants. But then, there's no reason that nature would need to

fit

> with the needs of humans.

 

absolutely- Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesy explicitly states this.

 

But aside from this long termist view i don't to the

philosophy that the planet would be better off if we were all extinct-

that is a cop out from the question of how do we actually find ways

of living as a species in harmony with the rest of the planet.

 

The answers to meeting all of our needs and living well yet

sustainably are all there- i don't believe it's beyond the wit and

ingenuity of peoplekind to reconect and become earth citizens if the

will were there...

 

Cheers graham

www.landandliberty.co.uk

[Guest guest]

> But a few of us have a right to live, -I believe only vegans should

> be allowed to reproduce or persons showing they can help the

> enviroment and live peacefully.

 

Sorry that I'm a tad behind, school and all.

 

If vegans were the only ones allowed to have kids, I would never have been

born. My parents aren't vegans, I'm a vegan. Most people I know, who are

vegan, were born to omni parents.

 

Talisman

[Guest guest]

i just have a comment on grazing...

here in the states, grazing is destroying acres upon acres of land..

cattle are extremely destructive, they eat all the bunch grasses, and any

suculents, paving the way for desertification and invasive species

they destroy streamside and riparian habitat

yes, not all land can be used to grow crops, and my answer is, so? then it

doesn't grow crops..doesn't mean it has to be UTILIZED by man does it? does ever

acre of land on this planet need to be used for the benefit of humans?

 

and, i still get steamed that my tax $$$ are used to subsidize cattle grazing on

BLM land...

fraggle

 

" quercusrobur2002 " <grahamburnett wrote:

 

>

>> >Most of the Druids I know are very active in environmental

>issues, but none of them are vegan.

>>

>> How can they claim to care about the enviroment and not be vegan?-

> exploiting animals and the grazing of animals for food is the

>biggest enviromental disaster there is,??

>

>Hi Kim

>

>To my mind there isn't necessarily a contradiction between 'caring

>about the environment' and being omnivorous- the problem isn't so

>much 'the grazing of animals' per se as the industrialisation of

>agriculture, including animal pharming...

>

>Some thoughts;

>

>I think it's a misnomer to imagine that a vegan diet/lifestyle is

>automatically more environmentaly sustainable than one which

>incorporates animal products.

>

>I've begun to explore the issue in my article at

>http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/essay/veganperm.htm

>

>A couple of further thoughts;

>

>1. My partner's sister and her family used to be travellers- on two

>occasions that I can recall they used animal products rather than

>vegan alternatives, these being, once they ate fish caught from a

>local stream, and on another occasion used milk from a goat from the

>place where they happened to be staying- to my mind these were

>both examples where they were showing more awareness and sensitivity

>towards issues such as sustainability than by following vegan dogma

>(eg, using local resources rather than highly processed soya products

>which had been grown as a cash crop half way accross the world and

>imported to the UK with all the food miles issues that implies).

>

>2. Kathleen jannaway in her 'Abundant Living In The Coming Age Of The

>Tree' (see

>MCL website, http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/ )argues convincingly for

>a tree based future where animal farming has been phazed out- but

>this would also mean the end of pasture and grassland ecologies which

>are primarily managed by grazing cattle and are in themselves

>valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

>

>3. also, not all of the earth's surface is suited to growing plants

>which can be directly consumed by human beings- I just found this in

>the Gaia Atlas Of Planet Management;

>

> " Most domesticated animals forage off of plants that offer no

>sustenance to humans, thus they are not competing with humans. When

>we count in remote rangelands, forests, and other little recognised

>stock-supporting territories, domestic animals make use of 6 billion

>ha of land, or almost half the planet's ice free surface. They

>thereby mobilize much plant material to our benefit- and they do it

>with no adverse consequences for natural environments, except when

>their numbers rise to unsustainable levels. At the opposite end of

>the spectrum, however, one calories of grain fed steak costs at least

>10 calories in it's production- an absurdly inefficient way for us to

>nourish ourselves.

>About 40% of world cereal production goes to feed livestock- and in

>richer countries, the figure is sometimes as high as 75% (in the US

>90%). The land on which this animal feed is grown is reffered to

>as 'ghost hectarage'- it adds a further 40 million ha of land

>required to support livestock in the US alone " .

>

>

>>

>> Living within the laws of nature,- is the only way to live, and

>man's biggest failure,

>>

>

>

>So what do you understand to be the 'laws of nature' and in what way

>does peoplekind fail to follow them by not being vegan?

>

>Of course the industrialisation of animal farming (and agriculture in

>general) is an abomination, and I certainly wouldn't be trying to

>justify that but I don't think that by trying to live within systems

>which are modelled on observation and replication of natural patterns

>(eg, permaculture) would necessarily exclude animals from those

>systems...

>

>The usual Animal Rights arguement seems to run that by eating/using

>animals we (by 'we' I mean peoplekind in general) are assuming that

>we are 'superior' to other animals and thus have the 'right' to use

>them as we see fit, and that this is both arrogance and intrinsically

>ethically wrong. Perhaps so. But by accepting that we are a part of

>the earth and it's natural systems, not apart from it (as is the

>belief of druid and pagan faiths as I believe), we need to

>realise that we are but players within a constant cycle of birth,

>life, growth, death, and decay... matter and energy is constantly

>changing state and form...

>There is no 'superior' or 'inferior', everything has it's part to

>play and is essential in the order of things... The fox that eats the

>rabbit does not consider itself 'superior' to that rabbit, just as

>the rabbit does not consider itself 'superior' to the grass that it

>grazes. When the fox or rabbit dies or shits, do the worms, bacteria

>and insects which break down those bodily 'wastes' into soil,

>humus and nutrients consider themselves 'superior' to the fox? Does

>the plant which absorbs those nutrients consider itself 'superior'

>before it too is devoured by the next generation of rabbits???

>

>Just as the idea of 'superiority' and 'higher' or 'lower' species is

>a very human, flawed and narrow construct, so to is the notion that

>we can stand outside of such cycles, however hard we may try... Our

>assumption that we are at the 'top' of a 'food chain' (whether vegan

>or omnivorous), rather than an integral part of a holistic and

>interconnected web has led us to what can only be described as

>pathological cultural behaviours like flushing our shit out to sea

>and burning our dead rather than letting them be returned to the

>earth for re-absorption. As a (modern) species we truly do only

>take from the Gaian bank account and never put anything back (same

>analogy holds for our usage of fossil fuels rather than renewables,

>and resource usage in general).

>

>To me this issue of re-engaging with the ecosystem, reconnecting with

>gaia and it's cycles is more crucial than than the vegan/omnivore

>dichotomy. Many cultures and peoples have used and coexisted with

>animals in ways that are sustainable and respectful, and it does seem

>a little incongruous for, say, the pastoral Masai of East africa, to

>be described as 'animal exploiters' by vegans primarily living on a

>diet based around over packaged, imported, resource guzzling soya

>products...

>

>Cheers, Graham

>www.landandliberty.co.uk

>

>

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

> meat eating is destroying the world

> agreed

 

Well, no, as I tried to point out it's not 'meat eating' per se that

is 'destroying the world', but industrialised agriculture, including

industrialised animal pharming. This doesn't mean that I'm pro meat

eating (I've been vegan since 1984), just trying to seperate emotive

hyperbole which doesn't actually stand up too well as an arguement

when examined in any great depth. Sure we in the West need to move

away from predominantly animal product based lifestyles, our

expectation for meat and dairy 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks

a year is totally unsustainable, but not all vegans are in a position

to be too complacent about their own contribution to the unfolding

eco-crisis.

 

A vegan diet which is largely based on chemically grown soya

monocultures which are then transported halfway around the world

(using fossil fuels), processed, over packaged and sold in

multinational controlled supermarket chains which destroy local

economies is more environmentally destructive (and actually kills far

more animals indirectly through loss of habitat as well as 'colateral

deaths' caused by mechanical cultivation, 'pest control' and

harvesting) than a small ecologically managed organic farming

operation which directly serves it's local community such as Ragmans

Lane Farm

http://www.ragmans.co.uk/sophie.htm

http://www.ragmans.co.uk/broadscale.htm

 

 

> now, lets work on the rest, slowly and without anger

 

Fine by me!

 

Cheers graham

www.landandliberty.co.uk

[Guest guest]

, EBbrewpunx@c... wrote:

> i just have a comment on grazing...

> here in the states, grazing is destroying acres upon acres of land..

> cattle are extremely destructive, they eat all the bunch grasses,

and any suculents, paving the way for desertification and invasive

species

> they destroy streamside and riparian habitat

 

Thanks for your comments on the problems of over grazing, yet another

example of the destructiveness of short termist, purely profit driven

agricultural practices.

 

> yes, not all land can be used to grow crops, and my answer is, so?

then it doesn't grow crops..doesn't mean it has to be UTILIZED by man

does it?

 

Absolutely not. As Bill Mollison states in the 'Permaculture

Designers Manual'; " It is NOT the purpose of people on earth to

reduce all soils to perfectly balanced, well-drained, irrigated, and

mulched market gardens, although this is achieveable and necessary on

the 4% of the earth's surface we need for our food production. Thus

what I have to say of soils (remainder of chapter) frefers to that

4%, with wider implications only for thiose soils (60% of all

agricultural soils) that we have ruined by the plough or polluted by

emisions from cars, sprays, radioactives and industry.

Our largest job is the restoration of soils and forests for the sake

of a healthy earth ITSELF. It is definately not to clear, deforest or

ruin any more land, but first to put in order what we have destroyed,

at the same time attending to the modest area that we need for our

survival and full nutrition. "

 

John Jeavons of Ecology Action also states (cited again in the

desiners Manual) that by adopting sustainable bio-intensive small

scale growing methods (especially reafforestation with useful/edible

trees and vegan organic techniques where appropriate, I would add),

that 94% of the earths surface could be returned to it's own purposes.

 

> does ever acre of land on this planet need to be used for the

benefit of humans?

 

 

See above, but what would the vegan answer be to those members of the

human race be that inhabit areas where crop production is

impractical, eg, grasslands, steppes, ice, etc? Abandon your cattle

and hunting practices and start importing veggie burgers???? I'm sure

there would be no end of corporates more than happy to start

developing the markets!

 

Cheers, Graham

www.landandliberty.co.uk

[Guest guest]

>

> So, which of the Druids that I know have you met?

>

> Peter

 

 

hehe...well,yeah,I'm just referring to the whole....well,the E

Magazine articles sums it all up.

 

Chris X

[Guest guest]

i eat organic tofu, and buy most of my groceries from local farmers markets,

and, if not that, then i buy groceries from stores that deal with local farmers

*sticks tongue out*

except beer of course..ah beer, sweet nectar of life

teehee

fraggle

 

 

" quercusrobur2002 " <grahamburnett wrote:

 

>

>> meat eating is destroying the world

>> agreed

>

>Well, no, as I tried to point out it's not 'meat eating' per se that

>is 'destroying the world', but industrialised agriculture, including

>industrialised animal pharming. This doesn't mean that I'm pro meat

>eating (I've been vegan since 1984), just trying to seperate emotive

>hyperbole which doesn't actually stand up too well as an arguement

>when examined in any great depth. Sure we in the West need to move

>away from predominantly animal product based lifestyles, our

>expectation for meat and dairy 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks

>a year is totally unsustainable, but not all vegans are in a position

>to be too complacent about their own contribution to the unfolding

>eco-crisis.

>

>A vegan diet which is largely based on chemically grown soya

>monocultures which are then transported halfway around the world

>(using fossil fuels), processed, over packaged and sold in

>multinational controlled supermarket chains which destroy local

>economies is more environmentally destructive (and actually kills far

>more animals indirectly through loss of habitat as well as 'colateral

>deaths' caused by mechanical cultivation, 'pest control' and

>harvesting) than a small ecologically managed organic farming

>operation which directly serves it's local community such as Ragmans

>Lane Farm

>http://www.ragmans.co.uk/sophie.htm

>http://www.ragmans.co.uk/broadscale.htm

>

>

>> now, lets work on the rest, slowly and without anger

>

>Fine by me!

>

>Cheers graham

>www.landandliberty.co.uk

>

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just to clarify Fraggle, Kim & anyone else following this - nothing I

wrote was intended to be directed at any particular individuals- i'm

far from perfect for a start!

 

Cheers Graham

 

, EBbrewpunx@c... wrote:

> i eat organic tofu, and buy most of my groceries from local farmers

markets, and, if not that, then i buy groceries from stores that deal

with local farmers

> *sticks tongue out*

>

> except beer of course..ah beer, sweet nectar of life

> teehee

> fraggle

>

[Guest guest]

> Living within the laws of nature,- is the only way to live, and man's biggest failure, >So what do you understand to be the 'laws of nature' and in what way does peoplekind fail to follow them by not being vegan?

 

IHumans are frugiverous primates and should live within the laws of nature and eat a raw food diet

( as much as possible), cooking and processing food is very damaging to the environment.

Meat eating is cultural and isn't natural. A vegan diet could be costructed from local resources if agriculture was so planned and I agree that industrialisd people (regardless of diet) do more damage to the enviroment , than some hunter/gatherer tribes.

It still makes good enviromental sense to be vegan in industrialised cultures, and the hunter/gatherers

ate a predominately plant based diet anyway.I eat local home grown produce and find it unecessary to eat imported food.

 

 

Kim

 

To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Talisman

 

 

> > But a few of us have a right to live, -I believe only vegans should

> > be allowed to reproduce or persons showing they can help the

> > enviroment and live peacefully.

>

> Sorry that I'm a tad behind, school and all.

>

> If vegans were the only ones allowed to have kids, I would never have been

> born. My parents aren't vegans, I'm a vegan. Most people I know, who are

> vegan, were born to omni parents.

 

I agree. Colin and I were omni when we had Laura and Peter.

 

Jo

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02

[Guest guest]

Good points Fraggle.

 

I find it funny that even supposedly unused places are 'mown'. Why can't

the local councils just let wild places be wild?

 

Jo

 

> i just have a comment on grazing...

> here in the states, grazing is destroying acres upon acres of land..

> cattle are extremely destructive, they eat all the bunch grasses, and any

suculents, paving the way for desertification and invasive species

> they destroy streamside and riparian habitat

> yes, not all land can be used to grow crops, and my answer is, so? then it

doesn't grow crops..doesn't mean it has to be UTILIZED by man does it? does

ever acre of land on this planet need to be used for the benefit of humans?

>

> and, i still get steamed that my tax $$$ are used to subsidize cattle

grazing on BLM land...

> fraggle

>

> " quercusrobur2002 " <grahamburnett wrote:

>

> >

> >> >Most of the Druids I know are very active in environmental

> >issues, but none of them are vegan.

> >>

> >> How can they claim to care about the enviroment and not be vegan?-

> > exploiting animals and the grazing of animals for food is the

> >biggest enviromental disaster there is,??

> >

> >Hi Kim

> >

> >To my mind there isn't necessarily a contradiction between 'caring

> >about the environment' and being omnivorous- the problem isn't so

> >much 'the grazing of animals' per se as the industrialisation of

> >agriculture, including animal pharming...

> >

> >Some thoughts;

> >

> >I think it's a misnomer to imagine that a vegan diet/lifestyle is

> >automatically more environmentaly sustainable than one which

> >incorporates animal products.

> >

> >I've begun to explore the issue in my article at

> >http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/essay/veganperm.htm

> >

> >A couple of further thoughts;

> >

> >1. My partner's sister and her family used to be travellers- on two

> >occasions that I can recall they used animal products rather than

> >vegan alternatives, these being, once they ate fish caught from a

> >local stream, and on another occasion used milk from a goat from the

> >place where they happened to be staying- to my mind these were

> >both examples where they were showing more awareness and sensitivity

> >towards issues such as sustainability than by following vegan dogma

> >(eg, using local resources rather than highly processed soya products

> >which had been grown as a cash crop half way accross the world and

> >imported to the UK with all the food miles issues that implies).

> >

> >2. Kathleen jannaway in her 'Abundant Living In The Coming Age Of The

> >Tree' (see

> >MCL website, http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/ )argues convincingly for

> >a tree based future where animal farming has been phazed out- but

> >this would also mean the end of pasture and grassland ecologies which

> >are primarily managed by grazing cattle and are in themselves

> >valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

> >

> >3. also, not all of the earth's surface is suited to growing plants

> >which can be directly consumed by human beings- I just found this in

> >the Gaia Atlas Of Planet Management;

> >

> > " Most domesticated animals forage off of plants that offer no

> >sustenance to humans, thus they are not competing with humans. When

> >we count in remote rangelands, forests, and other little recognised

> >stock-supporting territories, domestic animals make use of 6 billion

> >ha of land, or almost half the planet's ice free surface. They

> >thereby mobilize much plant material to our benefit- and they do it

> >with no adverse consequences for natural environments, except when

> >their numbers rise to unsustainable levels. At the opposite end of

> >the spectrum, however, one calories of grain fed steak costs at least

> >10 calories in it's production- an absurdly inefficient way for us to

> >nourish ourselves.

> >About 40% of world cereal production goes to feed livestock- and in

> >richer countries, the figure is sometimes as high as 75% (in the US

> >90%). The land on which this animal feed is grown is reffered to

> >as 'ghost hectarage'- it adds a further 40 million ha of land

> >required to support livestock in the US alone " .

> >

> >

> >>

> >> Living within the laws of nature,- is the only way to live, and

> >man's biggest failure,

> >>

> >

> >

> >So what do you understand to be the 'laws of nature' and in what way

> >does peoplekind fail to follow them by not being vegan?

> >

> >Of course the industrialisation of animal farming (and agriculture in

> >general) is an abomination, and I certainly wouldn't be trying to

> >justify that but I don't think that by trying to live within systems

> >which are modelled on observation and replication of natural patterns

> >(eg, permaculture) would necessarily exclude animals from those

> >systems...

> >

> >The usual Animal Rights arguement seems to run that by eating/using

> >animals we (by 'we' I mean peoplekind in general) are assuming that

> >we are 'superior' to other animals and thus have the 'right' to use

> >them as we see fit, and that this is both arrogance and intrinsically

> >ethically wrong. Perhaps so. But by accepting that we are a part of

> >the earth and it's natural systems, not apart from it (as is the

> >belief of druid and pagan faiths as I believe), we need to

> >realise that we are but players within a constant cycle of birth,

> >life, growth, death, and decay... matter and energy is constantly

> >changing state and form...

> >There is no 'superior' or 'inferior', everything has it's part to

> >play and is essential in the order of things... The fox that eats the

> >rabbit does not consider itself 'superior' to that rabbit, just as

> >the rabbit does not consider itself 'superior' to the grass that it

> >grazes. When the fox or rabbit dies or shits, do the worms, bacteria

> >and insects which break down those bodily 'wastes' into soil,

> >humus and nutrients consider themselves 'superior' to the fox? Does

> >the plant which absorbs those nutrients consider itself 'superior'

> >before it too is devoured by the next generation of rabbits???

> >

> >Just as the idea of 'superiority' and 'higher' or 'lower' species is

> >a very human, flawed and narrow construct, so to is the notion that

> >we can stand outside of such cycles, however hard we may try... Our

> >assumption that we are at the 'top' of a 'food chain' (whether vegan

> >or omnivorous), rather than an integral part of a holistic and

> >interconnected web has led us to what can only be described as

> >pathological cultural behaviours like flushing our shit out to sea

> >and burning our dead rather than letting them be returned to the

> >earth for re-absorption. As a (modern) species we truly do only

> >take from the Gaian bank account and never put anything back (same

> >analogy holds for our usage of fossil fuels rather than renewables,

> >and resource usage in general).

> >

> >To me this issue of re-engaging with the ecosystem, reconnecting with

> >gaia and it's cycles is more crucial than than the vegan/omnivore

> >dichotomy. Many cultures and peoples have used and coexisted with

> >animals in ways that are sustainable and respectful, and it does seem

> >a little incongruous for, say, the pastoral Masai of East africa, to

> >be described as 'animal exploiters' by vegans primarily living on a

> >diet based around over packaged, imported, resource guzzling soya

> >products...

> >

> >Cheers, Graham

> >www.landandliberty.co.uk

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >To send an email to -

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Graham

 

It is interesting - I think that is why you are getting answers.

 

Jo

 

 

> Just to clarify Fraggle, Kim & anyone else following this - nothing I

> wrote was intended to be directed at any particular individuals- i'm

> far from perfect for a start!

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02

[Guest guest]

no sweat

 

 

and, a question..just fer us folks across the pond, wot in bacchus' name is

an allotment anyways?? i think i have general idea wot it is, but, its

foreign to us over here

cheers

fraggle

 

 

In a message dated 1/24/02 4:36:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,

grahamburnett writes:

 

<< , " Jo " <Heartwork@b...> wrote:

> Graham

>

> It is interesting - I think that is why you are getting answers.

>

 

I just thought that as fraggle stuck her/his virtual tongue out at me

praps s/he thought I was having a personal dig, and just wanted to be

clear that I wasn't

 

Cheers graham

>>

[Guest guest]

, " kimberley1 " <Kimberley1@t...> wrote:

>

> > Living within the laws of nature,- is the only way to live, and

> man's biggest failure,

>

> >So what do you understand to be the 'laws of nature' and in what

way

> does peoplekind fail to follow them by not being vegan?

>

> IHumans are frugiverous primates

 

well that's debatable- there seems to be evidence supporting the

cases for both frugivorism and omnivorism amongst our predecesors

 

>should live within the laws of nature and eat a raw food diet

> ( as much as possible), cooking and processing food is very

damaging to the environment.

 

You have a point. Steve Charter of Fresh Network (I think) wrote

quite a nice article in the Permaculture Magazine a while back

relating raw food-ism to permaculture ethics and principles, which

are themselves about working with nature and understanding natural

patterns. He's got a website at

http://freespace.virgin.net/steve.charter/big-picture/index.html

and has written a useful and interesting little book called " Working

With Nature An Introduction to raw food nutrition, forest gardening

and permaculture " , which is worth reading.

 

Doesn't appeal to me personally tho. last year a couple of us ran a

permaculture course for/with some raw food folks over in West London-

I must admit that afterwards we both legged it to the nearest cafe

for a hot coffee fix!

 

 

> Meat eating is cultural and isn't natural.

 

Maybe

 

>A vegan diet could be costructed from local resources if agriculture

was so planned

 

Yup- totally agree, especially if predominantly tree based (see

jannaway- Abundant Living In The Coming age of The Tree)

 

>and I agree that industrialisd people (regardless of diet) do more

damage to the enviroment , than some hunter/gatherer tribes.

 

some??? Which hunter gatherer tribes cause more damage than

Mcdonlads, Unilever, Monsanto, Argrevo, Northern Foods PLC, Nestle,

etc, etc???

 

> It still makes good enviromental sense to be vegan in

industrialised cultures,

 

Totally agree. Certainly meat and dairy needs to play a far smaller

role in western diets if we are to get back on track to some sort of

sustainability...

 

and the hunter/gatherers

> ate a predominately plant based diet anyway.

 

Agreed that this is most likely the case even if theres debate as to

whether proto- humans were frugivorous or omnivorous. Meat would most

likely have been a 'bonus' rather than the primary source of food.

 

Cheers, graham

[Guest guest]

, " Jo " <Heartwork@b...> wrote:

> Graham

>

> It is interesting - I think that is why you are getting answers.

>

 

I just thought that as fraggle stuck her/his virtual tongue out at me

praps s/he thought I was having a personal dig, and just wanted to be

clear that I wasn't

 

Cheers graham

 

 

> Jo

>

>

> > Just to clarify Fraggle, Kim & anyone else following this -

nothing I

> > wrote was intended to be directed at any particular individuals-

i'm

> > far from perfect for a start!

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02

[Guest guest]

Hi all

Having just had my ability to send emails restored to me after an excruciating 2 week break, there are some old posts on which I would like to comment.

 

-

Jo

It would be very worrying if your parents agreed that you shouldn't breed!Would they be trying to tell you something? :-)

 

 

Both my parents (who split some 36 years ago and haven't seen each other for 29 of those) have said within the last 10 years that they would not have children if they had their lives to live again. For my mother, I think she felt trapped by my existence after the divorce, for my father who doesn't particularly like women (except in *that* way!) I think it was more a case of he wouldn't have had children if he's known that he would *only* have daughters. As I view parenthood with alarm myself, I didn't take either of these personally and quite agreed with them!

 

In fact when I turned up at my mother's house some 15 years ago with good news to tell, her exact words were, "Oh God, you're not pregnant are you?", said in a disgusted rather than an alarmed tone. I did rather take offence at that!

 

Cheers.

Cathy

[Guest guest]

Another post I've been waiting to reply to!

 

-

Peter

 

their one failing IMO is that they eat meat - which, to be blunt, is far less than the failings I observe in many vegans!

 

I'm really surprised to hear you say this, Peter. I agree that some vegans leave a lot to be desired in the charm department, but what failing could be worse than causing the painful, terror-stricken death of thousands of creatures?

 

Cathy

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/1/02 2:46:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Snowbow writes:

 

<< All I'm saying is that the simple fact that someone is a vegan does not

necessarily make them a better person than anyone else - it is just one

factor in a person's make-up. >>

 

 

i agree..

vegans are humans just like anyone else

as prone to evilness and bad judgment as the fat bugger who eats KFC everyday

 

plus, i think vegans get so hung up on the " diet " thing, in as much as that

is wot so much of em think about, when, there is sooo much damn other crap in

the world also demanding our attention

[Guest guest]

Hi Cathy

 

Well, as much as I hate to bring up old arguments - there are quite a few vegans who are perfectly happy to physically attack other humans. There is also a significant proportion who place animal life above human life which, IMHO, is as bad as the other way around. And of course, if this goes along with a lacking in the charm department, and a few other minor faults....

 

All I'm saying is that the simple fact that someone is a vegan does not necessarily make them a better person than anyone else - it is just one factor in a person's make-up.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

I'm really surprised to hear you say this, Peter. I agree that some vegans leave a lot to be desired in the charm department, but what failing could be worse than causing the painful, terror-stricken death of thousands of creatures?

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 02/01/02