[Julian Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)]

Kate

I know you may think I live in a "dream world" but for me it is ethically 
unacceptable to use animals as we please. So buying anything that is a product 
of their death or mistreatment is wrong. That's my view and I know I have 
about zero chance of ever seeing the majority of people in this world see it 
the same way, so I never try and force my view upon people. There is no middle 
ground if you believe it's ethically wrong to harm animals - an animal isn't 
any less dead if we eat less of that animal - we are just killing less animals 
collectively.

However I agree if you are trying to reduce environmental impact then getting 
people to eat less beef is good...

So I think we are coming at this issue in different ways.

Julian

>===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
>Ah Julian, we meet again ...
>
>In the US at least, beef is the reason for cattle, followed by dairy.  The
>less beef eaten, the less grazing land, etc. and the less the environmental
>impact.
>
>The cattle industry could not survive on the leather trade.  Period.  It is
>entirely argurable that it is more traditional than economically feasable,
>actually.  Leather is essentially value-added trash, and the cattle industry
>doesn't see much of that added value.  That's why the cattle industry throws
>subsidized tizzy fits when beef consumption drops, but doesn't launch huge
>"wear REAL leather" campaigns in the face of challenges from ultrasuede and
>pleather.
>
>Furthermore, why "bring and end" to it?  Everything doesn't have to be so
>absolute - and there are sustainable and organic cattle operations as well
>as local suppliers to consider.  Furthermore, if you are aware of organic
>farming techniques or read Guns, Germs, and Steel, the traditional farm is a
>poop-based ecosystem and many farms have gotten into the business of
>ranching because they need all that crap to keep the veggies growing and the
>land .  Even devoted vegan/vegetarian producers either keep animals around,
>keep dairy animals, or use manure from other sources.  Otherwise, farmers
>must use chemical fertilizers and that becomes unsustainable and damaging
>rather quickly.
>
>Of course, the dynamics of this are extremely skewed by large scale
>operations driven only by dollars in/dollars out.  Those should be the real
>target.
>
>Modest reductions in beef consumption by a very large number of people are
>more likely to happen than convincing a select few to abstinence - and thus
>more likely to make an extensive dent in mainstream factory cattle
>production (and the attendent impacts)and skew the economics toward
>sustainable local production.  People tune out moral judgments, but can be
>convinced to buy less of a better product.
>
>Yes, some people would like to bring an end to ranching, but it isn't going
>to happen.  Let's not even go into the cows versus pigs either, given the
>extreme animal welfare and environmental disasters in factory farming of
>swine.  I go for the impact, not a pure society or self.  Not eating cows
>reduces the beef demand that drives the industry.  Reduced demand means
>fewer cattle and less environmental impact.  It goes to the dominant term in
>the economic equations of unsustainable production.  By comparison, wearing
>or not wearing leather is so economically trivial to the cattle industry as
>to be a matter of fashion or taste or ideology.  Third-world sweatshops and
>the treatment of the humans who add value to that leather on the other hand
>are a far more compelling reason to forego the fancy jacket or the Nikes.
>
>-kPa
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Julian
>Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
>Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:21 AM
>To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu; David; kate at dnki.net
>Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's forests
>stance
>
>
>I disagree Kate. If you are a veggie and want to bring an end to the meat
>trade you do that by making it unprofitable. The best way of doing this is
>to
>stop eating meat and cut out all meat by-products (leather, dairy, etc) from
>what you consume. What is the cow killed for exactly? Why do people assume
>it's the meat first? Many cows are killed just to keep milk production
>flowing
>and leather just keeps the whole system more profitable.
>
>Julian
>
>>===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
>>Hey all,
>>
>>Actually, it makes perfect sense to use the woodchips to protest if you
>>understand that woodchips are generally a byproduct, not a primary product
>>of forestry - at least with most old growth timber.  Until other markets
>>were found, mills simply burned the stuff for heat.  I remember giant
>wigwam
>>burners going day and night at the sawmill where my uncle worked, until
>they
>>were shut down for emissions issues.  When my mom was little, pacific
>>northwest residents bought truckloads of chips from the sawmills or had it
>>delivered for use in residential furnaces much the way coal was used on the
>>eastern seaboard.
>>
>>Plenty of vegetarians don't eat cows, but wear leather shoes because the
>use
>>of leather does not drive the unsustainable aspects of the cattle industry
>>like the use of beef does.  Traditionally, the relationship between
>>woodchips and lumbering is similar.
>>
>>Then again, way too many trees are chipped for paper these days, at least
>on
>>this side of the ocean.  Most trees chipped for paper on the eastern US are
>>what is called "pulp wood", or knotty, half-rotted, or otherwise unusable
>>for lumber.  That does not justify clearcutting, however, nor the attendant
>>erosion and habitat destruction that happens regardless of whether the
>trees
>>cut down had a lot of knots or are diseased or stunted.  I don't know what
>>the practices are in Tasmania, but I suspect they aren't chipping this
>stuff
>>but shipping it to the same asian lumber mills they rip out Pacific
>>Northwest old growth for - there are no mills left in the states that can
>>take the monster trees.
>>
>>Kate Adams
>>
>>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>Kate Parker Adams
>>University of Massachusetts - Lowell
>>Department of Work Environment
>>Kitson 202A
>>Kate_Adams at uml.edu
>>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>Practice Abstinence: No Bush, No Dick in 2004
>>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of David
>>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:37 AM
>>To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's forests
>>stance
>>
>>
>>Some protesters just don't get it.
>>
>>They buy a tonne of woodchips to try and reduce woodchip production?
>>
>>Next they'll be chaining themselves to buried combi vans to protest
>>against landfill.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Powderworks mailing list
>>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Powderworks mailing list
>>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>_______________________________________________
>Powderworks mailing list
>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>_______________________________________________
>Powderworks mailing list
>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks