Animal rights v. climate mitigation 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   biodiversivist Posted 1:35 pm
   24 Dec 2008

   I'll pass
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

2. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:13 pm
   24 Dec 2008

   Buy the false premise..."The carbon implication is that...chicken is far better than beef."
   And one is lead down the garden path, too...
   "This puts the carbon argument at odd with the animal rights movement."
   The false conclusion. (JF RIP)
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

3. 

   Sam Wells Posted 2:40 am
   25 Dec 2008

   The Jainist & Animist ArgumentWhy just cows and chickens? Some of the early religions of mankind originated in animism which evolved into Jainism, which taught that every living thing had a soul. That, ugh, includes wheat and fruits and nuts and all the plant leafs you like to consume without guilt. A Jainist would be horrified at such a blasphemy, that only humans had real souls and that chickens and cows only had secondary feelings. Point number one.
   If you look at how Jainism evolved into Hinduism you'll see that cattle and cows were considered somehow sacred, to be used for beasts or burden, for milk used in yogurt, or just to roam free without any subjugation. However, they ate chickens with great relish - especially Tandoori chicken with yogurt! I am not sure of the philosophical reasons but that is how they worked it out in their minds over centuries and centuries, nor do I care to explain it. Point number two.
   If animism and Jainism influenced Hinduism, it also was a powerful influence on Buddhism, which spread across many areas of Asia and the Orient. The population and population growth of India and countries that were formerly mainly Buddhist is indeed immense and rapid. However, note that these are the same places facing a profound shortage of food, calories, and protein, and further that these are the same areas where "food wars" and trade protectionism have occurred in recent years. They are facing the exact same dilemma we are, perhaps not in the context of global warming & climate change, but nonetheless just as crushing.  Point number three.
   Deal with it.  Season's Greetings!
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

4. 

   Peter B. Meyer Posted 8:43 am
   25 Dec 2008

   Multiple objectives - lessons in (on?) economicsFirst lesson: economists are willing to give their opinion about ANYTHING! (So here I am... less informed about vegetarianism or animal rights than many who might read this.)
   Second lesson: most policy choices involve multiple impacts, and moist of those impacts are what the economists call "incommensurable" effects. That is, they cannot be added up and measured with a single figure (such as a cost or a benefit.)
   Consider the quote and the comments: no one can say that X number of chicken deaths are worth Y acres not converted to cropland to feed cattle ... there is never going to be a commonly accepted basis for saying what the tradeoff it.
   But my colleagues in economics seem always intent to place a money value on both impacts. If we had a price for a chicken's life, a price for a steer's live and a price for converting land from its natural state into crop or pastureland, then we could add upo the costs of the options and say which is "better." But societies agree on prices only for those things that are actually bought and sold in a marketplace -- using  market analogies for natural phenomena is arguably irrational.
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   ecoyeh Posted 11:02 pm
   25 Dec 2008

   Animal rights vs climate mitgationIt seems that juxtaposing these two issues creates a non-sequitor.  That is, animal rights movement is a religious-based movement (folks believe that animals have rights, or that infringing on these rights is immoral).  The climate mitigation movement isn't based on an "enviro-religion" (is it?).

   Permalink

6. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 4:45 am
   26 Dec 2008

   Make the price of animal foods....reflect their true cost and people will eat less of ALL kinds.
   
   We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

   Permalink

7. 

   liberalnun Posted 2:20 am
   27 Dec 2008

   I feel like I'm stating the obvious......but you can buy sustainably raised grass-fed beef, which is far better for the environment and far better for the animals than its conventional counterpart. In fact, I'm fairly sure that grass-fed beef, if raised properly, is no less sustainable than free-range chicken, seeing as most of the cows' food intake would come from plants produced through solar energy.

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:00 am
   27 Dec 2008

   Milk and eggsHave a lot smaller carbon foorptint than meat to begin with l-nun, can they both be produced using zero-GHG agriculture?  I think so.
   Which makes the ethical portion of the argument moot.  The better examination in terms of GHG would be to compare chemical ag to renewable organic ag.
   On the ethical front, which kind of farming is kinder to the animals, organic free range versus CAFO chem farming.   The answer is obvious too.
   This is just typical sophistry looking for attention from the GHG denier side of the political spectrum.  As usual.  It's not thought provoking, so it swoops in under the radar of critical thinking.  That sort of bumpersticker talking point propaganda is effective.  
   I often hear the same old sawing from low information voters.  Wind kills birds, nuclear power is necessary because wind and solar are too unreliable, batteries are not ready for mass production for use in plugin cars, coal power plants can only be replaced with nuclear power plants, distributed renewable energy can't power our economy, farmed fuel is carbon neutral, biomass power generation and CCS reduces GHG in the atmosphere, and on and on...
   So how do we tap into the collective cultural (sub)consciousness with our own key sound/thought bites?  A cascade effect of minds changing worldwide is what we need.  The human will is the ingredient missing here.
   How did the US change from a nation of suffering, misdirected fearfilled individuals stuck in the great depression, to the WW II war production machine?   What cascading fractal of cultural subtext got the herd moving in the right direction?
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

9. 

   caniscandida Posted 4:49 pm
   06 Mar 2009

   Hunt, slaughter and eat whales!(Sorry for the gross untimeliness, I am only just seeing this thread.)
   It is very simply calculated, that the bigger the victim-animal is, the further its flesh will go, food-wise; and so, the death of one large animal is, food-wise, equivalent to the deaths of many smaller animals.  Chickens are plainly sentient creatures, to whom many observers are willing to attribute a considerable kind of intelligence, and for the sake of whose welfare many good-hearted people are prepared to work and sacrifice a great deal.  With that sort of simple calculation in mind, then of course, the death of a single ox is preferable to the deaths of many chickens.
   And by that reasoning, a fortiori, as has been (facetiously?) recommended by some, we should "turn Japanese," and make whale flesh an acceptable and common food. :(
   But this is all ridiculous, and perhaps worse, immoral.  What in the world is Ezra Klein up to, trying to drive a wedge amongst animal-rights promoters?  We are most certainly NOT unanimous on a number of interesting issues, such as this one; and it strikes me as terrificly important for everyone to realize that there is a serious distinction between some animal-rights activists, the kind who dominate the term, generally doctrinaire and uncompromising, and other animal-rights-promoting ethicists (such as myself), who appreciate that such questions as these are complex and difficult, and will take some time to work out.
   The "chicken vs. beef" issue is a mischievous distraction.  The serious moral issue is: Why do human beings refuse to think?; why do human beings refuse to pay attention to their natural sensibilities?
   God knows what Ezra Klein's shady agenda is, but there is absolutely no reason why animal-rights promoters and environmentalists concerned about the effects of global warming should be opposed.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink