6 of 8
6
My response to Sam’s book
Posted: 25 November 2008 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02

Nulono, saying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different response is technically insane.

So assuming killing is not OK, here’s a old dilemma for you.  A person claims to have placed a bomb in a child care centre and has taken them all hostage.  She seems unstable and is likely to detonate the bomb, killing all the children, their carers and herself.  She gave you 1 hour to meet her outrageous demands, the hour is up and you couldn’t met the demands - she is about to press the detonator.  You have a clean shot and can kill her saving the children. 

What do you do?  You have a moral responsibility not to kill your own species.  But this person is about kill many of your species.  Do you kill the one to save the many?  Moral relativism?

The females of certain spider species eats their mates post copulation.  This provides her with sustenance required for her brood.  Moral relativism?  Or does moral obligation only apply to ‘higher order’ species?

btw I have determined that your name is a chemical derivative of Teflon to which nothing reasonable sticks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 05:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
GAD - 25 November 2008 01:33 PM

Humans are not special or privileged. So, why is a Lion killing and raping OK but it is wrong humans, because morality is relative not universal.

Not eating meat will help the world about as using corn to run our cars.


If you want to know about corn and how we got to where we are at see the movie King Corn. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_(film)

PS don’t confuse the problems with corn with eating meat.

Your website is not available. 

Are you saying there is no relationship between global warming, growing intensive amounts of corn and eating meat?


What is the issue of confusion you are referring to?

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Let me try…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_(film)

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

Your website is not available.

 

Weird. That’s the wikipedia link. Search King corn. also see imdb link below.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/

Are you saying there is no relationship between global warming, growing intensive amounts of corn and eating meat?

Yes.

What is the issue of confusion you are referring to?

If you watch the movie you’ll likely try and use it to justify not eating beef.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

  LJ

Are you saying there is no relationship between global warming, growing intensive amounts of corn and eating meat?

Gad

Yes.


Based on what evidence?

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02

The relationship between food and climate change is best explained at http://www.future-food.org/  and go to the manifesto on climate change.

Having returned a month ago from Slow Food’s Terra Madre in Italy where I was a delegate and presented at the forum, I can tell you there is overwhelming evidence that food and climate changed are joined at the hip.

Because we tend to use reductionist thinking in all endeavours, agriculture is compartmentalized.  But if you add all the components of agriculture together, from field to fork, it contributes close to 35% of all CO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) emissions globally.

Eating is an agroecological act!  It’s also a political act, but that may be a bit subtle for some.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
little baby cheeses - 26 November 2008 07:33 PM

The relationship between food and climate change is best explained at http://www.future-food.org/  and go to the manifesto on climate change.

Having returned a month ago from Slow Food’s Terra Madre in Italy where I was a delegate and presented at the forum, I can tell you there is overwhelming evidence that food and climate changed are joined at the hip.

Because we tend to use reductionist thinking in all endeavours, agriculture is compartmentalized.  But if you add all the components of agriculture together, from field to fork, it contributes close to 35% of all CO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) emissions globally.

Eating is an agroecological act!  It’s also a political act, but that may be a bit subtle for some.

Thanks LBC.  What a great opportunity to go to the origins of the Slow Food movement.

The subtleties are not lost on me since I have been interested in these ideas for many years.  I think the relationship between food, industrialized agriculture overall, including the animals-for-food-industry and the pervasive monocultures of agriculture,  the use of chemical pesticides, nutrition, health and global warming are all vastly inter and intra related.

Are you familiar with writer Wendall Berry?  or Michael Pollen?

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
little baby cheeses - 26 November 2008 07:33 PM

The relationship between food and climate change is best explained at http://www.future-food.org/  and go to the manifesto on climate change.

Having returned a month ago from Slow Food’s Terra Madre in Italy where I was a delegate and presented at the forum, I can tell you there is overwhelming evidence that food and climate changed are joined at the hip.

Because we tend to use reductionist thinking in all endeavours, agriculture is compartmentalized.  But if you add all the components of agriculture together, from field to fork, it contributes close to 35% of all CO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) emissions globally.

Eating is an agroecological act!  It’s also a political act, but that may be a bit subtle for some.

All things being equal changing from corn and beef to peas and carrots would make a difference so small it would be hard to measure. Changing to things like organic foods grown locally doesn’t change the amount of food needed, just how it was grown and where which can be applied to anything. People confuse this with corn and beef are bad for the world, when they are no worse then anything else that followed the model.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02

I am a fan of both Wendell Berry (whom I plagiarised above) and of Michael Pollan.  I’ve been told Michael Pollan will eat our produce at a friend’s private diner in the not too distant future, and I am invited!  In the real world I work a small family farm similar to Joel Salatin’s mentioned in Michael’s books.

Terra Madre was a fantastic experience, hearing Carlo Petrini and Vandana Shiva close up and personal was a high point too - both awesome speakers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02
GAD - 26 November 2008 08:20 PM
little baby cheeses - 26 November 2008 07:33 PM

The relationship between food and climate change is best explained at http://www.future-food.org/  and go to the manifesto on climate change.

Having returned a month ago from Slow Food’s Terra Madre in Italy where I was a delegate and presented at the forum, I can tell you there is overwhelming evidence that food and climate changed are joined at the hip.

Because we tend to use reductionist thinking in all endeavours, agriculture is compartmentalized.  But if you add all the components of agriculture together, from field to fork, it contributes close to 35% of all CO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) emissions globally.

Eating is an agroecological act!  It’s also a political act, but that may be a bit subtle for some.

All things being equal changing from corn and beef to peas and carrots would make a difference so small it would be hard to measure. Changing to things like organic foods grown locally doesn’t change the amount of food needed, just how it was grown and where which can be applied to anything. People confuse this with corn and beef are bad for the world, when they are no worse then anything else that followed the model.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

All I will say here that it is a systemic problem of industrial agriculture.  The whole system (chain) of food production, distribution and consumption must change to have an impact on climate change.  In the not too distant future hundreds of millions of human beings will starve to death and/or be killed in food riots/wars.  Carbon emissions is part population driven and part profligate use, either we control our population and use or nature, of which agriculture is part, will do it for us.

The only reason modern industrial agriculture survives is that it is single bottom line financially focused, with the costs to to the environment and the social costs externalized.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
little baby cheeses - 26 November 2008 08:27 PM

I am a fan of both Wendell Berry (whom I plagiarised above) and of Michael Pollan.  I’ve been told Michael Pollan will eat our produce at a friend’s private diner in the not too distant future, and I am invited!  In the real world I work a small family farm similar to Joel Salatin’s mentioned in Michael’s books.

Terra Madre was a fantastic experience, hearing Carlo Petrini and Vandana Shiva close up and personal was a high point too - both awesome speakers.

Awesome!

But I wasn’t too exited about Mr. Salatin’s chicken slaughtering. Even Mr. Pollen seemed a tad uneasy about it. Overall, he had a remarkable   and authentic farming business. I hope to see those small scale kinds of organic farms return someday en masse.

With people like Gad in the mix, the chances are slim. smile

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02

Agreed about Joel’s chickens, but more with the way they are confined in large numbers in small moveable floorless pens.  Almost industrial in concept.  The killing can be done better too.  Using an electric stun before bleeding out is more humane.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

But if you add all the components of agriculture together, from field to fork, it contributes close to 35% of all CO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) emissions globally.

The same can be said about the toilet paper we wipe our behinds with. Look at the official data and you’ll see that CO2e was not even listed for agriculture.

In the not too distant future hundreds of millions of human beings will starve to death and/or be killed in food riots/wars.

Probably. But that’s not the fault of industrial agriculture, it’s the fault of people.

In the past hundreds of millions of human beings starved to death and/or were killed in food riots/wars. You know what stopped most of that, industrial agriculture.

You know what got most people out of the fields for 16 hours so they could put there mind to better things, industrial agriculture.


Do you know why we spend the lowest amount of our incomes, in history, on food, allowing us more resources for all the other things we want, industrial agriculture.

Other food production methods yield less, cost more and are less dependable (hence the wonders of industrial agriculture), and you know what it takes to solve those issues, more advanced technologies that we couldn’t have achieved if we hadn’t left the fields in the first place.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
little baby cheeses - 26 November 2008 08:47 PM

Agreed about Joel’s chickens, but more with the way they are confined in large numbers in small moveable floorless pens.  Almost industrial in concept.  The killing can be done better too.  Using an electric stun before bleeding out is more humane.

Also agreed, but the movable floorless pens are an improvement over the industrialized confinement inside a warehouse in cages cramped together and debeaked (with no anesthetic)  with barely any room to move around. At least Joe’s chickens get to see the light of day and peck around in the dirt and grass. Not that I support his way, only suggesting it is a relative improvement.  Imagine, being denied even the most basic natural environment that birds have evolved to survive and thrive in, only to gratify a human’s taste buds.

OK, I’m starting to go down that slippery slope of wacky animal rights people, who has the gall to question corporate agri-business’ infinite wisdom and ethics. Apologies for taking that detour. wink

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2008 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

part one of two

Gad

In the past hundreds of millions of human beings starved to death and/or were killed in food riots/wars. You know what stopped most of that, industrial agriculture.

You are confusing the ability to grow food in quantity by the use of technology and mechanisation with industrialized agriculture.  They are not necessarily the same. Sustainable agriculture can be used with technology and mechanisation to grow food in abundance as well.

It is more historically accurate to state that millions of people died because of diseases and poor sanitary conditions and not because of a lack of industrialized agriculture.  The bubonic plague, tuberculosis, viruses, bacteria, etc… caused much of the early deaths in our ancestors, not the lack of food.  Today millions die not because of a lack of food, but because of politics and the prevention of the mass distribution of food to areas of extreme poverty.

Industrialized agriculture does not keep people from starving to death. Wars, politics and the lack of transportation are the main causes of hunger in the world today. You can have millions of bushels of grain grown and stored,  but it will not feed a sole if willing governments, politics and transport systems are not available.

Gad

You know what got most people out of the fields for 16 hours so they could put there mind to better things, industrial agriculture.

What got people out of the fields was the invention of machinery to plant and harvest food.  Again, you are confusing technology and machinery with industrialized food.  There is a difference.

Do you know why we spend the lowest amount of our incomes, in history, on food, allowing us more resources for all the other things we want, industrial agriculture.

We spend less for food because much of it is subsidized by the tax payers (corn, soy, rice and wheat) and the majority of processed food is made up of these cheapened, overly processed and nutritionally deplete products which directly links to high heart disease, cancer and diabetes problems in the USA. 

*From the words of Michael Pollen:

The ‘can we feed the world’ argument has been used for 50 years to drive the industrialization of agriculture.
It is agri-business propaganda, people who are not interested in feeding the world. They’re interesting in driving up productivity, on American farms. Yes, some want to export it. ADM and Cargill want to ship it out to other places, but basically they want their raw materials as cheap as possible. I’m talking about Coca-Cola. I’m talking about McDonald’s….... you need overproduction to do that. You want your raw materials, if you’re producing that McDonald’s hamburger, or Coca-Cola, you’re dependent on that corn and soy, and the cheaper that is, the more profit you’re going to make.

Gad

Other food production methods yield less, cost more and are less dependable (hence the wonders of industrial agriculture), and you know what it takes to solve those issues, more advanced technologies that we couldn’t have achieved if we hadn’t left the fields in the first place.

Other sustainable food productions do not have the hidden costs of your industrialized foods.  They do not require the exorbitant use of fossil fuels due to intensive use of pesticides and herbicides and transportations costs. They do not require the intensive use of water and irrigation that pollutes the water systems with nitrates and other harmful chemicals,  They do not require massive processing,  which uses more fossil fuels, they are not cheapened by tax subsidies and they don’t wreck havoc on the health care system by perpetrating heart disease, diabetes and cancers.

Technology got us out of the fields. But the evolution of industrialized foods has resulted in an increase in global warming. There are viable alternatives to industrialized food that will reduce global warming.  The question is do people want to continue to subsidize cheap food at the cost of creating more environmental and health care problems or are they willing to pay more for food to off set it? 

end of part one

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 8
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed