From: ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr (Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List)
Date: 08 Feb 1997 12:33:31 UTC   (08:33:31 AM in author's locale)
To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:49:11 -0330 (NST)
>From: Alka Chandna <ac-AT-math.mun.ca>
> >From: Esneider <esn-AT-blythe.org>
>
>
> 1. There is enough food in the world right now to feed everyone many
> times over. Food gets destroyed continuesly with just one goal in mind:
> mantain prices hight. I have witness myself gallons of milk being
> destroyed after "over-production". And a lot of land that could be used
> for agriculture are being used for what is called mono-cultivos in
> Spanish (one crop) this is done to boost exports. In many areas peasants
> are pressured to stop even self-sustaining crops in favor of an "export"
> crop like coffe, bananas etc. Those products are usually to be exported
> to first world countries.
>
>
> My point is this. vegetarianisn is great but it isnot linked to
> hunger/food supplies.
I agree with the spirit of your argument, that destruction of existing
food stores, for the sake of price control, is a tremendous problem.
However, in recent years, we've witnessed significant declines in the
world's supply of grain. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I
can dig them out. Increasingly, the southwestern states in the U.S. are
giving forth diminishing yields. Partly, this has to do with drought,
and partly, this has to do with a decrease in the quality of topsoil that
has resulted from the excessive raising of livestock (U.S.D.A.
statement). Therefore, I think that we *should* be concerned - very
concerned about the world food supply. I believe there was a WorldWatch
Report published on this topic recently.
On the topic of the vegetarian/world hunger connection, I must disagree
with you. General cash crops (bananas, coffee, etc.) *are*, you're very
correct, one problem, and I agree that we - in the first world - should
decrease and even eliminate our consumption of these products, to signal
disapproval of the use of these lands for our purpose. Oxfam has set up
cooperatives where the farmers are paid properly, and the profits are
shared equitably. Bridgehead coffee is an example.
Surely, the clearing of tropical rainforests for the production of beef
to be used in fast food restaurants is a case in point where land in
developing nations is used to feed the people of the third world. My
point would be that in the case of meat, there is simply not enough grain
that's produced in first world nations to meet the demand for meat in
these nations. Already, a whopping 70¨f all the major grains/beans
grown in the U.S. & Canada are grown for livestock. With diminished
returns from the overworked land, these affluent nations are importing
grains from developing nations that need the cash. A report from New
Internationalist magazine noted that at the height of the Ethiopian
famine in 1984, Britain was *importing* grain from Ethiopia, so that
Britain could feed all of her livestock. I see a connection there. Were
I in Britain during that time, I do not think that I could conscienably
consume British beef.
>
> 2. I do feel that vegetarian/veganism is a mostly middle class thing.
> Granted there was the example about India but there it seems to be
> geared by religion. I feel that when you worry about having something
> to eat you are less worried about where it comes from. In some countries
> in Latin America meat is a symbol status. Not being able to afford meat
> becomes symbolic of you poverty. True, people could be tought to eat
> better and that they don't need meat but that is a far cry from real
> social change.
>
Well, I do know plenty of people who are on social assistance, but who
are vegan. But this debate is really about the ethics around food
choices. You just have to look at an organization like Food not Bombs
(which is exclusively vegetarian, and increasingly vegan) to witness the
politics between food choices and hunger. Just as hunger is brought
about, in part, by immoral decisions on the part of the government to
fund military expansionism, in a like manner, the choices that we make in
our collective subconscious (to consume animal-based foods) are *loaded*
with political implications. The bottom line is that the earth cannot
sustain everyone eating a meat-based diet. As you, yourself, note, meat
eating is an activity restricted to the affluent. It's a first-world way
of eating. If the whole world ate the way North Americans eat, it would
have been game-over (ecologically speaking) *ages* ago.
Finally, on the topic of "real social change", I want to say the
following: all violence is cut of the same defective cloth. I invite
you, my friend, to visit a slaughterhouse as I have done thrice in my
life. Or, go to a stockyard or a factory farm. Our sensibilities on the
innate worth of animals may just be evolving, but you don't need to read
any of the piles of philosophy texts on the subject to know that the
issues around the slaughterhouse, the factory farm, and the stockyard are
issues of *justice*.
In the sixties, women were asked to wait their turn in demanding their
rights. The males who controlled the leftist movements of the time felt
that stopping the Vietnam War should be the first priority. Well, I
think it's plenty clear to us today that prioritizing justice simply does
not make sense. All of these battles have to be fought side by side, and
in the words of Martin Luther King, injustice anywhere *is* a threat to
justice everywhere.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
alka

TO SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE write to RA-L-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, WRITE TO : listserv-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr
with the text SIGnoff RA-L (no subject nor signature).

Moderator/Moderador/Moderateur : Ronald Creagh
Co-Moderator : John P. Clark
e-mail : rcreagh-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr
snail mail/correo ordinario/courrier ordinaire : Ronald Creagh, Universite
Paul Valery, B.P. 5043, 34032, Montpellier-Cedex, France.
fax : (33) 67 64 77 23