From: ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr (Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List)
Date: 10 Feb 1997 10:40:01 UTC   (06:40:01 AM in author's locale)
To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:30:26 -0800
>From: Esneider <esn-AT-blythe.org>
Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:49:11 -0330 (NST)
> >From: Alka Chandna <ac-AT-math.mun.ca>
> 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.

Well , the prblem them becomes one of how things are being worded rigth
now. The food supply is being threatened if the current trends continue.
But that is different than to say: if we convince enought people to
become vegetarian then the grains used to feed animals to be used as
food can be used to feed the hungry masses. THis las statement is NOT
true. It can be worded as to say if we continue our ccurrent patterns
soon enoght world food supplies will reach a critical point. When
starvation will have real reasons and not artificial ones trough
economic imbalances, colonization, etc. And this is a practical argument
not one that covers "animal rights" as of itself. Can a considerable
reduccion of meat eating be enough to create a balance? I don't know but
if that is possible it would not eliminate the question of whehter of
not it is moral to eat animals (non-human that is).
I have a problem with the idea that if we all reach some sort of higher
conciousness by accepting animal rights things will be better on a
social level. This might be because I have made a living in the
health/whole food industry for close to 7 years. I have always worked in
vegan kitchens. While the pay is relatively better the same explotation
and class distintion happens as in the rest of the world. What makes me
madder than anything else is the fact that most people who run those
industries feel they are above any questioning because they have
business in some higher level because they use no animal products.
In the USA, animal rihgts is a "safe" issue. Even considered an
apolitical issue for many. It is easy to figure: eating animals is evil,
morally wrong. THerefore they have to stop people from doing so.
Politics be dammed. why countries have to give up lands to grow grain to
feed cattle seems to have no importance or have a very secondary
importance.
true some people who work in the issue are very involved and aware. But
not many.
Even if we all become vegan it does not mean that the world will turn to
a better place. I have seen the bussines practices of people in the
health industry and they are just as bad as anything else. As long as
corporations are allowed to make profit of peoples basic needs and
rights we will not be able to achieve real progress. Hunger is
profitable for some twisted reason. I think it is easy to loose
perspective.
Morals are a fickle thing. What is moral today it might not be moral
tomorrow. IT is a dangerous argument.
There seems to be a detachment in first world countries on the
production process. This is even more true now thanks to the current
economical trends with factories moving even farther away and thanks to
the current xenophobia, classes are taking a special meaning. Will there
be a world where classes can be divided by border as well as economical
lines? factories and produccion in one country while consuption in
another? i started thinking this because most poeple I know who eat meat
don't even seem to have an idea where there meat comes from. It is just
a nother product package in plastic you pick up in the supermarket.
Without a real connection. Yet most arguements in favor of stoping using
animals are based on the morals of using animals.
Iam rambling now. I'll stop
Esneider

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