On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:27:43 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message news:085ck2tqc9ctd0qm4tk24q132eodimh28s@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:23:49 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >"J. Anderson" <andersons6.DeleteThis@inbox.lv> wrote in message news:rY_0h.40634$n52.19064@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>> >
>> >> you can't fight empathetic-romantic-ecological arguments with
>> >> scientific-economic-anthropocentric ones. Nor the other way around.
>> >
>> >That would certainly appear to be the case. Here is my take on it:
>> >
>> >1. Empathetic - Emotion -- Do unto others as you would others do unto you.
>> >
>> >2. Romantic - Spirit -- Creation is ordered and perfect. - Cooperative living.
>> >
>> >3. Ecological - Soul -- All parts comprise the whole. - Balance within unity.
>>
>> Not when it involves raising animals for food,
>
>Humans are not a naturally carnivorous species.
Quite obviously we are. People have been carnivors since before they
were human.
>Therefore, keeping domesticated animals for flesh is unnatural and it
>causes imbalance.
Everything causes imbalance. In raising domesticated animals
people don't automatically do something bad just because they
alter the balance. As we've seen, grazing areas are better for
wildlife than crop fields for a number of reasons when they're
managed efficiently.
>This is my first and last reply to you here, dh@. Just so you'll know.
Nothing to worry about from you then.
>> even if that would
>> result in fewer wildlife deaths than raising vegetable products.
>
>It doesn't.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. So you're right
sometimes and other times you're not, depending on what is
being considered. The difference is that I'm aware there is a
difference, and you claim that you are not.
>See below.
>
>> We
>> never talk much about the soul, other than you "aras" often accusing
>> me of believing in some pre-existence state idea.
>
>Then you've been asked to explain why you think this life would be better.
If life can be of positive value for anything, I believe it can be and
often is of positive value for the animals we raise for food as well as for
whatever else...
>> You brought it up
>> though, so do you believe in a soul? If so, when do you think it comes
>> into existence?
>
>I can't answer that.
Let's break it down: it can only be dependant on the coming into
existence of the particular body it resides in, or not. If it is dependant,
then anything to do with the souls of livestock is dependant on the
livestock being raised.
>> Do you believe in a possible life after death?
>
>Yes.
So they would get hopefully a decent after life hopefully forever,
plus what could and should be a decent life and humane death on
Earth to set them up for it. That doesn't do much to support an
image of ethical dominance for your elimination objective.
If you were going to argue back you'd probably try to get people
to believe that wherever people stop raising livestock and their
food, the land will just be left unused to become whatever sort of
wildlife habitat it happens to become. What you always fail to do
is explain why anyone should consider that might happen, how
and why it should be forced to happen, which particular wildlife
we should promote life for instead of livestock, and why. There.
That leaves us right where we would be still with the "ar" side
not really providing anything specific to think about, or reason
to try to think about it.
>> >A. Scientific - Mind -- Rationalization. - Quantification of perceived parts.
>>
>> Not the "parts" you don't like.
>
>You undoubtably mean domesticated animals for meat etc.
That, frogs in rice fields *particularly!* in Texas for some
reason(s), and I'm sure pretty much anything that doesn't
support veganism.
>See above, and below.
LOL...you got me...you made me look. Good one.
>> >B. Economic - Body -- Survival. - Competition due to a perceived lack.
>> >
>> >C. Anthropocentric - Ego -- Dominion. - Preference results in imbalance.
>> >
>> >
>> >Saying that, science is now recognizing that the nature of reality is unity;
>> >economics is now realizing that natural resources are finite - that survival
>> >depends on sustainable and wise utilization of resources;
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Environmental Benefits
>>
>> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
>> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
>> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
>> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
>
>'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>American population.
>..
>About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
>grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
>..
>More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>for cultivated feed grains.
That's okay.
>> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
