Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!pag00
From: pag00@amdahl.UUCP (Pria Graves)
Newsgroups: net.veg
Subject: Re: Let's Keep This Discussion Going
Message-ID: <2779@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 16:07:56 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.2779
Posted: Wed Feb 12 16:07:56 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 03:02:28 EST
References: <903@decwrl.DEC.COM> <11741@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 66

> > >>>Claims that meat consumption is a waste of world food
> > resources are equally weak.  
> > 
> > Try telling that to the starving people in Ethiopia where they have stripped 
> > the land of vegetation because they switched from an agrarian diet to cattle 
> > grazing.  
> 
> Don't blame starvation in Africa on anything but the screwed
> political situation in the area.  You're trying to create
> associations between meat-eating and world hunger that doesn't
> exist.  Existing food production resources, I understand,
> could support a world population of 8 billion.
>
Where on earth do you get your figures?  Is it perhaps that the
current food production resources might feed 8 billion IF we all ate
things lower on the food chain?  A number of years ago when Americans
cut back on our meat consumption when beef prices jumped sharply,
a small but measurable increase in available food occured in the
less privlaged portions of the world.  Since the same amount of land
required to produce beef for one person will produce grain/beans for
10 - 12, I do not think that you can ignore the implications of
your meat eating ways!  (I am not talking about animals strictly
range fed on land too poor to support other agriculture, but no one
would eat anything that tough anyway.)

> > >>>Since somebody brought it up: I too have strong objections
> > >>>to the killing of fur-bearing animals for their pelts.
> > >>>I think this is especially gross since fur coats are a 
> > >>>symbol of wealth and decadence.  
> > 
> > And eating meat isn't the highest symbol of wealth and decadence?  Please, 
> > look at what you're saying!  Man has logic, but he uses it to justify his 
> > desires.  What you've presented as a valid argument is, to me, merely 
> > illogical logic.
> > -------
> > Gita Devi
> 
> If you think eating meat is the highest symbol of wealth and
> decadence you're out to lunch.  Eating meat is something that
> most Americans do every day without pretense.  Eating anything
> of nutritive value (e.g. meat) is closely related to one's survival 
> instinct.  I can't see putting it in the same category as killing poor 
> defenseless furbearers just so you can show off at cocktail parties.
> Wearing furs is clearly an ostentatious expression of wealth.
> The difference is pretty obvious to me.  I don't see what's 
> illogical about this.
> 
> steve

Unless you are inclined to chase down your prey and tear into it raw,
the survival instinct is a myth.  Instinct has nothing to do with
tidy little plastic packages in the supermarket.  Training does.
It is too bad that you are unable to get past your upbringing
enough to read some of the sources recommended in the previous
postings.  You might learn something.

Yes, most Americans (and Australians, and British) do eat meat
every day.  We also drink alcohol and go out and kill people with
cars but that doesn't make it right.  Killing animals to feed
your face is totally unecessary and it is only in wealthy countries
like ours where it occurs on such a scale.  In most other parts
of the world meat is used in small quantities or for special occasions,
if at all.  The connection to wealth/conspicuous consumption is clear.
-- 
Pria            ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!pag00
                (408) 746 7539