Thanks to Amanda for giving us something exciting to think about!
> - What are the connections between ecofeminism and animal rights? Is
> ecofeminism inherently in favor of animal rights? Why?
I don't think ecofeminism is INHERENTLY in favor of animal rights, let
alone human rights, but it certainly could be in favor of such things.
This caveat is because (a) it is too soon to speak of an ecofeminist
ethic, and (b) the concept of "rights" can be problematic, as other on
this list have noted.
> Another question:
> Would there be an ethical base for an ecofeminist to oppose animal
> cruelty based on an inherent belief of the quality of all living beings
> and the right to life?
This is, l think, a very interesting question. My own inclination is to
say yes. I think one (materialist) basis for such an ethic could be
non-violence, meaning that since all living things have some sort of
feelings (or sensitivities to violence, broadly speaking) we should
attempt to act in a way which minimizes violence. Of course, a the
Universe as we understand it has some ("natural") actions we might call
"violent," such as predator-prey relationships, but I think these can be
differentiated from unethical human actions.
Joel Wainwright
Bucknell U.
Lewisburg, PA
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 16:26:50 MST 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 18:26:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ecofeminism and animal rights
To: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
With respect to the thread started by Amanda:
> Why should we be vegan? I don't see veganism for all as being a
> sustainable way of managing our planet. Animals - including those
> forming part of the food chain - are an inherent part of the
> ecosystem. Humans are designed to be omnivores. We can choose not
> to be but if everyone did so it would make some areas uninhabitable.
> People whose native habitat is the sub-polar region have to eat
> animals for at least part of their food requirements. You can't grow
> crops on an ice cap but might be able to catch seals.
This seems to assume that we live in a world without global trade,
massive resource flows, etc. But how many people on this list are involved
in hunting animals to meet their food requirements? I think it is fair
to say that most privileged people in "developed" countries have to
decide, given unsustainable, capital- and energy-intensive farming
practices, is it better to eat only plants or some plants and some animal
products? One fact which is compelling to me is that "production" of
food from animals -- whether eggs, milk, or flesh -- requires more plant
energy than received in the form of the animal flesh/egg/etc. So, given
unsustainabl farming, it is best to eat where entropy is lowest.
> Bad agriculture of any kind leads to soil erosion. The dust bowl of
> the American west in the 1930s was caused bad arable farming.
In the US, many of the modern farming problems -- soil erosion, overuse of
pesticides, etc. -- are caused by (over)production of feedgrains (meaning
overproduction in terms of the appropriate, sustainable yield of the
environment.) So any action like veganism which could depress the demand
for feedgrain production would help the environment.
> We cause far more global warming by burning fossil fuels for
> transport, heating and cooling our dwellings, and in industry.
Actually, one of the largest uses of fossil fuels is modern agriculture,
particularly the production of chemical fertilizer. Since most of this
energy is used to subsidize soil nutrients for the production of
feedgrains (I am speaking of the US again) there is a fairly clear link
between reducing demand for meat and reducing global warming.
Note: I say "fairly" because I think many vegans/vegetarians assume that
every drop in demand for meat (that is, every addition person who decides
to become a vegetarian) reduces the amount of meat "produced" in a
one-to-one linear fashion. But because of farm subsidies, there is a
significant lag time between changes in market demands and farmer
decisions... So in the short run, we should try to influence the Dept.
of Agriculture's subsidy programs...
> It depends what kind of vegan you are. Many rely on substitutes such
> as plastics and man-made fabrics for leather and wool. Plastics and
> man-made fibres use up irreplaceable resources whereas leather and
> wool are renewable.
I agree with this sentiment, and for this reason I have simply maintained
all of my leather and wool goods from my pre-vegan days (my leather boots
are still going strong!).
Joel Wainwright
Bucknell U.
Lewisburg, PA
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 18:48:46 MST 1995
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:40:18 +1200
; 21 Mar 95 13:39:28 +1200
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:39:02 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ECOFEM Subscriptions
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
Hello ECOFEMers!
Since there's been some discussion -- as well as a special request --
about subscriptions to ECOFEM, I thought I'd share some of the recent
trends. First, the overall subscriber list is steady, holding around
390 at present. Second, there hasn't been a trend of unsubscriptions
in the past month -- from a co-ordinator's perspective. I ONLY
receive unsubscribe and subscribe messages when they do not get
processed by the automatic system. This usually happens because of a
semantic error in the (un)sub request. Since I only receive these
types of requests, I cannot speak for "why" people are leaving. In
terms of numbers, those arriving and departing must be balancing out
because we seem set at the 390 (389 today!) total participation mark.
I will add that communications for a sustainable future (csf) has
designed an "exit survey" for those subscribers who unsub. If they
fill out the survey, csf (and all co-ordinators) will be able to
monitor the reasons "why" people unsubscribe. This will enable co-
ordinators and ultimately all participants on csf to understand
what attracts (and otherwise) people to the list. It should also
enhance communications.
I can add that since I've been involved with ECOFEM (July 1994),
I've had three people voice complaints about the discussions. None
of those complaints were about flaming. Instead, they focused on the
substance of the list, e.g., is topic x the ONLY issue ecofeminism
covers? Of the other unsub requests, the volume was the reason
offered for the unsub decision. I do NOT have total numbers of subs
and unsubs available, but considering the stable participant numbers
at the moment, ECOFEM seems to be airing its concerns WITHIN the
group.
As I've said before, I prefer not to monitor conversations, but
reserve the right to interrupt should a situation become too
inflammatory. I expect that the participants of ECOFEM will monitor
themselves as wellas follow general protocol. I cna suggest four
general components of protocol which might help all of us:
1. Active listening/reading -- this means not just
hearing/processing words, but reflecting upon the meaning and intent
of thw words.
2. Respect -- appreciation of diverse viewpoints and approaches.
3. Dinity -- accepting that each participant has an integrity which
must be acknowledged and respected (this includes physical,
psychological, emotional, and spiritual facets).
4. Reflexivity -- a self-employed ability to (re)consider issues,
comments, etc and a willingness to critique one's own actions in
light of diverse approaches.
I hope these comments and "stats" help everyone. Please let me know
if I can enhance the quality of ECOFEM in any other way.
Peace,
Stefanie S. Rixecker
ECOFEM Co-ordinator
