Keith Addison wrote: >Hello Dermot > ><snip> > > > >>Many very extensive studies have been done on various vegetarian groups >>such as Seven Day Adventists and some vegetarians claim that as these >>people are healthier than average that it must be due to their >>vegetarian diet. I don't subscribe to this view because these people >>don't smoke or drink either. >>What I do conclude from this however is that a vegetarian diet doesn't >>do these people any harm. This is the important point to realise. >> >> > >One of them, and there are exceptions. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Of course one can cite studies to justify any case in the area of diet and health. We are still in the dark ages as far as the "science" of nutrition and diet is concerned. You can have two scientists who have received the same training who when presented with the same evidence will come to diametrically opposite conclusions. A bit like the dark art of economics! > > > >>It may be the case that some people cannot tolerate a vegetarian diet. I >>don't know. My point is that IF we can tolerate this diet that we should >>because it is unethical to kill sentient creatures for no good reason. >>ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS. Just because they are dumb doesn't mean we can >>deprive them of a happy existance because they happen to taste nice. >> >> > >Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but >there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There >is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never >has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later >fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed >farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't >do it, and neither can we. Sustainable farms are mixed, integrated >farms. > > Can't see any reason to hate somebody who expresses an opposing view. Everybody should be open to having their views challenged. Scepticism is something we can't have enough of! I'm glad you raised this objection to vegetarianism because it is the first time I have heard this particular view.
I don't know a lot about the detail of sustainable agriculture but I am aware of at least one farm here in Ireland that is run on a stockless system that the owners claim is sustainable. Similarly there is a organisation in the UK called the Vegan Organic Trust that certifies farms as being vegan and sustainable. In America there is a guy called Will Bonsall who has run the Khadighar Farm near Farmington, Maine for the past 25 years, using veganic methods, i.e. no animal inputs, for the past 20 years. Just suppose for the sake of argument that it is possible to have sustainable agriculture without any animal input and further suppose that it is possible to lead a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, would you then consider it wrong to eat non-human animals? >Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of >the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef "farm" (factory) >on the other, with its shit-lagoon. > >Farming with animals means one of two things: killing the inevitable >excess or competing with them as they eat you out of house and home. >Killing them and not eating them would not be sane, and criminally >wasteful. > > I don't actually have a problem with animals being used in agriculture. If they get reasonable care they can have a pretty decent existence and they can contribute to soil fertility. It's a win-win situation for everybody. I do have a problem with cutting short a sentient creature's life if it is unnecessary. I can't see how there needs to be an excess of animals that have to be killed if we have the technology to limit their breeding. If for some reason culling is required, I don't think that there would not be any ethical dilemma in eating their flesh. >Widespread vegetarianism would condemn more animals than mixed >farming ever could, and could easily condemn us all to the >consequences (the further consequences) of unbalanced farming >systems. > I would turn this argument on its head by saying that widespread meat eating would condemn us all to the consequences of unbalanced farming systems. Most people on this planet are vegetarian most of the time. If everybody was to eat a meat diet similar to the meat eating patterns in the West then everybody would starve. I know this is not what you advocate but it's worth bearing in mind all the same. > Even your healthy vegetables will not be very good for you >if they're not properly grown in fertile soils, which means that a >proportion of the "wastes" recycled back to the soil goes through the >gut of animals en route. Don't forget recycling food through our own guts. Human waste, with proper treatment should be used to fertilise soils instead of polluting the planet as at present. This would further cut down the need (if there is any) for animal manure. I think they are doing that very successfully in Shanghai at the moment. "Food is fabricated soil fertility." >(Albrecht of Missouri) > >Best wishes > >Keith > > > > Regards Dermot Donnelly <snip> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
