DurianJon,

You make several good points, and I duly take note of them. I see you are a reasonable person; I hope I have not offended you. I am far from being anti-animal; I've been a vegetarian for quite a while (though I won't go vegan), and animal suffering has certainly been a factor in my decision.

Yet I would still beg to differ from your conclusion. The fact that there are other things that could be done doesn't mean that they will, or that it would be easy even if the OK had been given. 'Pour that money into development for poor countries' is a good idea, but not a realistic one -- especially when there are lobbies out there suggesting this money should be employed at home first, to solve America's problems, etc. etc. etc. Organizations like the Nepalese Youth Opportunity Foundation are strictly funded by donations -- and that means they won't have all the millions and billions that you're talking about.

And even if it were -- even if a group of brave young people could actually get the American congress (or the EU, or China, or Russia...) interested enough in the fate of those Nepalese girls so as to pour millions into programs to help change their education and their economical situation (and note that grains and legumes may not be a good idea at such high altitudes as you get in Nepal, with small valleys and very very high mountains), still it would take years for this to have actual effects on people; and during this time, girls would continue to be sold to slavery. Believe me, I've had experince with health campains among South American indigenous peoples, where there were all kinds of practical problems, from funding to the local customs and culture. (Have you seen the article in which a Peace Corps volunteer mentioned that, during his stay in Africa, he found it extremely difficult to convince them that they should plant the best seeds instead of eating them -- so that each new generation of crops would be better than the previous one?)

What is terribly smart about the piglet idea is how quickly it works -- as soon as they get the pig, the reason for selling the daughter disappears. In this manner, 3,000 have already been saved. Note also how low-cost this idea is: it can be fully funded by donations. It also uses already existing factors and situations -- the Nepalese already treat pigs in this way, much worse than you would wish -- so there is no need to change traditional ideas and occupations. Note also how adaptable the idea is: it can be implemented simultaneously with the kind of education/economical programs that you suggest, and, after the results of these programs actually affect the people in question, they could simply replace the piglet idea, which, no longer necessary, would be abandoned.

Although Farm Sanctuary and PETA are under no obligation to help the Nepalese, it is only their arguments that make your suggestion more compelling. All other arguments -- cost, viability, administration, necessity to change local customs, etc. -- speak in favor of the use of pigs.

So in the end, although you're right -- strictly speaking, it's not simply a choice between children and pigs --, in practical terms, there's no way these 3,000 girls could have been so efficiently and quickly saved by the kinds of programs you suggest. The infra- and supra-structural changes that your suggestions imply would simply have been too slow. I'm all in favor of implementing them; but while they aren't working, I will still say: kill the pigs. After they start working, the pigs can be saved.

MMM, I'm really curious. You never seem to do anything but rant and repeat (various versions of) the same points. Some indeed deserve discussion, but others are quite exaggerated and your language is so rude. As a result, you're basically being ignored. Yet it must take a lot of energy to write such long posts. What are you getting by doing this? Wouldn't it be better to be a little more respectful and amenable to discussion? You give the impression of having barely survived some incredibly painful trauma at the hands of some evil man-hating "feminist" which you're now generalizing as the only image of feminism.