Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Re: some earlier comments relating to the commerical extinction of fisheries such as the Pacific sardine-
I think it's important to note that the decline in many fish stocks across the planet is not entirely due to overfishing. That's undeniably an important factor in many cases, but habitat loss and pollution often play roles that are at least as significant in species declines, and they're not to be dismissed or underestimated as a factor.
I also think that it needs to be noted that not all forms of commercial fishing are equal in terms of their energy consumption, or in terms of having a deleterious impact on ecosystems. Determining and enforcing commercial fishing regulations and prohibitions in order to maintain sustainable fish populations is imperative. But it's a task that becomes much easier when the aquatic ecosystems themselves are unburdened of toxic pollution, nutrient algae blooms, huge volumes of plastic debris, nonbiodegradable nets and longlines, ailing estuaries and littoral zones, and degraded or inaccesible spawning grounds for fish and shellfish populations.
I'm not sure what percentage of human food and protein demandthat fisheries can supply on a global basis. But I have no doubt that they should properly have the potential to play an increasing role, not a diminishing one- once humans begin to respect and nurture aquatic ecosystems again, instead of continually abusing them in the nihilistic pursuit of wastrel economics and heedless waste disposal.
Paperfrog:
> Chikalada's got it absolutely right - the single underlying > contributory factor to practically all of Planet Earth's
> problems is there are just too many human beings: we are the
> equivalent of a cancer on Earth, destroying the organism
> that sustains us.
"...I have no idea about the background of the person cited above"
If you had troubled to read my post, you would have clearly understood that I'm just about as brown as brown can be (the background, location and nationality is 'India'). Reading anything more than superficially, you would also have clearly understood that, in my opinion, 300-odd million overconsuming US citizens (the most obese nation on earth today) are causing more environmental damage than 1000 million 'underconsuming' (because 'underdeveloped') Indians.
Advice to those who are capable: read more carefully, in particular between the lines, before you make fools of yourselves in public.
GSC
In reference to the letter written by Art.
Some people eat no meat because and you must know this but have chosen to leave it out of your comment, they care about animal welfare as their prime reason for making that choice. Let me explain to you how this works from someone who lived on a working sheep farm (600 sheep, 250 ewes) for 10 years and knows enough horror stories about that industry that you do not care to hear for their wicked nastiness or you would have changed your mentality long ago.
Way back when, people had a small plot, a few animals. They cared for them as best they could so that they would produce offspring, thrive and become food in return. In general, these beasts were fattened and slaughtered before the coming winter when they would lose weight and not have enough reserves to make it through winter due to a lack of forage for all the farm's needs. It was a humane enough system with "healthy" meat. Today animals are treated like plastic shopping bags or worse. We all know or should the horrors they suffer and the filth they are fed. How many cows die for McDonalds DAILY and under atrocious conditions. This is UNACCEPTABLE to me and anyone with a thought in their brain. To coninue eating meat is sinful because god did not make animals to be treated as disposable diapers which the industry has done to SUPPOSEDLY have a better profit margin. Even that is false because I discovered during my farm life that Purina donates MILLIONS of Dollars to agricultural schools so the "future farmers" will learn the "right technics" to feed that PURINA food to their 1000s of future cows, calves, sheep, lambs, pigs piglets, goats, kids, chickens, chicks all these animals are now agrobusiness. They are just an industrial afterthought of a profit margin that agrobusiness wants to INCREASE yearly. That is the tip of the ugly iceberg.
My sheep were treated humanely every day. They had names like Blackfousse, Belle, KeyLime. They ate fresh grass or fresh hay and alfalfa. NEVER did Purina sell us stuff but they did try hard. They tried many tricks like it's cheaper and easier to feed those sheep this artificial bulk "sawdust" to "fatten them up". But there was no grass in their product. It was chemicals and filler. It smelled really bad. They gave us a few trial bags that no animal; sheep, horse or dog would go near given a choice. We dug a hole and buried that poison. Art, please contact me for more details if that is not convincing enough. I've lived it, have you?
What was Liz Galst's article about? Was it an informed article spreading useful information on how concerned citizens can help prevent global warming, or was it an article meant to undermine PETA?
I took a couple things away from reading the article:
1) Liz Galst completely fails to mention where PETA got their information that led to their campaign slogan "Meat is the No.1 cause of global warming"... the UN. Even stranger is that Ms. Galst never mentions that one of her interview subjects, Mr. Henning Steinfeld, is one of the men largely responsible for the 2006 United Nations report. If his past articles, including one called "Livestock's Long Shadow- Environment Issues and Options" is any indication, Mr. Steinfeld is much more in line with PETA's position on global warming and meat production than Mr. Galst would like you to believe.
2) Liz Galst is too chicken to give up meat.
3) She's hoping her readers are too.
I have never been able to understand why people act like eating meat is as important to them as their right to vote or freedom of speech. For pete's sake, it's just food! We have so many cruelty-free options today that there is no excuse for not going vegetarian. The fact remains that meat production is wasteful, damaging to the environment, and nonessential. Do the world and the animals a favor: Go Veg! I'm glad I did!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
