Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Something that really troubles me

Doing what I can to further the eating of meat, I have invested in a new restaurant:



We have a thing in the kitchen where you lay huge 2" thick slabs of animal flesh and then heat them until the catch fire, which we then put out by pouring on melted garlic butter. Being attuned to nature as only an Indian can be, I can hear the screams eminating from these huge slabs of animal flesh as we quickly sear in all the natural juices.

Fortunately, these sounds are drowned out by the sounds made by the room full of happy carnivores who gather each night to eat them all up.

OK, you got me; so perhaps I SHOULDN'T become a historian... :p

Larry,
If that post was towards me, don't get me wrong, I love meat... and it doesn't disturb me; I don't feel it having pain when I bite into a big steak.

Really? There's a beaver that lived on our lake and destroyed every possible tree he could get his big teeth on, including some that were over 2 feet thick (I was impressed). He had to move on because he essentially destroyed his environment to the extent that he no longer had a source of food. Lucky for him there was still more environment to go to and that there weren't millions of other beavers being busy. The deer population in NY State right now is bigger than what the deer population was in all of the United States in 1900, the over-foraging of this huge amount of deer leads many of them to starve to death when times get tough and also to the anihilation of innumerable young trees. Coyotes seem to be having quite the feast on wild turkeys recently and I see fewer and fewer of them each year. There are examples of animal species killing eachother off whenever there is a change in the population of a certain species that allows the group to boom beyond their means, it's part of the food cycle. Humans have not yet boomed anywhere near beyond their means despite what the ecologists would like you to believe. And so no, man is not the only one capable of destroying nature. Nature destroys and renews herself constantly and we are just part of that cycle. This does not mean that we should not look out to keep things as balanced as possible but both extremes are bad.

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

...Very nicely put!

Yes, really. Your beaver story is just one example and it could also be argued that perhaps that beaver wouldn't have actually survived to cause the damage if Man's progress had not had such a devastating effect on the beaver's natural predators. Your deer example can almost certainly be explained the same way as can any example of nature not being in balance. To backup my point, "U.S. subsidies to ranchers on public lands cost American tax-payers $500M annually. To eliminate livestock predators, real or anticipated, one program uses steel-jaw leghold traps, firearms, cyanide and poison gas to exterminate thousands of black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes and coyotes every year"...

"Boomed" beyond our means? Every 3.6 seconds someone in the world dies of hunger; 75% of these people are children and you're trying to tell me there's plenty of room left for man's expansion let alone implying that our effect on nature is almost negligible! of course, if we all changed to a vegetarian diet, perhaps there would be more food for all. Did you or anyone else bother to read the link I gave listing 100+ reasons to go vegetarian?

We may have been part of that cycle at one time, but we stepped outside it long ago. We no longer contribute to nature, we are nothing more than termites, consuming everything we can, less than termites in fact, as at least termites are not at the top of the food chain.

So remarkable, in fact, that they hunted to extinction the Giant Beaver and several other native species before the "tainted" White Man set foot. Really, where do you get this stuff, "Dances with Wolves"??

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

God, EH, I said I misinformedly had made that post, don't rub it in... I agree with what you said; no need to shove my stupid post in my face.

elena,
i am very impressed with your level of sophistication and education on complicated environmental issues. brava!

Yes, really. Your beaver story is just one example and it could also be argued that perhaps that beaver wouldn't have actually survived to cause the damage if Man's progress had not had such a devastating effect on the beaver's natural predators.[/b]

Man is not the only destructor of species and habitat, drought, fires, volcanoes, and other natural disaster can cause animal populations to be significantly altered. You can't blame us for the extinction of the dinosaurs nor the thousands of species that no longer roam the earth. I agree that the uncontrolled hunting in the early part of the 20th century as well as other human interventions such as DDT managed to decimate populations and I am against such excesses and short-sightedness. But to insinuate that Nature is a beautiful and perfect place were Man not around, and that in fact humans only affect nature negatively is bogus.
To backup my point, "U.S. subsidies to ranchers on public lands cost American tax-payers $500M annually. To eliminate livestock predators, real or anticipated, one program uses steel-jaw leghold traps, firearms, cyanide and poison gas to exterminate thousands of black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes and coyotes every year"

Please state the source of this quote. Ideally it would be wonderful if this did not happen so how do you propose the cattle-ranchers deal with the problem of predators?

"Boomed" beyond our means? Every 3.6 seconds someone in the world dies of hunger; 75% of these people are children and you're trying to tell me there's plenty of room left for man's expansion let alone implying that our effect on nature is almost negligible! of course, if we all changed to a vegetarian diet, perhaps there would be more food for all. Did you or anyone else bother to read the link I gave listing 100+ reasons to go vegetarian?

I you really believe that world hunger is caused by a lack of food worldwide then you are more naive than I thought. There is no scarcity of food, in fact there is a surplus, tons and tons of food and grain go wasted every year. People die of hunger because of poverty. poor distribution and corrupt governments that keep it for themselves. The food is there, it just doesn't get to where it is needed most. The population density in Africa is around 75% than that of some East Asian countries where people are not starving to death, so no, the problem is NOT overpopulation.

We may have been part of that cycle at one time, but we stepped outside it long ago. We no longer contribute to nature, we are nothing more than termites, consuming everything we can, less than termites in fact, as at least termites are not at the top of the food chain.

Coincidentally I just saw a documentary on termites --which you equate to the most useless, self serving creatures on earth, second to us, of course. In fact they have found that in Africa termites serve many useful purposes, among them as antibiotics for wounds (they create their own antibiotic) and also in irrigation as they create holes in the ground under parched land which makes it a lot more easily irrigated when it rains and hence more productive with crops.

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

Sorry about that, I immediately responded when I read it, as opposed to going down the thread. Sorry. But what you said aside, I wanted to make the point that animals were driven to extinction way before Europeans arrived, and also before humans were on Earth at all!!

I appologize. You may rub my face in it in the future when I speak of something I know little about (which I will do frequently, you just have to catch me!) just to get even, deal?

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

Sorry about the double post!! The second one is finished...the first one was sent by accident...

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

Thanks so much, piqué! And also to D's pianist for your support, sorry about the misposting earlier.

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

Deal.

You're welcome, and no problem about the mispost.

I don't believe we were around then and I don't believe I ever implied we were to blame for the demise of such creatures. Nevertheless, I will point out that the dinosaurs roamed the Earth for millions of years - and in fact, it took a huge catastrophe on a global scale to destroy them. how long would it take us to destroy them were they alive today I wonder? How long has it taken us to threaten nature to the extent we have, and how many species have we already directly and indirectly made extinct in such a short time?

Beauty is a human concept, nothing more. As I've already pointed out, Nature existed in balance for millions of years perhaps many times (between ice ages). Mankind, has only been around thousands of years yet his effect globally has been devastating. In the Everglades alone, since only the 1930s, wading bird colonies have declined 93%.

"Biologists estimate that there are between 5 and 15 million species of plants, animals, and micro-organisms existing on the Earth today, of which only about 1.5 million have been described and named. The estimated total includes around 300,000 plant species, between 4 and 8 million insects, and about 50,000 vertebrate species (of which about 10,000 are birds and 4,000 are mammals).Yet almost all species (plant and animal) are under threat to some degree from the acivities of man... Habitat loss leads to a loss of species It said by some, if not most, experts that habitat loss is the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today. Already, around half of the world's original forests have disappeared, and they are still being removed at a rate 10x higher than any possible level of regrowth. As tropical forests contain at least half the Earth's species, the clearance of some 17 million hectares each year is causing a dramatic loss of biodiversity.
Moreover, habitat loss is identified as a main threat to 85 per cent of all species described in the IUCN's Red Lists (those species offcially classified as "threatened" and "endangered").

Invasive alien species leads to a loss of species - Invasive species are plants or animals that do not belong where man has put them.

In their new surroundings - where often their old foes (predators) are no longer present - they can run rampant, often threatening native species who are ill equipped to deal with the invaders. The results can be catastrophic. It has been estimated by the IUCN that "hundreds, possibly thousands of extinctions have been caused by alien invasive species".

Pollution leads to a loss of species - Pollutants do not recognize international boundaries. Chemicals used thousands of kilometres away from the pristine expanses of the Arctic and Antarctic can be found in the blood of some native animals there.

These chemicals can cause mutations and fertility problems - a fact evidenced already in the reproductive organs of fish, alligators, and polar bears. And it affects us too: according to some sources, in Europe, human breast milk passes on more dioxin to our babies than is legally allowed for cow's milk. Even with this knowledge, the amount of pesticide sprayed on our crops around the world has increased 26x in the last 50 years.

Climate change leads to a loss of speciesOur planet is warming faster than at any time in the past 10,000 years. With these changes, species have to adapt to new climate patterns (variations in rainfall; longer, warmer summers etc).

The fate of many species in a rapidly warming world will likely depend on their ability to migrate away from increasingly less favorable climatic conditions to new areas that meet their physical, biological, and climatic needs. WWF scientists have estimated that most species on this planet (including plants) will have to "move" faster than 1,000 metres per year if they are to keep within the climate zone which they need for survival. Many species will not be able to redistribute themselves fast enough to keep up with the coming changes. These species, as far as we know given present knowledge, may well become extinct.

Bycatch leads to a loss of species - Many fishers are catching more unwanted species, juveniles, and other marine wildlife than intended. These non-target species are known as bycatch.

The result is that every year, an estimated 20 million tonnes of marine fish and other wildlife - more than four times the entire catch of US fishers - is killed and thrown back into the sea. These discards represent nearly one-quarter of the world catch of about 84 million tonnes (1998 figures).

Unsustainable resource use leads to a loss of species - The Earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive resource space (land and sea).

If we divide this productive area between the global population of six billion people, it means every person can have an "ecological footprint" of 1.9 hectares per person.

While the "ecological footprint" of the average African or Asian consumer was less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European's footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American's was about 9.6 hectares.

This pressure, due to the unsustainable use of the planets resources, has seen the planet lose 30 per cent of its natural wealth, which includes the diversity of species, in the space of just one generation(25 years: 1970-1995).

" - Source World Wildlife Fund:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/problems.cfm

I can quote examples ad nauseum of course...

If you'd read the link I provided, you would have seen this quote.

I didn't say I had a solution to this problem though I would hazard a guess that fences might help, as would vegetarianism , but that wasn't my point. My point was to suggest a reason why your beaver had the chance to cause so much damage and why the deer you mentioned appeared to be increasing in number dramatically.

I'll ignore the insult where you imply I lack worldly experience and understanding...

Are you saying overpopulation is not a problem? We have multiplied our numbers faster than ever before, going from 1 billion to 2 billion in only 123 years, such a brief moment in human history. As is the nature of unchecked growth, the momentum accelerated and the world went from 5 billion people to 6 billion in only 12 short years. The world is growing by more than 76 million people a year. At the current rate of growth, even accounting for a continual decrease in the growth rate, the world population is headed for double digits within 50 years. Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life - at least 27,000 species per year. The world population has doubled in the last 40 years. It took about 18 centuries for the earth to reach its first one billion inhabitants. The world is adding a city the size of Los Angeles every two weeks.

I never said such a thing! I used termites as an example because of the way they consume, having an impact on the environment that few other creatures can match, but I also said that termites were of value because they can be food to other animals. I have seen programs some time ago about termites, and their role in the eco-system doesn't surprise me at all. No, I'm afraid we are nothing like as useful as a termite is...

phykell, you commented in an argument against one of EH's points that nature was in balance for millions of years before man came. However, excuse me if I'm assuming too much, EH, I don't believe that she was arguing that there is no balance in nature; the very post she made about nature's destruction and rebirth, to me anyway, suggested that nature most definitely maintained a balance between those two. Also, I don't think that she's arguing that the global effect of man isn't tremendous. What I got from EH is that she feels that man is just as much a part of nature as animals, and so our effect on our surroundings is one of nature's strivings for balance again, maybe.

Again, EH, if this isn't what you meant, sorry.

There is no doubt that Nature has a create/destroy cycle but as a generalisation, let's assume a typical cycle takes millions of years, and that a cycle is ended by a global catastrophe such as an ice age, or a comet. My point is, that Man, in just thousands of years rather than millions, is in imminent danger of ending the current cycle as though he himself, were just as deadly a global catastrophe as an ice age or comet...

OK, phykell. I see what you're meaning.
Thanks.

Imminent danger? I doubt that man has that much destructive capabilities, and nowhere as near as much power as a huge comet or the end of an ice age, as you imply. Sure, man can speed up a few things (like global warming through pollution) but I don't think we are facing any direct natural threat due to man's ambitions.

In killing animals for food, the ends are really the same no matter what the means are. What is the difference between an animal killed with compassion versus otherwise?

A comet or large asteroid might not actually kill everything alive immediately. It is more likely to cause catastrophic global warming by polluting the atmosphere to such an extent that the Sun would heat the atmosphere up and the heat would not be able to escape. Little different to what we are doing really. We may take a little longer, but we are easily capable of as much destruction as a comet.

I think we've been here before but I'll indulge you. The difference is that we make a choice not to cause unnecessary suffering. If you're really having a hard time, ask yourself how we should apply capital punishment, assuming we have to. Does it matter that the condemned man/woman is subjected to a humane death or not? After all, "the ends are really the same no matter what the means are" is what you said.