Thanks to Stuart for finding this article about the environmental costs of eating meat. The findings don't really say anything new except update the figures and it's still worthwhile to read to remind ourselves of the true costs of eating meat.
Add the cost of animal suffering with over 10 billion animals slaughtered in the U.S. alone and it's enourmous.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Friday, October 26, 2007
Being passive and obedient to authorative figures is a terrible affliction
Last night I suffered from passive authority-fearing behaviour which caused my cat to suffer tremendously unneccessarily.
I wonder why I am like this? Is it the way I was brought up? The culture of my country?
My wonderful young cat, Josie, who is only about 8 months old, was bitten by a stray cat that continouly makes a fearsome presence in the garden of my flat complex.
Last night for the second time in 2 months the tom bit Josie, this time with 2 puncture wounds. She was terrified and bleeding slightly, but she gathered herself quite quickly. However, fearful of infections and possibly HIV, I took to the emergency vet.
A young uncertain man greeted me and insisted on taking her away to be shaved. He said something about clearing the wounds. I really wanted to be present, but he was highly discouraging so I relented. But I thought he would come back after shaving her. Sitting in the waiting room, I heard one and then several screams from my cat in the distance. At first I thought it was simply being shaved over the wound. Then I hoped that there was a parrot or other animals in the clinic. I couldn't take it any longer and started pacing about trying to find where I could get access to where she was. The hygenic operating area said "staff only" so I obeyed. I knew that he'd taken another route to the theatre but I was again too fearful to go through without permission. So I asked the receptionist if that was my cat screaming. And he said yes it was, but it was normal and it was because of the injections. I was unhappy but let that quieten me.
Josie came back terrified, shell-shocked with wounds cut open. Flesh about 1cm long and 5 mm wide was cut from the wound and was leaking blood. No wonder she was crying so much! I had no idea. I said nothing and meekly took my injured animal home. She was so much worse off. She hid in the cupboard, was painful and sullen.
What I find particularly disturbing is that when I took her to the day clinic the last time she was bitten, there was no fuss at all. No shaving, no cutting, no screaming. It was over in 5 minutes and Josie didn't even cry.
I feel like I allowed her to be tortured for at least 30 minutes and did nothing because I was too afraid to ask questions and see for myself what was going on. It's pathetic. It's my beloved pet and it's my right to know what is happening. Why didn't I insist on being present and informed of the proceedings?
Why because I was trusting and fearful of the vet. But who is the vet, just a young kid straight out of varsity. I have my own judgement, experience and mind and I have a right to use it.
Motto of the day: Don't be passive when you know something is wrong! Don't be afraid to ask questions.
I wonder why I am like this? Is it the way I was brought up? The culture of my country?
My wonderful young cat, Josie, who is only about 8 months old, was bitten by a stray cat that continouly makes a fearsome presence in the garden of my flat complex.
Last night for the second time in 2 months the tom bit Josie, this time with 2 puncture wounds. She was terrified and bleeding slightly, but she gathered herself quite quickly. However, fearful of infections and possibly HIV, I took to the emergency vet.
A young uncertain man greeted me and insisted on taking her away to be shaved. He said something about clearing the wounds. I really wanted to be present, but he was highly discouraging so I relented. But I thought he would come back after shaving her. Sitting in the waiting room, I heard one and then several screams from my cat in the distance. At first I thought it was simply being shaved over the wound. Then I hoped that there was a parrot or other animals in the clinic. I couldn't take it any longer and started pacing about trying to find where I could get access to where she was. The hygenic operating area said "staff only" so I obeyed. I knew that he'd taken another route to the theatre but I was again too fearful to go through without permission. So I asked the receptionist if that was my cat screaming. And he said yes it was, but it was normal and it was because of the injections. I was unhappy but let that quieten me.
Josie came back terrified, shell-shocked with wounds cut open. Flesh about 1cm long and 5 mm wide was cut from the wound and was leaking blood. No wonder she was crying so much! I had no idea. I said nothing and meekly took my injured animal home. She was so much worse off. She hid in the cupboard, was painful and sullen.
What I find particularly disturbing is that when I took her to the day clinic the last time she was bitten, there was no fuss at all. No shaving, no cutting, no screaming. It was over in 5 minutes and Josie didn't even cry.
I feel like I allowed her to be tortured for at least 30 minutes and did nothing because I was too afraid to ask questions and see for myself what was going on. It's pathetic. It's my beloved pet and it's my right to know what is happening. Why didn't I insist on being present and informed of the proceedings?
Why because I was trusting and fearful of the vet. But who is the vet, just a young kid straight out of varsity. I have my own judgement, experience and mind and I have a right to use it.
Motto of the day: Don't be passive when you know something is wrong! Don't be afraid to ask questions.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
I'm back with questions
After a long break from blogger - nearly a year - a comment on this blog reminded me that my blog still exists and inspired to post a few thoughts.
Here are a few things I've been thinking about:
1. Are conservationists hanging onto something (i.e. keeping nature pristine) that can never remain as is, and by trying so hard to protect this "sacred" state are we causing stagnation? Are we like those people who cannot accept and embrace change? There are good arguments for keeping nature as is. One commonly used argument is that nature in its pristine state is essential for maintaining micro- and macro-scale ecosystem services that sustain our existence (e.g. wetlands, mountain water catchments, soil production, genetic diversity, etc.) There are also spiritual and ethical arguments - for me the preservation of all the diverse animal species is one. But I'm not sure how pristine it needs to be. I have a feeling that pollution is bad and filling up the entire landscape with monoculture farms, urban structures and garbage is also detrimental to our environment and our psychology. But I don't have quantitative figures.
2. I have this feeling that it is unethical to create a world where species can no longer survive, where the Earth is no longer their home. I believe it is unethical to kill animals (via hunting or habitat destruction) when its not necessary for our survival. But sometimes when I watch nature documentaries, filled with the desperate struggle of eating and being eaten in pretty gruesome and painful ways, I wonder why we would want to preserve something so cruel, something that causes so much suffering. An Anaconda slowly strangles its victims to death. As the victim breathes out, it tightens its coils. Others snakes swallow their prey live. Lions do not have effective killing mechanisms and sometimes just hang on until the victim expires or they start eating it alive. Nature is inhumane and filled with suffering! I don't think the individuals are cruel - they have no choice like us humans. But they were not equipped with kind and humane ways of killing and eating their prey. Why do we want to preserve this kind of existence? But as a friend of mine pointed out, humans do inflict this kind of cruelty on each other all the time and we still want to continue existence. This is true, yet I always hope that somehow humanity will elevate itself to more kind ways of living. This doesn't seem possible now, but Stuart believes that through artificial intelligence and neurological enhancement we could make ourselves better people – I hope so.
Here are a few things I've been thinking about:
1. Are conservationists hanging onto something (i.e. keeping nature pristine) that can never remain as is, and by trying so hard to protect this "sacred" state are we causing stagnation? Are we like those people who cannot accept and embrace change? There are good arguments for keeping nature as is. One commonly used argument is that nature in its pristine state is essential for maintaining micro- and macro-scale ecosystem services that sustain our existence (e.g. wetlands, mountain water catchments, soil production, genetic diversity, etc.) There are also spiritual and ethical arguments - for me the preservation of all the diverse animal species is one. But I'm not sure how pristine it needs to be. I have a feeling that pollution is bad and filling up the entire landscape with monoculture farms, urban structures and garbage is also detrimental to our environment and our psychology. But I don't have quantitative figures.
2. I have this feeling that it is unethical to create a world where species can no longer survive, where the Earth is no longer their home. I believe it is unethical to kill animals (via hunting or habitat destruction) when its not necessary for our survival. But sometimes when I watch nature documentaries, filled with the desperate struggle of eating and being eaten in pretty gruesome and painful ways, I wonder why we would want to preserve something so cruel, something that causes so much suffering. An Anaconda slowly strangles its victims to death. As the victim breathes out, it tightens its coils. Others snakes swallow their prey live. Lions do not have effective killing mechanisms and sometimes just hang on until the victim expires or they start eating it alive. Nature is inhumane and filled with suffering! I don't think the individuals are cruel - they have no choice like us humans. But they were not equipped with kind and humane ways of killing and eating their prey. Why do we want to preserve this kind of existence? But as a friend of mine pointed out, humans do inflict this kind of cruelty on each other all the time and we still want to continue existence. This is true, yet I always hope that somehow humanity will elevate itself to more kind ways of living. This doesn't seem possible now, but Stuart believes that through artificial intelligence and neurological enhancement we could make ourselves better people – I hope so.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A dangerous idea
I have written for ages, but I must share this with you. There's a fantastic site where prominent intellectuals in Science are asked what they think the most dangerous idea is, assuming it were true.
Irene Pepperberg, Research Associate, Psychology, Harvard University, studies parrots and has found them to be supremely intelligent, comparible to chimps.
Her dangerous idea is 'The differences between humans and nonhumans are quantitative, not qualitative'.
Why is it dangerous? Because we'll have to start taking animals seriously which will mean rethinking the way we use them for animal experimentation, food production and other forms of exploitation. Even how we destroy and pollute the habitats in which they live.
She's great and has some really fascinating research.
Irene Pepperberg, Research Associate, Psychology, Harvard University, studies parrots and has found them to be supremely intelligent, comparible to chimps.
Her dangerous idea is 'The differences between humans and nonhumans are quantitative, not qualitative'.
Why is it dangerous? Because we'll have to start taking animals seriously which will mean rethinking the way we use them for animal experimentation, food production and other forms of exploitation. Even how we destroy and pollute the habitats in which they live.
She's great and has some really fascinating research.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The voices are telling me to kill you
This is just one of the hilarious pictures on this site . It was really hard to choose which one to put on the web, so go please go look the rest!
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
"Incovenient Truth"
I saw "Inconvenient Truth" on Friday night. It's a documentary warning about the effects of Global Warming produced by Al Gore. It's really about his mission to make people aware of global warming, why it's happening, what the effects are and what we can do about it.
In some cases it might have been quite sentimental (which is ok), but generally I found it interesting and quite inspiring (i.e. it makes me want to take action). I covered some theory about global warming in my geography courses at UCT and was pleased not to notice any major inconsistencies between the facts presented and my education.
I think Al Gore makes a really strong argument why we should take global warming seriously while trying to make the science understandable and adding a human touch.
The human suffering caused by storms and droughts will be immense, but what really upset me was the reminder of how global warming will effect animals. In the Arctic, it's been found that polar bears are drowning before they are able to find the shore of the rapidly receding ice shelf : ( And, really it won't just be the polar bears that suffer as life cycles are put out of sink and habitats made inhospitable.
We really are heading to a mass extinction. It also makes me wonder if I'm investing my time in the right conservation activity. Trying to protect little remants of vegetation to preserve habitats etc. won't really help when that habitat transforms with climate change.
I didn't search long but here's quite a nice post about the movie.
I urge you to go see it and "The March of the Penguins" to make you realise how they will be effected too.
In some cases it might have been quite sentimental (which is ok), but generally I found it interesting and quite inspiring (i.e. it makes me want to take action). I covered some theory about global warming in my geography courses at UCT and was pleased not to notice any major inconsistencies between the facts presented and my education.
I think Al Gore makes a really strong argument why we should take global warming seriously while trying to make the science understandable and adding a human touch.
The human suffering caused by storms and droughts will be immense, but what really upset me was the reminder of how global warming will effect animals. In the Arctic, it's been found that polar bears are drowning before they are able to find the shore of the rapidly receding ice shelf : ( And, really it won't just be the polar bears that suffer as life cycles are put out of sink and habitats made inhospitable.
We really are heading to a mass extinction. It also makes me wonder if I'm investing my time in the right conservation activity. Trying to protect little remants of vegetation to preserve habitats etc. won't really help when that habitat transforms with climate change.
I didn't search long but here's quite a nice post about the movie.
I urge you to go see it and "The March of the Penguins" to make you realise how they will be effected too.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
kill the tiger!
That's my new motto. Of course I support the slaughter of lions and leopards too. And your cat. Actually, it's not my new motto, but maybe it should be. How about just locking tigers up and feeding them tofu? What about following them around and shooting their prey in the head just as the tiger is about to get them?
I think this paper is interesting.
I think this paper is interesting.
Monday, October 16, 2006
So why do we care about biodiversity?
In the context of my new job, I keep asking myself this question: Why do conservationists and I care about biodiversity?
Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.
This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.
I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.
Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.
This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.
I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Another heroine
I read a short biography about Mary Wollstonecraft this Saturday and found that my admiration for her increased ten-fold. I was already convinced by her work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” written in 1792, that she was not only the “first feminist”, but a compassionate and great thinker. This is an amazing book which passionately and reasonably argues for equal opportunity for men and women based on broader philosophical arguments about morality, religion and duty.
She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?
There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.
Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.
She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?
There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.
Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
the vegetarian vice
Here's a post on my blog about the vegetarian vice. What do you think?
My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.
My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Lessons of the cat commune
Much to my unhappiness I discovered yesterday that the fluffy-scruffy-looking cat in my block of flats is just skin and bones. I had noticed a while ago that this once much-protected luxurious cat was no longer anything special to its owners. It now shuffles around outside and has serious problems trying to fit in with the other cats who only remember seeing it as kitten being walked on a lead.
This cat Pippa, is starving. And as any concerned citizen of this local community I simply cannot let it starve. So it's going to get food from me as long as I live there. What choice do I have? How could I carry on living there with my cats all fat and happy and this unfortuante creature dying a slow death?
This makes me think of all the unhappy people out there suffering the same fate. Surely it is the responsibility of those who have food to help those who don't?
Yet I know I would struggle to become so personally involved. Perhaps it's because cats' problems are much simpler to fix than people's? Perhaps it's because the situation of poverty is so overwhelming and much too large for one person to tackle?
My ration of food for Pippa however could be compared to a minimum income given to all people no matter who they are or what their circumstances. (Stuart enlightned me to this idea.) Why should a person have to prove that they are unemployed and cannot find work before being given much needed money? The beaurocracy behind this is often so intense, demanding and time-consuming that the poor don't get their money before they are already on their hands and knees, if at all. The minimum income would come from taxes and not really make a difference to the rich, but to the poor it would. I don't know about the financial and logistical issues surrounding this, but it could be a good idea. What do you think?
This cat Pippa, is starving. And as any concerned citizen of this local community I simply cannot let it starve. So it's going to get food from me as long as I live there. What choice do I have? How could I carry on living there with my cats all fat and happy and this unfortuante creature dying a slow death?
This makes me think of all the unhappy people out there suffering the same fate. Surely it is the responsibility of those who have food to help those who don't?
Yet I know I would struggle to become so personally involved. Perhaps it's because cats' problems are much simpler to fix than people's? Perhaps it's because the situation of poverty is so overwhelming and much too large for one person to tackle?
My ration of food for Pippa however could be compared to a minimum income given to all people no matter who they are or what their circumstances. (Stuart enlightned me to this idea.) Why should a person have to prove that they are unemployed and cannot find work before being given much needed money? The beaurocracy behind this is often so intense, demanding and time-consuming that the poor don't get their money before they are already on their hands and knees, if at all. The minimum income would come from taxes and not really make a difference to the rich, but to the poor it would. I don't know about the financial and logistical issues surrounding this, but it could be a good idea. What do you think?
My webpage has been updated
Finally I have updated my webpage on vegetarianism. It includes a little more new information on the Environment and Vegetarian resources and a new layout which I think is very pretty. A beautiful photo provided by our project botanist, Rupert Koopman inspired the layout (which still needs a little work, I admit). in fact it all needs work and revising, but hey, I'm a working girl!
You can check it out here .
By the way http://www.freewebs.com is quite a nice place to host your website for free.
You can check it out here .
By the way http://www.freewebs.com is quite a nice place to host your website for free.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I've discovered Diane Fossey
I'm housesitting in Scarborough (it's amazing) and discovered in it's bookshelves, "Woman in the Mist". The title is similar to "Gorilla's in the Mist", a book written by Dian Fossey and a movie about her life and is in fact about the passionate Dian
I never really paid attention to the movie, but I was intrigued by this book and once I started reading it, I've been engrossed in another world full of passion, tragedy, discovery and war. Dian is truly a remarkable woman and though some may have called her unstable and crazy, she was driven by a great love and compassion for her fellow creatures. she lived life to the full, with passion and honestly.
This strange bushwoman was also not a stranger to love of and from men. Men of all ages would fall passionately in love with this headstrong woman. Sadly none of these relationships were fated for success (or so far, I'm still reading).
It's set in an interesting place, the jungle-covered mountains between Congo and Rawanda during a time of conflict and uprising in Congo (Zaire), which is providing some fascinating background to my current perception of these countries.
The story is also disturbing and sad. Dian was fighting a losing battle against the most gruesome and persistant poaching of all the animals in the mountains where she lived, a supposed protected area. Gorillas hands and heads were chopped off in the most brutal way. Reading the book, it's easy to see what intelligent and beautiful animals, gorillas are and the connection between us and them. It's also easy to understand why Dian went to such great lengths (at her own personal risk) to try protect them. But very few people cared like her.
I only wonder what has happened to the gorillas now...
I never really paid attention to the movie, but I was intrigued by this book and once I started reading it, I've been engrossed in another world full of passion, tragedy, discovery and war. Dian is truly a remarkable woman and though some may have called her unstable and crazy, she was driven by a great love and compassion for her fellow creatures. she lived life to the full, with passion and honestly.
This strange bushwoman was also not a stranger to love of and from men. Men of all ages would fall passionately in love with this headstrong woman. Sadly none of these relationships were fated for success (or so far, I'm still reading).
It's set in an interesting place, the jungle-covered mountains between Congo and Rawanda during a time of conflict and uprising in Congo (Zaire), which is providing some fascinating background to my current perception of these countries.
The story is also disturbing and sad. Dian was fighting a losing battle against the most gruesome and persistant poaching of all the animals in the mountains where she lived, a supposed protected area. Gorillas hands and heads were chopped off in the most brutal way. Reading the book, it's easy to see what intelligent and beautiful animals, gorillas are and the connection between us and them. It's also easy to understand why Dian went to such great lengths (at her own personal risk) to try protect them. But very few people cared like her.
I only wonder what has happened to the gorillas now...
Friday, September 08, 2006
Beautiful bulbs!
This is just one of the many many species of flowers found in Nieuwoudtville which is rapidly becoming grazed by sheep or ploughed for Rooibos.
This amazing photo was taken by Rupert. Thanks Rupert!
This amazing photo was taken by Rupert. Thanks Rupert!
Nieuwoudtville paradise
I just spent a wonderful, informative and allergic 3 days in the bulb paradise of the world. This small area has an extremely high biodiversity of beautiful bulbs. Flowers of every shape and size. You also don't have to drive far to see the awesome plataeus stretching into the Karoo, roaring waterfalls and mysterious Kookeboom trees.
It's also baie Afrikaans! No vegetarian food for me. Well they tried but a vegetarian option simply meant added peas and carrots. I suppose I was vegetarianism is pretty unheard of in this sheep territory. Though rapidly turning into rooibos monoculture.
I will attach photos soon! Keep watching.
It's also baie Afrikaans! No vegetarian food for me. Well they tried but a vegetarian option simply meant added peas and carrots. I suppose I was vegetarianism is pretty unheard of in this sheep territory. Though rapidly turning into rooibos monoculture.
I will attach photos soon! Keep watching.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Darwin, animals and naturalism
I discovered an interesting book called "Pilgram on the Great Bird Content" by Lyanda Lynn Haupt. It sounds like a fascinating story about nature, birds and Darwin's unique character, which covers important scientific, philosophical and emotional issues related to evolution and nature.
Although I haven't read it, I have read the first chapter which was absorbing and thought provoking. You can check it out online too.
I'd love to buy it but I've already just bought Jane Goodall's "Harvest for Hope and have a million other books to read. Harvest for Hope is "easy to read" in the literary sense, but tough emotionally. Besides all the environmental damage our food production systems cause, there are some horrific stories of cruelty to animals. But she does at least give positive alternatives and ways to take action. All I can say is, buy organic when you can. It's better for your health, the environment and animals. Although it may be more expensive, I wonder if it really would be if other farmers were not subsidised by the government for their inefficient and cruel ways of farming?
I suppose I'm painting a picture that farmers are all evil when they aren't (except those that torture animals!). It's tough to make a living from farming, so even those that do like the idea of conservation still want to make the most money that they can out of their land so that they can feed their family, educate them, etc. It makes you wonder if feeding 6 billion people is really viable?
Although I haven't read it, I have read the first chapter which was absorbing and thought provoking. You can check it out online too.
I'd love to buy it but I've already just bought Jane Goodall's "Harvest for Hope and have a million other books to read. Harvest for Hope is "easy to read" in the literary sense, but tough emotionally. Besides all the environmental damage our food production systems cause, there are some horrific stories of cruelty to animals. But she does at least give positive alternatives and ways to take action. All I can say is, buy organic when you can. It's better for your health, the environment and animals. Although it may be more expensive, I wonder if it really would be if other farmers were not subsidised by the government for their inefficient and cruel ways of farming?
I suppose I'm painting a picture that farmers are all evil when they aren't (except those that torture animals!). It's tough to make a living from farming, so even those that do like the idea of conservation still want to make the most money that they can out of their land so that they can feed their family, educate them, etc. It makes you wonder if feeding 6 billion people is really viable?
Friday, August 18, 2006
What's the big deal about GMO foods?
I must admit that I've been rather ignorant about GMO's for a long time now. I couldn't really understand what the big deal was about. After all we have been modifying animals and plants through selection for thousands of years. True, some of the results aren't great: cows' udders are known to cause them pain, persion cats can't eat properly because of their flat faces, etc.
I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are
1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.
2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.
3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.
4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.
5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.
Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.
Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!
It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?
I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are
1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.
2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.
3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.
4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.
5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.
Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.
Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!
It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?
Friday, August 04, 2006
The rights of owning land
Today was the 4th day at my new Biodiversity Planning job and I am loving it! everything about it... the beautifal natural surounds, the passion of the people and the subject matter. To remind you, I am providing technical support for a project which aims to produce conservation plans for several important and threatened biodiversity areas in the Cape.
Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.
I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!
Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.
I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Yes, I'm still alive
I must apologise for the lack of posts lately. With things winding up in my current job before I take the new one in Kirstenbosch, I just haven't had time. So I shouldn't be surprised that I've lost all my readers... But I'll keep posting when I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)