From: guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:47:47 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: CSIRO Tropical Forest Research Centre

brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>in article <1993Jan5.015759.19549@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au>, guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter) says:
>> I personally draw the line like this: I dont eat those things which
>> I would not be perpared to personally go out and knock on the head,
>> chop up and gobble down.
> 
>So I take it you don't use things you couldn't build yourself either, like
>trains, ball point pens, and computers?  What a ridiculous metric.

Okay I'll be charitible since youre struggling here.  You are close.
A more correct form of analogy would be something like:
I don't use thing which wouldn't be morally prepared to execute all of
the steps in manufacturing myself.  For instance, if I learn that the
pen I'm about to buy is manufactured in a plant which pumps heavy metal
into the bay, I won't buy it.  

Sure there are problems with this; I certainly don't intend to research
the manufacturing history of every product I buy.  I suspect the manufacture
of silicon chips causes serious pollution, but I don't know.  And of course
there are always many more factors to making a decision than trite metrics
like this.  But I do at least have an ethical goalpost, which figures into
the equation.

As far as what we eat, do you think this sort of guideline is more or less
silly than say "we eat cows, don't eat horses, dogs and cats are out, shark
is okay, dolphin is out, insects no way, reptiles probably not..."
Or how about not eating things with cloven hooves?
Come on, how do you decide?  Or does the corner deli decide for you?

Guy.






>> And since I suspect we are already past the sustainable carrying capacity of
>> the country (the world? dunno.) it makes sense to reduce.

>[going off the track]

>And where's the evidence for this?  I've been on this planet too long to be
>swayed by this type of statement because 20 years ago people were saying the
>exact same thing, and all sorts of other dire predictions, and got them wrong.

>Remember the early '70s?  Oil was going to run out in the early '90s.  Also,
>scientists were predicting the earth was heading for another ice-age, and that
>global temperatures were falling.  Now many scientists are saying the opposite
>(despite very significant amounts of contradictory evidence).

>Why should they be more correct now than 20 years ago?  I'd contend that such
>predictions are still extremely shaky, especially considering our detailed
>weather records represent a tiny fraction of a percent of the Earth's history.
>Accurate extrapolation from that is almost impossible.

>Also, the earth was reaching it's population limits in 1970, and people were
>questioning whether we'd be able to feed ourselves in 1990.

>Sorry, but people have been predicting the end of the world since it began.
>I'm yet to be convinced it's any more real now than at any time when people
>have said it in the past.  Convince me.

>-- 
>Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
>R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
>Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
>|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIRO Tropical          P.O. Box 780             Work : (070) 91 1755
      Forest            Maunds Rd                Fax  : (070) 91 3245
      Research          Atherton Q 4883          Home : (070) 95 3309