From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:56:55 GMT

From article <1993Jan24.061729.2841@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>Is this truly a fact?  You haven't posted the figures.  Instead,  
>>you posted a vague quote from a newsletter alleging that
>>termites and rice paddies pump out "almost twice as much methane"
>>as cattle.   It's entirely possible that termites and rice paddies,
>>taken individually, each contribute less methane than cows, yet 
>>together produce "almost twice" as much.
>
>Is the raising of cattle the largest contributor of methane to the
>atmosphere, Russell?  By your own admission, all LIVESTOCK contribute
>only 15 to 20 percent.  How much of that is from cattle?

For the purpose of my argument, it doesn't make any difference.  My
point, as you know, is that there are important ethical, medical,
and environmental reasons for cutting back on the production and
consumption of all livestock, not just cattle.  Methane emissions are
just one of those reasons.

>>Maybe you should write the editors a letter and let them know that 
>>non-heart-disease is the biggest "single" problem in america, rather 
>>than heart-disease per se.  I'm sure they'll enjoy one of your handwaving 
>>demonstrations.
>
>Why should I do that when it's clear that the biggest single problem
>in America is the deficit?

Ah, I see that I made a typo.  Would you say, then, that "non-heart- 
disease" is the "single biggest" cause of deaths in the US, thereby 
demonstrating your latest handwaving technique for diverting attention
away from a key point or observation?

>Russell wrote (>>>):
>>>> Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>>>> we cut without causing famine?
>>>
>>>Famine for whom?
>>
>>For human beings, Rich.
>
>Of course "for human beings," you flaming idiot!  Observe, if you
>can muster your mental resources for a sufficient period of time:

Thanks for demonstrating which of us is truly the "flaming idiot",
Rich.

>   whom, pron., objective case of WHO
>
>   who, pron., 1: what or which person or persons; 2: the person or
>persons that: WHOEVER; 3: used esp. in reference to
>persons, but also in reference to groups or to animals
>or to inanimate objects with the implication that the
>reference is really to a person.
>
>I'm sure the literate readers understood that I was asking the 
>question, "Famine for which humans?"

It's irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.  Is there some reason why
starvation of human beings ought not to concern us, simply because
they don't belong to the national or racial or cultural group to 
which you belong?

>>>I could do no more than speculate regarding the answer to your
>>>question.  I would guess that any answer would depend heavily on
>>>the circumstances of the one supplying the answer.  A Masai, for
>>>example, might well answer differently than you.  
>>
>>Perhaps, but let's put the Masai's cattle in proper perspective.
>>How much do they contribute to methane emissions (if anything)?
>
>Have the Masai found a breed of cattle which does NOT emit methane?
>Remarkable!

I suspect that the Masai cattle rely more on grass and less on 
protein-and-fat-rich grains and I also suspect that Masai cattle 
don't spend their lives in small pens where their manure could 
accumulate in oxygen-free ponds.  Both of these would, I believe,
reduce the level of their methane emissions.

>Would removal of the Masai cattle cause a famine in Masai society?

I don't know.  However, it's obvious that the removal of american
and european and asian cattle would not cause a famine *anywhere*.
In fact, such an action would increase global grain supplies
enormously.

>>>Eliminating
>>>the production of rice wouldn't be a major impact on the diet
>>>of most North Americans, but elimination of livestock production
>>>certainly would.
>>
>>If this is true, then it's obvious that eliminating rice from
>>US diets wouldn't have much impact on our methane emissions.
>
>You asked about famine, not methane production.

We were discussing the impact that our dietary habits have on
the environment, Rich.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals