From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Rainforests and McDonalds
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:04:36 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


Ted Altar writes:
>>We are going in circles here.  How does this argue against my
>>point that seemingly small impacts from one perspective
>>(i.e., "less than 1% of American consumption of beef) still
>>can have large and devasting effects over time and from the
>>more relevant perspective of what is actually occuring with
>>the rain forests in Latin America?

Rich Young replies:
>	It points out the fact that there are flaws in Rifkin's arguments,
>	and it re-affirms the fact that, for the U.S. at least, it is a
>	tiny, and [especially] diminishing, concern.

Yes, and what's the flaw?  The reviewer claims that a wrong
impression is given by Rifkin, an impression that the worst of the
earth's plunder is not over and that the American taste for
beef has an important impact on what still happens today
with respect to the Latin American rain forests.  Riftkin
cites some very respectable sources and studies that shows
that we have no right to be complacent and continue as usual.
Our glib review provides no counter-evidence, other than attempt
to bury the impact behind a statistic that only about 1% of
the American beef consumption comes from Latin America, as if
this 1% has no significance just because it is a small proportion
of the total consumption.  Again, my point is even "seeming"
small impacts can have significant consequences.

I would highly recommend that you read Rifkin directly for yourself and
not depend upon a single brief review to do your thinking and 
judgement about Rifkin's carefully documented book for you.
I could cite more positive reviews about Riftkin's book, but
so what?  Instead, I've provided a direct quote from Rifkin,
and if you would bother to read further for yourself, you would
soon see that Rifkin does provide good sources and documentation
for his claims.
 

>>Yes, I believe you posted this before, but so what?  Who are these
>>"experts" and how about some primary sources?  At least Rifkin
>>documents his statements with primary sources and therefore I
>>am more inclined to believe his well-argued case than this 
>>glib review. 

>	The source of the review is documented, talk to THEM if you think
>	that the review is "glib".  The editorial address is:

What's the matter, can't you do your own homework.  Remember, you posted 
a reiteration of our reviewer's statistic that less than 1% of American 
consumption of beef is of beef coming from Latin America, as if this justified
some kind of complacency that all is well and that such a practice
has no significant impact upon the rain forests.  I attempted to
rationally disabuse you of this unsubstantiated inference, now you expect
me to do your homework on your sources for you?  No, you talk to them
and report to us who these "experts" are that they vaguely refer to,
and what primary sources they have for their "impression" that the
American consumption of beef has no impact, or an insignificant impact,
upon the Latin American rain forests.  I've already provided a source
that documents that indeed there is a significant impact. 

                                                ted
?
n
.

t