EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
The World Food Crisis
The only surprising thing about the global food crisis to Jim Goodman is the notion that anyone finds it surprising. "So," says the Wisconsin dairy farmer, "they finally figured out, after all these years of pushing globalization and genetically modified [GM] seeds, that instead of feeding the world we've created a food system that leaves more people hungry. If they'd listened to farmers instead of corporations, they would've known this was going to happen." Goodman has traveled the world to speak, organize and rally with groups such as La Via Campesina, the global movement of peasant and farm organizations that has been warning for years that "solutions" promoted by agribusiness conglomerates were designed to maximize corporate profits, not help farmers or feed people. The food shortages, suddenly front-page news, are not new. Hundreds of millions of people were starving and malnourished last year; the only change is that as the scope of the crisis has grown, it has become more difficult to "manage" the hunger that a failed food system accepts rather than feeds.
The current global food system, which was designed by US-based agribusiness conglomerates like Cargill, Monsanto and ADM and forced into place by the US government and its allies at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, has planted the seeds of disaster by pressuring farmers here and abroad to produce cash crops for export and alternative fuels rather than grow healthy food for local consumption and regional stability. The only smart short-term response is to throw money at the problem. George W. Bush's release of $200 million in emergency aid to the UN's World Food Program was appropriate, but Washington must do more. Rising food prices may not be causing riots in the United States, but food banks here are struggling to meet demand as joblessness grows. Congress should answer Senator Sherrod Brown's call to allocate $100 million more to domestic food programs and make sure, as Representative Jim McGovern urges, that an overdue farm bill expands programs for getting fresh food from local farms to local consumers.
Beyond humanitarian responses, the cure for what ails the global food system -- and an unsteady US farm economy -- is not more of the same globalization and genetic gimmickry. That way has left thirty-seven nations with food crises while global grain giant Cargill harvests an 86 percent rise in profits and Monsanto reaps record sales from its herbicides and seeds. For years, corporations have promised farmers that problems would be solved by trade deals and technology -- especially GM seeds, which University of Kansas research now suggests reduce food production and the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development says won't end global hunger. The "market," at least as defined by agribusiness, isn't working. We "have a herd of market traders, speculators and financial bandits who have turned wild and constructed a world of inequality and horror," says Jean Ziegler, the UN's right-to-food advocate. But try telling that to the Bush Administration or to World Bank president (and former White House trade rep) Robert Zoellick, who's busy exploiting tragedy to promote trade liberalization. "If ever there is a time to cut distorting agricultural subsidies and open markets for food imports, it must be now," says Zoellick. "Wait a second," replies Dani Rodrik, a Harvard political economist who tracks trade policy. "Wouldn't the removal of these distorting policies raise world prices in agriculture even further?" Yes. World Bank studies confirm that wheat and rice prices will rise if Zoellick gets his way.
Instead of listening to the White House or the World Bank, Congress should recognize -- as a handful of visionary members like Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur have -- that current trends confirm the wisdom of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's call for "an urgent rethink of the respective roles of markets and governments." That's far more useful than blaming Midwestern farmers for embracing inflated promises about the potential of ethanol -- although we should re-examine whether aggressive US support for biofuels is not only distorting corn prices but harming livestock and dairy producers who can barely afford feed and fertilizer. Instead of telling farmers they're wrong to seek the best prices for their crops, Congress should make sure that farmers can count on good prices for growing the food Americans need. It can do this by providing a strong safety net to survive weather and market disasters and a strategic grain reserve similar to the strategic petroleum reserve to guard against food-price inflation.
Congress should also embrace trade and development policies that help developing countries regulate markets with an eye to feeding the hungry rather than feeding corporate profits. This principle, known as "food sovereignty," sees struggling farmers and hungry people and says, as the Oakland Institute's Anuradha Mittal observes, that it is time to "stop worshiping the golden calf of the so-called free market and embrace, instead, the principle [that] every country and every people have a right to food that is affordable." As Mittal says, "When the market deprives them of this, it is the market that has to give."
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy — The New Press.
© 2008 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

54 Comments so far
Show AllJust saw a news item today . The vultures it seems are circling in- to gorge on the carcasses.
Hedge funds and Private Equity Funds based in the West ,have scented blood viz. the killing to be made in Food Production . But one so vast that it dwarfs all else including Oil , Minerals etc.
The plan is to acquire millions of acres of arable land all over the world , and get into farming on a gigantic industrial scale .
Of course there would be minor trifles such as the displacement and impoverishment of millions who already farm such lands on a subsistence basis.
(A crocodile tear or two shed for these sacrificial lambs to the God of the Megabucks should do the trick. )
Hell if ole' Uncle Joe ( Stalin ) could pull it off viz. Collectivization and extermination of the kulaks . No reason why 'we' ( with our megabucks and our fancy MBAs etc.)can't do the same.
Corporate America--the only people stupid enough to be surprised when the house of cards they constructed collapses.
Actually, the only people stupid enough to think we believe their feigned ignorance. The food crisis has been carefully engineered by greedy capitalists who lack the ethical awareness to hold themselves responsible for their heinous actions.
It is sickening to watch fat assed Americans hording rice that they will never eat while the third world starves.
I urge all Americans to go to McDonalds, order the super sized cardiac special, and choke on it.
Zoellick is just another neocon fascist representing the Project for the New American Century.
Americans must make a choice either social spending or spending to support the American empire because we can't do both. The Bush administration has choosen empire and the cost of empire is becoming more obvious everyday.
There is always the chance that world political pressure from the current developing food crisis will put the ethanol rush into reverse gear--before we even get into anywhere near the levels of production that have been talked about.
Rich people seen as out-bidding the world's hungry in order to put grain in gas tanks is a scenario that portends a dim future for the USA.
Actually, I support removing agricultural subsidies too. They're the developed world's way of undercutting hundreds of peasants to support one farmer in North America, Europe or Japan. And while we're at it, let's remove tariffs, if any, on foreign agricultural goods.
Yes, increasing corn production from 60 bu/acre in 1960 to 180 bu/acre in 2007 with incredible leaps of efficiency and genetics is making people starve. Come on....
I wonder how many smug, drive-everywhere, overwieght, overfed Americans never seem to get it that they themselves are a big problem, not farmers and Cargill. Efficiency is why food has been so cheap for so many years. Now demand is catching up. It's very simple.
kman2___Good post. You told it like it is, people in this country have had cheap food for many years, thanks to farmers producing plenty for everyone. Like some say, don`t complain with your mouth full.
Hey America
Your posts are sounding very radial, be careful....
Someone is bound to shout, "The World Food Crisis" its overpopulation.
Now I have posted this elsewhere but no one commented, so I humbly post it again.....
OVERPOPULATION THEORY??
Could this be a politically motivated myth like "weapons of mass destrution"?
Granted, current estimated world population is 6,65 billion, but the worst famines and food crises occurred before 1900 when world population was less than 1,6 billion.
"Three of the worst famines (food shortages) in history were the Great Famine of Bengal, India, that took place in 1769; the Great Irish Famine that began in 1845; and the Chinese famine of 1878. During the Great Famine of Bengal a total of 10,000,000 people died of starvation", see
http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/natural-man-made-disasters/what-were-worst-famines-history
Maybe the "overpopulation" school of thought should come clean on who their political masters are. (I know Hilter is dead but Cheney is not..)
I look forward to your comments.
kman_2
Come clean on who you represent.
Your comments are indentiacal to biotech (GM crop) industry spin for the last 10 years. Its time you evolved to something like organic sustainable agriculture.
I look forward to debating with you and your corporate buddies on this blog.
We live at opposite ends of the world, look forward to your response after my good nights sleep.
I posted this at the very end of another thread that has now slipped off the end. Please accept my apologies for the reposting if you have already read this.
-----
Attention WAL-MART Shoppers:
Due to the international shortage of garden gnomes, we regret to announce that we must limit our sales to five (5) figurines per customer. We apologize for any inconvenience as we know that many of you had counted on Wal-mart for these essential purchases. However, we still have a few left on Aisle 9. Please act quickly as we do not expect our stock to last long. No dealer purchases please.
———-
A few days earlier, high above the Pacific Ocean in the Zoran blimp, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott calls to order the meeting of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors:
"Good morning Gentlemen and token Ladies. As you know, Wal-Mart has now successfully cornered the international rice market and I am pleased to announce that prices are skyrocketing. However, we have a problem. Because the economy is in tatters, no one can afford to buy our rice. I am open to suggestions. Yes Ms. Jones?"
"Thank you Ken. How about we donate tons of rice to food banks? People are starving in Haiti and this could be a great public relations move for the compnay."
Suppressing hidden anger at the suggestion, Ken replied. "An interesting suggestion Ms. Jones. On your way to get us coffee, as a reward, why don't you go down to my wine cellar and pick out a bottle for your personal use?" After Ms. Jones left the room, Chairman Scott asked for more suggestions.
Ms. Smith, the newest member of the board piped up. "How about we lower our price so that we make just a reasonable return on our investment rather than the obscene profit we now realize? That way we will be able to sell our stock rather than having it rot in the warehouses."
Scott commended her idea and suggested that she check to see what was keeping Ms. Jones so long. After Ms. Smith left the room, Scott chuckled that it sounds like the Board was starting to believe their own propaganda about always low prices.
Finally, Kenneth Laid timidly raised his hand. "Mr. Scott, I know that this is out of the ordinary, but what if we put an artificial limit on how much rice any one person could purchase? If the consumers perceive a shortage, we will be able to sell our entire stock at the highest price. The limit should be high enough so that it does not really restrict sales, say eighty pounds per person. I believe with the right press release, we could even get free advertising on liberal websites."
Scott was intrigued. "But wouldn't that cut into our sales to large customers?"
Laid continued. "I have an answer for that. We can instruct our managers that they can slyly suggest to selected customers that for a small consideration, they could look the other way when large purchases need to be made. We could even let the managers keep 25% of the bribes collected."
Scott beamed. "Excellent plan. Andy, see that it is put into place immediately. However, hold the percentage down to 10%. I see that the Board is unanimous in its approval. Now on to our second item of business. It seems that one of our buyers misplaced a decimal point and we have ordered 100 times as many garden gnomes as we think that we can sell. Any suggestions?"
I lot of it has to do with the price of oil, which goes into just about everything involved with food production, from fertilizer, to water pumping to transportation. Also, Asian diets have changed to more grains and meat, this creates a demand for those products.
To say that more acreage is put into corn for ethanol and not into wheat or rice is distorted. As one farmer put it, ethanol has just gotten rid of the corn surplus. But if Asia is demanding more grain and meat, that is putting pressure on too. Couple that with the rise in oil prices and transport costs and you have a lot of factors contributing.
Massive famines of the past happened because of local agricultural failures. 150 years ago communications between nations and people in general were limited to say the least. 150 years ago, very little food was being exported around the world. In short, it was a totally different world. 300 million or so Americans, although overweight, are not consuming such a large amount of food that the result is that a large portion of the remaining 6.3 or so billion are starving as a result. No matter what tradegy takes place, be it war, disease, famine, etc., nothing seems to slow the reproductive process. We may be overweight in America, but for the most part our population growth is due to more that just having another kid. A little education and some birth control might go a lot further toward solving hunger than planting additional corn. Not to sound callous, but just who is going to pay? America has been trying to save the world for better that a century and for the most part, it's like trying to swim up a waterfall.
Americans are more than overweight, daytrader, we're obese. All I need to do is visit my in-laws, whom I love dearly, to see that reality.
America has also done a piss-poor job of "saving the world for better than a centruy". We've had some good moments, but the exportation of the "American" way of life (i.e. our diet and consumption habits) have to rank up there with the worst we've done, with repercussions multiplying exponentially.
kman2: Yes, increasing corn production from 60 bu/acre in 1960 to 180 bu/acre in 2007 with incredible leaps of efficiency and genetics is making people starve. Come on….
It's not all the capitalist's fault but it is mostly. We have to start with rough approximations of the problem, then refine them as we go. The capitalist is mostly to blame because of his influence, which is not accidental, but deliberately abused for profit. Intensive agriculture efficiencies are not real efficiencies. They are delusions, props for a capitalist racket, to drive economic growth as an end in itself.
The capitalists first chucked the whole idea of social/environmental responsibility. This was their first crime, given that they knew better - their "godfather" forbade such behavior way back in the 18th century. Freed from responsibility, the agro-capitalists developed their intensive agriculture racket by first colluding with their peers in crime, the petro-capitalists. The petro-capitalists wanted to sell more oil, and the agro-capitalist provided three temping channels - petro-pesticides, petro-fertilizers, and petro-cultivation. "And it was done..."
The second component of the racket was the agro-capitalist's hybrid seed business. Hybrid seed produce superior volumes but lack nutrient quality, entrench the industry in monocropping with its myriad problems, and enslaves the farmer and the consumer to the agro-capitalist's political control structure. Among the problems, the Pentagon gains war tax revenue on the extra buck churning via commercial seed. All the nods came in at the start. It wasn't by accident. The market for alternatives is suppressed. So take a look from the capitalist's point of view - the fundamental human need for food so cleverly exploited to churn bucks, grow the economy, fuel the MIC, redistribute the wealth, enslave the people to underwrite all the capitalist's future misadventures.
The progressive solution is to take the capitalists completely out of the food cycle. Everyone start growing your own or buy directly from your local small farmer, and demand permaculture methods. Demand land, water, food security for all.
Yeah, shut up and drink your corn syrup, refined sugar (with the nutrients removed and sold to you as something else),synthetic nutritional suppliment to the food that lacks basic nutrition...ignore the exploited earth that at one time provided you with a high quality of life. What is a little poison in your food...it's cheap.
Rice rationing. In USA stores. In 2008.
Already, 30 million fellow Americans going hungry on a daily basis. Over 28 million relying on Fed food stamp crumbs just to survive. None of whom, (plus another 20 million or so) have medical insurance.
In America. In 2008.
Okay, so Cheneybush release $200M. But they gave BSterns $30 BILLION! The top hedge fund thief "earned" $1.6 BILLION in 2007 (by pushing a few buttons and betting against the house, which he lived in and, hence, already knew the future.)
Seriously - $200M for worldwide "emergency" food relief v $1.6 BILLION for one American male.
We are clearly a country suffering from some sort of severe mental illness...
So many lies, so many lies...
Disinfo (masking as concern) on this topic is considerable here at Common Dreams and so too is censorship of comments that attempt to provide a rational framework to consider the major contributing elements that together determine ongoing hunger regardless of the amount of food in production.
The basic two step procedure for limited (limiting) resources is treated in the essay "Making Sense of Nonsense" found at this site: http://allinharmony.org/
And, once that is understood, the 12 myths of hunger are an excellent and invaluable read: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/12myths
Finally, humans are natural herbivores, not omnivores. It requires 50 times as much land to supply the western style meatarian diet as a healthy vegetarian (100% plant-based) diet.
The Nazi World Order that defines modern social and economic culture is entirely myth based.
Humans are NOT competitive by nature, only by artificial cultural indoctrination. Humans are NOT meat-eaters by anatomical and physiological design but only by artificial cultural indoctrination. Humans are NOT inconsiderate of ecological realities by design, ONLY by artificial cultural indoctrination...
Canukchuck, you're actually very funny... thanks for making me smile.
What is really good for humans to eat and what does it have to do with hunger around the world?
First, what is really good to eat:
"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of Cardiology
_______________
From "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed
Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small
Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted
Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple
Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails
Why is the human herbivore directed away from an understanding of his natural dietary requirements?
The short answer is, for the sake of elite control.
The human herbivore is a creature of considerably more options than the human omnivore. Why? Because hunting is time-consuming, difficult and even dangerous. Forage, in a natural habitat (what would have been abundantly expressive 50 thousand and more years ago), was as easy as picking fruits, nuts, seeds, etc.
In fact, the reason for eco-destructions by Nazi interests (this is as old as the very first empire) is to force humans into control situations where they can no longer hope to survive without the 'tickets' (money) dispensed by the corporate elite; economic slavery.
Diets were streamlined in order to make them more manageable for the corporate elite and thus the wide variety of forage previously available was often removed to be replaced by a few easy-to-artificially-cultivate items.
A glimpse into this process (even in ancient times) can be gleaned from a look at northern Argentina… with vast alluvial plains, now dead… yet with a vast irrigation system built by the Incas… still feeding select mono-crops grown in an otherwise made-barren desert.
This documentary is really worth seeing: 'The World According to Monsanto'
It captures the process by which corporate interests create dependency and poverty (hunger)... and even the specter that the stage is being set to bring about the next great genocide.
Not all Americans are well-fed. It has never been quite so.
maybe but Vandana Shiva is still the best.
go see
http://www.navdanya.org/earthdcracy/index.htm
Gosh......another oil lacky authoring another article about how the world is falling. Rice and wheat are not used to produce ethanol for starters. Rice is the grain in short supply....
Now lets see why? Weather, price and consumption seem to be the main culprits here. Econ 101, the price of inputs goes up, the price of the raw in the food chain goes up. But the main reason that the price of grains is going up is because packaging/transportation/labor/overhead have gone up. The price of raw in food equats approx 18-19% of the total value. A box of cornflakes had 4 cents worth of corn in it, now it has 8.....but somehow that box has gone up much more than 4 cents. Don't you really wonder why? packaging/transportation/labor/overhead. Oh OH.......the main culprits. Why....it seems that someone wants to get paid to work at hauling the boxes, someone wants to get paid for the manufacturing of the corn flakes....someone wants to get paid to stock the shelves/run the checkout.
Ethanol is not the boogy man....only to the big oil co's.
Once again they seem to be having it all their way. Shamefulllllll.
If I am a herbivore, why do I have canine teeth, and not have four stomachs?
Also, why does fiber make me crap so much?
bystander: Excellent! I particularly liked the bit about the garden gnomes.
rtbury: You got some of it right. But you forgot about the effect of government subsidies to big ag companies. Those aren't going to real farmers. Those subsidies are putting real farmers out of business all over the world. And thousands of them are committing suicide because of it.
Look, folks, real farmers feed people because they know that is their calling. And they work with the environment and Mother Nature in such a way that they can keep on farming. They know that they will not be able to farm if they do not produce good food for people. And they know that they have to protect the soils that make that possible. Being a real farmer is a very odd thing. It's kind of like being an artist or a mountain climber. It is something you are driven to do. Once it is in your blood, it becomes a way of life. Even if you can't make much money doing it. The best that any real farmer can hope for is that they can make enough money so they can just keep farming. I don't know why that is, but that's the way real farmers are. And the communities that real farmers have sustained historically have appreciated the important place that farmers have in the communities' well being and future survival. That's why communities supported their local farmers. They had to for survival.
With the rise of the corporate agri-complex, the link between communities, farmers, ranchers, and food was broken. Corporations don't feed people. They feed profits. And "bottom Line" corporate agriculture thrives on quarterly profits. They have no sense of time in terms of generations or communities. They don't care what they leave in their wake as long as the money is already in the bank from the quarterly profits. They don't care if they dispoil the soils or pollute the planet. They have no ties to the community. They have no children or neighbors. When the profits or government subsidies stop rolling in, they just pull up and leave a devistated community and landscape.
This food crisis is going to continue killing massive numbers of people until the entire world wakes up to the fact that to have food security and viable communities we have to return to a world of community sovereignty. That means no more corporate agibusiness that is subsidized by government and environmental destruction. That means that the people of the world will have to live within the finite resources that this planet can provide sustainably. That means that that there has to be food/economic equity. That means that no one can consume at a level that endangers the lives of others.
It's all about balance. Just enough is enough. No more and no less.
Oh, and for those militant vegetarians out there. There is no one right answer for everyone when it comes to food. Eskimos don't eat much in the way of vegetables. And Hitler was a vegetarian. Go figure.......
"Increased population growth generally represents problems for a country - it means increased need for food, infrastructure, and services. These are expenses that most high-growth countries have little ability to provide today, let alone if population rises dramatically."
Matt Rosenburg
SIX INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
by Andrew R.B. Ferguson
In the film An Inconvenient Truth, ex vice-president Al Gore presents the facts about climate change. It is a bravura performance. He makes use of brilliant presentational techniques to put before us all relevant current knowledge about climate change. He lightens the factual burden with humour, and by including some interesting autobiographical vignettes showing how various things in his life brought him to see the subject as being of pre-eminent importance.
Although I am fairly familiar with the subject, he introduced me to a telling statistic. He said that over 900 scientific peer reviewed papers had been published, yet none had argued that global warming was not taking place. As part of the same survey, over 600 popular media articles were analysed. More than fifty per cent of them presented the subject in such a way as to appear that it was still an open question whether global warming was taking place. Doubtless the media do this partly because they think that controversy is more interesting, but as Al Gore pointed out, they are helped by the industrial lobby, which thinks that it is to their benefit to create uncertainty where none should exist. Such activities have been manifest in the tobacco industry as well as in the energy industry.
As a presentation of the inconvenient fact of climate change, the film can be recommended merely on the basis of the pleasure of seeing something being done as well as it possibly could be. But there are five other inconvenient truths which are of equal importance which were largely ignored by Al Gore.
The second inconvenient truth is the immense difficulty of replacing fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contain energy by virtue of having accumulated millions of years of solar energy. To replace fossil fuels we have two options. One is to tap nuclear energy. Nuclear fission — of uranium and thorium — is limited by the restricted supply of suitable resources (apart from any other dangers). Nuclear fusion is at a stage where it needs still to be regarded as a possibility rather than a probability, and there is a good chance that even if it becomes possible to achieve, so much waste heat would be released in the process that the "cure" would be worse than the "disease" of inadequate energy supplies. Nuclear fission leads to the overheating of rivers, and is already a problem in that regard.
The second possibility, in addition to nuclear energy, is that of capturing solar energy as it arrives on the Earth. There are intractable problems to which evolution has not provided a solution, so we would be wise to withhold judgement as to whether the human race will be able to. Where power density is fairly high, as with wind, photovoltaics and tidal stream, uncontrollability (i.e. intermittency) is an immense problem. Where uncontrollability is either no problem or little problem, as with biomass and hydroelectricity respectively, power density is low. Biomass captures and stores in its mass only about one thousandth part of the energy that falls on it, which is why I say that evolution has not provided an answer to how to store the immense quantity of energy that is needed to make it possible to sustain our present population.
These difficulties lead those who have studied the matter to conclude that without fossil fuels the Earth is only likely to support about 2 billion people, rather than the 9 billion that are likely to be here by 2050. Al Gore did not mention the number of people who might live on Earth in reasonable comfort with diminished energy resources.
The third inconvenient truth is that even a large reduction in fossil fuel usage by the developed nations — one so large as to be barely conceivable, a 60% reduction — is likely to be cancelled by a wholly justifiable increase by China, India and Indonesia. If this 60% reduction could be achieved by 2050, China, India and Indonesia are likely to have increased their present per capita consumption by an amount that would match the decrease in the developed world. Moreover their per capita emissions would still be less than the developed world after the mooted 60% reduction. Thus the overall effect is likely to be little reduction in present emissions, even according to the most optimistic hopes. Yet the world is currently emitting about two and a half times as much carbon as it should be to have a hope of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at a "safe" level. The conclusion to this is that while taking action to reduce carbon emissions may help to mitigate some of the dire problems seen by Al Gore, it will not prevent most of them, so preparing for those problems needs to be as high on the agenda as attempting to reduce the emissions. Al Gore sees hundreds of millions of refugees as the inevitable outcome of substantial sea level increase. One of the most sensible methods of preparing for this is to do all that can be done to slow population growth. Failing to take note of this inconvenient truth, Al Gore did not mention that much remains to be done to (a) change the Vatican's belief that only "natural" methods of contraception are permissible, and (b) combat the influence of the "right to lifers". In short to ensure that contraception is easily available to all those who wish to use it, and that abortion is readily available when contraception has failed and the mother does not want another child. That inconvenient truth is about as inconvenient as inconvenient truths come!
The fourth inconvenient truth arises from the fact that it is bound to be a slow process to reduce the per capita emissions of the developed nations. Thus the action that would most rapidly ensure that there was some mitigation in burgeoning use of fossil fuels would be to prevent the populations of the developed nations growing by net immigration (as is happening in the USA and to a lesser extent in the European Union).
The fifth inconvenient truth is that a powerful driver for fossil fuel consumption is globalization. There is little hope of making frugal use of energy while globalization requires that goods and consumables are unnecessarily transported around the world. There are many problems associated with globalization, but this aspect is the one which is relevant to excessive use of fossil fuels, thus overloading the Earth with carbon.
The sixth inconvenient truth is that the belief of economists and the commercial world in ever continuing growth is impossible. We need to change our capitalist system so that it works reasonably well without growth, with goods lasting as long as possible and designed so that they can be repaired when they go wrong, and with products being made only to satisfy real needs, not "needs" invented by business to expand their markets.
Every one of those six inconvenient truths is of great importance, yet Al Gore attended in depth to only the first. While he did mention population as a problem, he gave no indication of the immense reduction in population that is needed if everyone is to live even moderately well. He indicated, with a passing remark, how he justifies that to himself, namely that he is himself party to the delusion that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels. As to the other inconvenient truths, perhaps he did give an implicit explanation of why he kept quiet about so many important matters. He mentioned that he had observed long ago that it is almost impossible to persuade someone of the truth of an argument if that person's salary depends on their believing the argument not to be true. After the above survey, I think we might extend that observation to conclude that it is almost impossible to persuade a politician of the truth of an argument, if that politician's chance of office depends on their believing the argument not to be true!
Andrew R.B. Ferguson is Research Coordinator at Optimum Population Trust, 11 Harcourt Close, Henley-on-Thames, RG9, 1UZ, United Kingdom (email:andrewrbferguson@hotmail.com). He is also editor of the biannual OPT Journal. His special interests include applying eco-footprinting to estimating national carrying capacities, assessing the net energy capture of renewable energy sources, and raising awareness of the existence of Clive Pointing's seminal book, A Green History of the World (1991). In an earlier stage of his career, he was an airline pilot (1957-1983).
Andrew Taynton - Your information is incomplete - all three famines you mentioned occurred under some form of the British Empire. Let's leave aside the omission of what may have occurred on the rest of the planet during those centuries, and go to my point.
Those famines were the result of the globalization of their day - AKA imperialism. today's famines are caused by the same crime - Cargill, ADM, Monsanto and a half dozen corporate states have made colonies of the rest of the world, with the help and support of the IMF, World Bank, and similar enablers. One of the markers of a colony is that its resources are stripped, its land is used to grow crops for export, and the locals starve or get massacred. "Banana Republic" is a concept related to imperialism, only the US was never honest enough to admit it was imperialist - it called it "protecting American interests overseas". Look at the atrocities American imperialism has caused in places like Cuba, Irak, Mexico, Chile, Panama, Haiti, the Philippines, Vietnam, Congo, etc etc.
Sure, there's lots of food to go around, but the empire builders won't allow access to it or allow countries to grow their own crops by their own methods or for their own use.
About ten years ago, when the internet first started to take off, an acquaintance of mine was freelancing for Wired. He was at a press-conference that Bill Gates was giving, and he told me that Gates mentioned the goal of "controlling all content on the internet." This is pretty much what the big agribusiness model is--they want to control all food production.
No matter how much a business man decries his Christianity, I am convinced that those who would let another human being starve for the sake of profits is going to be consigned to one of the more nasty levels of hell.
Its time for a re-examination of the Biblical tale of the expulsion of humans from the Garden of Eden. The story is not in the past, but is actively occurring the present and future. Eden is Earth, god is Gaia. Mankind is represented by Adam and Eve. We have enjoyed the fruits of the earth, but then as we acquired infant technological knowledge, we have multiplied tremendously, and now make global war and destruction. In the near future, the depleted Gaia is no longer able to support us, the world has changed, and the Homo Sapiens fossil fool plague starts a collapse towards extinction. Time will tell if we leave any viable descendant species, or indeed a livable planet.
canuckchuck April 25th, 2008 11:31 am
"It is sickening to watch fat assed Americans hording rice that they will never eat while the third world starves.
I urge all Americans to go to McDonalds, order the super sized cardiac special, and choke on it."
You're an American too, so start choking!
iammyself: I believe that canuckchuck is a Canadian. He sees what we see. That America is killing the world. He knows that as America goes, so goes Canada. He also knows that Harper is taking Canada down the same road that we have already traveled. The only hope that Canada has is for America to choke on itself. That seems fair to me.
There is a confused understanding of what are the likely dynamics with regard to food prices. The least likely is the argument that ethanol from food crops is the major culprit for the price rise. This story is nonsensical for the simple reason that ALL commodities have gone up in price, not just food items. Iron, aluminum,copper and so on have gone up in price.Sorry but it is a stretch of the imagination to blame that on Ethanol production.
Most ethanol is being made in the USA and Brazil from crops that can be used for food. It should be pointed out that most corn is produced as cattle feed and there is no shortage of it. There is a shortage of rice but it has nothing to do with ethanol . The problem there has been the drought in Australia, not ethanol production. The real cause for price rises is mostly the dramatic increase in oil prices and the major cause for that is the war in Iraq. Two factors are prominent causes of this inflation. The devaluation of the dollar and the plethora of dollars caused by speculation, especially on margin. Further the war is being paid for by debt which further increases the money supply. The feds lowering the interest rate is another foolish inflationary policy.
Corn has seen the lowest price rise and wheat has seen the highest price rise. That too is inconsistent with putting the blame on ethanol.
But what has made oil go up so high? The official party line has been an increase in demand from India and China. That is part of the story but a small part of it. Again the war has to be blamed. Look at the rise of oil prices, they go in spurts based on news from the middle east, especially Iraq. There is plenty of oil. Notice that there is no rationing nor even a cut in speed limits which would save billions of gallons of oil. The cost of oil production has not gone up precipitously, the price has! WE SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE CONSIDERABLE INFLATION ON ALL ITEMS. The main people gaining from this inflation are some rich bastards who haven't worked a day in their lives. The parasites of capitalism.
wait till they sneak the terminator technology into every seed companies seed and head to their bunkers to watch us all starve.....
when they poke their heads out they will state- ahhh, a pure Christian Nation finally.
"If I am a herbivore, why do I have canine teeth, and not have four stomachs?"
Have you not noticed the difference between your 'canines' and those of a lion? Check it out in this funny Bizarro video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q
"Also, why does fiber make me crap so much?" A. Watch the video, it's all explained.
"It's all about balance. Just enough is enough. No more and no less."
Indeed, and unless humanity recognizes his actual (and presently disappearing) reality (he is living in a biosphere and he has been defined/evolved within it and been assigned(anatomically scripted) certain 'niche' behaviors (his particular 'balancing act' so to speak)
"Oh, and for those militant vegetarians out there."
What is militant to you? Speaking truth to cultural myth?
"There is no one right answer for everyone when it comes to food."
Is that so? So for every individual within the same species, a different answer? Are you nuts or just stoned?
"Eskimos don't eat much in the way of vegetables."
Eskimos exhibit the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world due to their high rate of unnatural consumption of animal proteins. If any group of humans could have been expected to adjust to animal product consumption, one would expect that they would have been the Inuit. But, we see that they have not adjusted. The research has all been done. Maybe you should try reading it.
"And Hitler was a vegetarian. Go figure……."
Yes, go figure how this piece of disinfo to discredit the soundness of the vegetarian diet first got circulated and by whom and for what reason... I can only guess.
In any case, Hitler was well known to enjoy sausage and most vegetarians do not consider sausage to be a vegetarian dish!
Instead of trying to sound erudite, stop and consider the facts... then begin asking the really hard questions. That at least would be intellectually honest... and ultimately of profit to yourself and the rest of life.
I have never heard a report that anyone is starving in IRAN. Before GB 1 attacked IRAQ the biggest health problem in IRAQ was kids eating to much. ( a little different today)
CUBA has a lower infant death rate than AMERICA. Venezuela has the same. All these places are or were better off than America but are on the american hit list???
Excellent post, rebelfarmer. That's it.
ItsaNaziWorldOrder, Hitler was a vegetarian...sorry, but it's true. Having nearly married a woman who belonged to the same religio-philosophical group as Hitler, i know what place vegetarianism was held in his philosophy.
And your argument about livestock eating grain that could feed humans is misguided. It is true that we feed livestock grain, but that's not what they were designed to eat. (Yes, cows will eat standing - or cut - corn in a field) Livestock eats grass. (yes, grains are grasses, but we don't eat much clover and mature alfalfa) If we fed our livestock correctly, we could use our grain to feed ourselves. And grass fed meat is worlds better in taste and nutrition. You are confusing industrial livestock agriculture with traditional practices, and accusing traditional practices of the sins of industrial practices. In short, your argument is based on a fallacy.
If we are herbivores by design, please explain why our closest relatives have impressive canine teeth. And please explain why they not only eat insects, but will gladly kill and eat flesh. (ever seen chimps go monkey hunting?)
A balanced diet is healthy, and a balanced diet includes meat...while it is heavier on fruits and vegetables. Do you know why Inuit don't get scurvy? It's because they eat their meat raw. Raw meat contains vastly more vitamins and minerals than cooked meat (including vitamin C). The Mayo clinic does not list excessive animal consumption as a cause of osteoporosis; it does, however, list "family history". Considering the small population size, a high rate of osteoporosis in Inuit peoples probably correlates more with "in-breeding" than animal consumption. It may also be from deficiencies in vitamin D (best provided by the sun...something that the Inuit lack a lot of) and calcium (the best source of which is leafy greens).
Maybe you should try reading some research that wasn't done by a vegetarian. Or at least name one indigenous culture that consumes no meat. If getting back to how we are "meant" to be is vegetarianism, then i would imagine that indigenous/aboriginal groups would display the characteristic lifeways that you propose.
First of all their are too many of us. Religion and stupidity in general are to blame for this. Second, becoming a vegatrian will not save the plant, and its people. Your given a diet, a messiah complex. We are greedy monkeys. With greedy governments. Its time for new government. Will November be soon enough?
Lex; I just glanced at this article a minute ago. Chores to do but will return later. Hitler was not a vegetarian, as he did eat some meat, contrary to the myth about him. He also put sugar in his wine to sweeten it. J.I. Rodale said the Reichsfuher was a sugar addict. (talk about impaired judgement!) A man beat a murder rap in San Francisco in the late 70's by claiming the sugar in the Hostess Twinkies made him "crazy?" (I kid you not)
Homo Sapiens are naturally herbivore. I gotta run but have you ever heard of the Hunza people in the Himalayas?
They murder some animals several times a year for certain festivities but with that exception, are vegetarians. For you old goats like me, Art Linkletter and the writer, Rene Taylor (not actor Joe Bologna's wife) traveled to a Hunza village and wrote a book about it. Fascinating and illuminating.
"And your argument about livestock eating grain that could feed humans is misguided. It is true that we feed livestock grain, but that's not what they were designed to eat."
True. Animals are ecologically adapted to graze on grasses and their stomachs are not designed for what they are fed in feedlots. Nor are animals designed to be unnaturally penned by humans. Herds are in fact essential to the health of soils, but penned herds are the most significant factor in soil erosion.
The following comments are excerpted from: http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/
THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION
World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year. The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times its human population. [4]
In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] This is apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock are increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the developed world's livestock - and they are losing.
and...
GHOST ACRES
Most of the land wasted on growing feed for livestock is in developing countries, where food is most scarce. Europe, for example, imports 70% of its protein for animal feed, causing a European Parliament report to state that 'Eurpoe can feed its people but not its [farm] animals.' [9] Friends of the Earth have calculated that the UK imported 4.1 million hectares of other people's land in 1996 [10].
"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres' belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of the Centre for Food Policy. [11]
This land contributes to developing world malnutrition by driving impoverished populations to grow cash crops for animal feed, rather than food for themselves. Intensive monoculture crop production causes soils to suffer nutrient depletion and thus pushes economically vulnerable populations further away from sustainable agricultural systems. All so that the world's wealthy can indulge their unhealthy taste for animal flesh.
__________
"A balanced diet is healthy, and a balanced diet includes meat…while it is heavier on fruits and vegetables."
As already mentioned, 'balance' is relative to anatomical design. Conclusive details of human anatomy have already been supplied.
_____________
"Or at least name one indigenous culture that consumes no meat. If getting back to how we are "meant" to be is vegetarianism, then i would imagine that indigenous/aboriginal groups would display the characteristic lifeways that you propose."
I strongly recommend the book "Beyond Beef" by Jeremy Rifkin for some of the history of the spread of meat-eating around the world.
The introduction of meat-eating in India was by invaders from the North who also brought the Brahmin culture of elitism/monotheism and animal sacrifice.
Please go to http://allinharmony.org and click on the page; "Meat-eating: Why It Began"
____________
"Having nearly married a woman who belonged to the same religio-philosophical group as Hitler, i know what place vegetarianism was held in his philosophy."
Do tell... and the rest, please go here and see why this nonsense gets repeated so incessantly:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
(quote excerpted below also from url copied above)
From John Robbins' Food Revolution:
Robert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler's "vegetarianism" was a "legend" and a "fiction" invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. According to Payne:
"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun… His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic."
"The Mayo clinic does not list excessive animal consumption as a cause of osteoporosis; it does, however, list "family history"."
Those who share behaviors (families, for instance) generally also share many diseases.
Osteoporosis is most closely correlated with high animal protein consumption due to the sulfur bearing compounds in animal protein. When animal proteins (but not plant proteins) are injested, they produce acidification of the blood. In order to restore ph balance, calcium is leached from bones.
http://notmilk.com (a place for great info on this subject and many others related to animal product consumption)
Many of the subjects touched upon here are addressed in the well researched book, "Diet for a New America"
I just had a late lunch,some Spelt pasta, (food bank) with Pesto and grated Parmesan.(purchased Basil and cheese) steamed Nettles and Dandelion greens (foraged)and a nice glass of Chiante(made in Ct.Bartered)it was delicious,mostly vegetarian and cost about $.50.The weak dollar ,high oil prices,overpopulation,comodoties speculators,and bad weather in food exporting countries conspires to make the food crises much worse soon. A deadly Wheat stem rust called UG 99 has the potential to spread and threaten wheat production soon.We need to develop new resistant spieces now and get the seed to farmers soon .The decentrallisation of food is important to avoid hunger and distribution problems.Certainly in a hungry world meat consumption is a luxury,grass fed beef is a better option than feedlot beef but it is still beef.
I have been a Lacto-vegetarian for 34 years,I would be heathier still to avoid dairy ,but you will have to pry my sharp cheddar out of my dying clutched hands.If you can't garden,at least join a C.S.A. farm shop local ,try to find some local raw milk diary,or Organic grass fed beef producer.It's better for you and the planet,as well as your local economy.
itsanaziworldorder,interesting stuff ,gonna check your links,thanks! peas in
This is part of the Global market. If a farmer can make more growing soy in Brazil to sell to cattle ranchers in Europe, then that is what they will do. It is up to every country to have a balanced program to do what is right for everyone in the Global community, not just a few.
Farmers in poor countries could be helped to produce food for their own people, but first you have to get rid of the corruption in those countries. This is not an easy thing to do when national sovereignty outweighs the most good for the most people. It seems to be the most money for the fewest most wealthy people instead.
Again, itsanaziworldorder, do you have some research from someone without an agenda? The physiological comparisons are interesting, but do not include our closest living relatives directly. The comparison would be far more illuminating if the chimpanzees were included.
The essay "Why it Began" is interesting, but far too "noble savage" to be believable. "Once upon a time, everyone was happy and lived at peace..." Again, does this explain chimpanzee monkey hunting? We are not the only animals to exhibit violent, meat eating behavior.
I'm not defending our current system of feeding ourselves; personally, i've opted outed of it to a great degree. (Growing - year round; befriending and buying from farmers; baking; etc.) But even if your argument is correct and we are not natural meat eaters...we are now. And no amount of militant vegetarianism is going to overturn tens of thousands of years of culture. Nor will we return to bands of happy, hunter-gatherers. Or just gatherers. Agriculture is not "natural" either.
And as a person who grows plants for a living, i can say that they are most certainly as alive and conscious as we are. Simply put, everything must kill to live.
Unfortunately, i don't feel like entering a serious discussion on Theosophy right now. Hitler may have failed his beliefs due to self-indulgence, but that does not change his beliefs...any more than a Catholic using a condom for premarital sex makes him un-Catholic.
"Again, itsanaziworldorder, do you have some research from someone without an agenda?"
A rifdiculous attack. Since the only "agenda" is discovering the facts and what they can tell us about how to solve our problems.
"Hitler may have failed his beliefs due to self-indulgence, but that does not change his beliefs…"
You have shown that you are no expert on Hitler. I would venture to guess that you are even unaware that 'his' (Hitler's) beliefs were actually crafted in England and a tutor, Chamberlain, was sent from England to teach them to him. Not only that, the German army hired a drama coach to help him project an inspired and commanding persona when he delivered those "beliefs".
In regard to Chimpanzees... (from http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm)
"Frugivores (apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys, orangutans etc.) thrive mostly on raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots, shoots, nuts and seeds."
Frugivores are a TYPE of herbivore as are granivores.
The following observations are excerpted from the same site:
Dietary adaptations more than anything else determine the features and characteristics of all creatures.
Humans Are Not an Exception
It is a basic premise of Natural Hygiene that humans, like all other creatures in nature are provided with all the materials and conditions required to maintain health. Species throughout nature intuitively restrict themselves to a limited variety of foods to which they are specifically adapted. We must conclude that humans are also intended to partake only of those foods to which we are physiologically adapted in order to live healthfully. Humans should be studied as a member of the whole biological community, and compared anatomically and physiologically with other species to ascertain our true dietary requirements. When considering the character of human anatomy and physiology relative to our natural diet we must do so within the context of nature, rather than in the artificial environment of modern life. In this way, we consider our natural foods as those that are consonant with our physiological faculties, rather than those that we have "acquired a taste for".
Determining Our Natural Diet is Not a Matter of Belief.
Tradition and popularity are the poorest ways to determine a proper diet. Recent changes in our external environment do not alter our biological adaptations, our internal makeup, or our natural needs in order to establish optimum well being. Biological adaptations have been spurred on by stress over eons of time and by the need to adapt. They are slow to develop requiring extremely long periods of time to evolve. Our highly industrialized environment involves more social adaptations or accommodations, and not physical or anatomical changes. By living according to our natural adaptations we can actually withstand the stress of modern life far better than if we transgress our biological needs."
"And as a person who grows plants for a living, i can say that they are most certainly as alive and conscious as we are. Simply put, everything must kill to live."
In earthly biospheres, as Lynn Margulis has revealed for us, competition is not the predominant interactive mode, cooperation is.
Furthermore, evolution of diet reveals that carnivores are an earlier adaptive form than omnivore and then herbivore and then granivore herbivore (bovines). (From simplest to most complex providing for greater and greater numbers of species members)
Clearly, evolutionary history reveals an increasing tendency to hone animal digestion to be able to eat what is most commonly available, grasses.
But, humans are not at the last stage of digestive evolution, just near it. We are frugivores. Interestingly, our natural dietary habits are quite non-destructive and in fact complimentary... if we would only respect them.
Think about it, how many beings (plant or animal) are you slaughtering when you pick berries, apples, oranges, avocados, almonds, plums or any of the other seeds, fruits, flowers, etc. that you are anatomically scripted to consume?
What about when you cast the inedible part aside? Leaving it for a squirrel to plant? Like it or not, the 'system' is rather perfect just as it is designed and your place within it could not be more agreeable... if only human culture could stop disagreeing with it!
This is an interesting essay that considers the relationship between chimp and human dietary behavior in depth. http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
But, there are two additional points I would like to make (which indeed conflict with the assumptions of the writer of the article linked above):
1) It has recently been pointed out that chimps do NOT actually digest meat. When they swallow it (apparently as a sign of aggression) they also move away and then vomit it back up.
2) Natural habitats no longer exist for almost all monkeys. What is 'natural' today, is hardly what they have been designed (evolved) to express. Animal adaptation is everywhere being attempted.
Not long ago, I watched a film on bird and other adaptations being attempted in one of the man-made deserts of Africa. It was certainly instructive on many levels... animals learn, problem solve and develop some rather surprisingly innovative methods (engineering) to cope with realities that should never have been... more can be expected until even the natural ingenuity in all species succumbs to the blindness of just one very ignorant species, humanity.
Medusa: Very good post! Ezeflyer; Quite impressive! ItsaNaziWorldOrder: You're rockin!.
Rebel Farmer: Well said and at the same time a truly touching story. Right from a 'real' farmer's heart. I ALWAYS give thanks to the Mom and Pop organic farmers for what they do.
Canuckchuck: Funny about McMurder but one question?. How many baby seals did the Canadians club to death this season?
Humans have very long intestinal tracts for digesting plant, cereal grain, nuts, seeds, fruit and sea vegetation. Carnivore have short intestinal tracts for quicker digestion of flesh and elimination of uric acid from the meat. When humans consume a lot of animal flesh, some of the uric acid is not eliminated through the bowels, urinary tract or skin. It finds its way into muscle tissue and crystalizes after reaching a saturation point. Some of these uric acid crystals are sharp, and when we move a certain way, these pointed things give us pain, labeled as rhuematism, sciatica, and neuritis. I'm not putting you down, Chuck. To each his own. I enjoy your comments on a whole array of topics on CD. Good health to all of you.