I am reminded of a problem here between the Whites and the Native Americans. One of the Missionaries wanted the Natives to raise sheep but there were problems and he decided it was because of their dogs. So one day he went through and killed all of the dogs.

The Natives never forgave him.

A lot of bickering here on CD about cats and dogs instead of focusing on the issue of classwarfare.

The majority of diets is grown elsewhere and imported putting a huge cost of fuel into our food. Yet, when local farmers try to grow sustainable crops they are literally priced out of the market. No one buys their produce because the imported goods are subsidized and thus--cheaper. They are not better tasting, they are not more nutritous and when the oil starts running low the price of that goes up and everyone bitches about "food shortages" or "food security" without even realizing that they priced out their local, secure and sustainable food.

Egads, DOGFACE, I was trying to make a joke. A bit too subtle, from your reaction.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/02/10037/

CEE CEE:

RAAARERER! Phssst!

I am so tired to being polite to the holier that thou's of the world. You people are costing us precious time and lives. Ya all sit on your butts telling the rest of us what we should do and there is no courage in you to do the right thing. You are just like the Republicans. You keep telling us that it is we that have to change our ways.

In defense of the innocent, I have faced down cops on horseback, and cops with pissed off German Sheppards. I was in the streets in the defense of immigrants who had been enslaved right here in good old California. If there had not been any white faces in that crowd….they, the immigrants would have gotten their heads beat in.

I have stood my ground while six foot two skinheads, tattooed with SS insignias were threatening others and myself with bodily harm. This is while OUR police force stood by and watched while we were defending poor women's right to enter a healthcare clinic. Sure, rich women have the right to choose. There's no problem for them seeing their own private doctor. These cowards only pick on those unable to defend themselves. Such is the agenda.

Have you ever listened to first-hand accounts of the bombs falling in Kosovo? I have from the survivors who stood there recording it. The chills I felt were unbelievable. We bombed them to save them. Does that sound familiar?

Do not friggin tell me to be polite! I meant to be harsh and sarcastic. Hello George Carlin! My idol ! My sarcasm is wasted on people like you. In order to understand it you have to mentality be able to hold two opposing ideas at a one time in your brain. You have no idea what it takes for other people to survive in this world.

No, you really do not have more compassion for people than animals. You want to set other peoples agendas and punish those unable find that one meal for the day to eat in order to survive. There is nothing polite about their means of doing that. You are assuming that your path takes president over theirs. However, lucky you, you get to choose what you eat.

Through wars, occupations, abject poverty, and policies set by this Administration others cannot choose what they eat. They can only survive by their own skills and streetwiseness. Trust me, you and I wouldn't last a day trying to live like they do.

Do not even presume to tell me about nature. My majors were the nature sciences. There is nothing cruel in nature. Nature is nature.

ceecee, I kind of agree with you, although I love my dogs. I wonder where their food comes from and try to avoid any seafood, since it really bugs me that the seas are overfished and we're feeding it to cats and dogs.

When my cat dies, there will be no more cats. He is an inside cat, by the way, since he killed a bird.

They just passed a law which said that horses can't be used for food anymore. Well, that's just great. A meaningless law which shuts off another source of food. Not that they use it for petfood anymore, but they could. So just let horses starve to death, or shoot and bury them. That makes no sense to me. How is that more humane?

ceecee_em July 3rd, 2008 11:16 am

A very thoughtful posting.

Dogface: No, I wasn't being obtuse; my original post asked what percentage of the world's food goes to pets, and since no one seemed to know, I've started doing my own research to find out.

As for lions, etc., there is a huge difference between animals naturally existing in ecosystems and doing what they naturally do there, and humans deliberately raising certain kinds of animals for certain characteristics that they possess. In nature, there are checks and balances. Without human interference, populations of wild creatures are naturally controlled, and yes, nature is cruel by our human standards.

It is true that I am more compassionate for humans than I am for pets. I believe that all humans should have their basic needs met (1600 calories of food a day, shelter, medical care, education) before we spend money on dogs. In my view this would mean limiting the number of newborn dogs, just as many advocate limiting the human population.

Dogface, I would gently suggest that some of your remarks are coming across as harsh and sarcastic, and that you consider being a little more compassionate in your own comments. Thanks.

Why is the author of this piece afraid to use the word capitalism in her analysis? Clearly food production on a capitalist basis, what she is obliquely describing, is the cause of the food crisis. "Concentrated wealth" controlling economic choices and persistent rising inequality are part and parcel of capitalist modes of production. Let's get honest here.

Dear Cee Cee:
Are you trying to be obtuse? There is no question in your previous musings. What about lions, tigers, and bears? They are meat eaters too.

As for the blame game…..let's get rid of all fat people while we are at it. However, at the rate we are going dogs and cats will just become another fond memory, and we will have lost an essential link with the universe. I can tell by your remarks there is no compassion in you for certain animals and that probably holds true in your thinking about people.

Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or a man. The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage.
-- Sri Aurobindo

Dear Recycle1:

You should not own an animal if you do not know anything about them. Cats eat grass for a reason and they throw up for a reason. Use your damn internet for information. Observation is 90% of any successful outcome of any medical intervention.

Stupidity when owning an animal is criminal. That is why I also believe that some people should not have children, since they put more thought into buying a car than they do when having offspring. In fact, because of the planned non-education in this country….some people still do not know where babies come from.

Makin a choice not to live life a certain way because someone else say to do otherwise is bad is so sad. You are living another's life and not your own.

Keeping a cat indoors is just like you staying indoors. WE are not talking about a wild animal here! Indoors is safer, warmer, and healthier for the animal. In my whole entire life….My animals have never hurt each other. Can you say ferrel? Duh!

As for bird killers….outdoors is another word for nature. These are unsupervised animals and they are doing what nature has intended. NO animal does wrong….only mankind makes that choice.

esarge: Wisely said. I'm not suggesting that everyone give up their pets. I'm just saying that to avoid hypocrisy, we should all be aware of the impacts of the choices that we make.

Turns out the answer to my question was not all that hard to find- for starters:
The Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition says that a moderately active 80-lb dog requires 1,955 calories/day (the energy equivalent of a 120 lb woman). The energy required to produce a dog's food is 9 kwh/day (see http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf).

Elizabeth Powers, in an opinion column in the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/opinion/whats-your-paw-print/57294) points out other energy uses related to pets. Here's just one: "Over its 10-year lifespan, a dog enjoying the benefits of air conditioning" (while its owners were away at work and might otherwise have turned the thermostat up) "will consume about 150 gallons of fossil fuel - and that's assuming the system is operating at 100% efficiency."

These are just two quick finds, not a comprehensive study of the matter on my part - but enough to convince me that this issue is significant and worth further consideration.

So, live mindfully, people, and don't be hypocrites - that's all I'm saying. And if you want to call me a hater - well, I once owned a dog, but when it died I decided not to get another one until every human in the world had at least 1600 calories of food a day.

The phrase going around is not "food independence", it's "food sovereignty", and there are a lot of people concerned about it. Look into any local sustainable agricultural organization, slow food movement, and find some localvores, and they will talk about it. Global markets come at a very high environmental and social cost, and the globalization of our food system is a massive disaster. For a significant portion of the American population, this is very easy to fix, since you have to vote on the issue three times a day. Become conscious about where your food comes from and what all of those ingredients are. Shop at your farmer's market, frequent the bistros boasting local and responsible food, join a CSA, and cook your own food. Make it a goal to eat one all local food meal a week. We create the demand by buying nutritionally deficient convenience foods, and we can change the market one meal at a time. Dissent has never been so delicious!

ceecee, in answer to your question, the extravagance of pets is not something that can be analyzed rationally. Even mentioning it is akin to telling people they should eat their children (a modest proposal) or saying anything whatsoever about Israel. Animal lovers are very passionate, and who can blame them, many pets are better company than humans.

I love dogs and cats and birds as pets. However, I personally wouldn't want to own a pet in a city where the poor animals are no better off than the animals locked up in zoos.

When I lived in the country on a farm, I had lots of pets - even a peacock, as they make good watch-birds, warning you of strangers coming. I had pets in the country because I didn't have to feel bad for them not being able to do what comes naturally to them.

In the city, I have never owned a pet, even a cat if the cat couldn't get outside and roam around (I know they do kill a lot of things that we don't want killed, but that's another issue). It's because I feel bad for the animal that I would never want to force a large pet to be kept indoors far too much of its life.

Atheist-I live in the suburbs and see the same thing with large dogs (most around here are chocolate labs). They can be great animals for pets, but like children one has to take the time to train them and a lot of folks these days are ruining these poor animals with their neglect of the animals natural needs.

Kelmer-I had no idea you could feed a dog a veggie diet. I have a cat (from the pound) who definitely cannot eat plants as evidenced by the barf piles when he chews on a green bean. AN ASIDE: Why DO cats always barf on carpet or rugs and NOT something that is easy to clean up? :-)

"Hunger can be eliminated only as we remove the influence of concentrated wealth over public choices and ensure the ongoing, healthy distribution of power."

Thank you, Frances! Now, on with clean elections, the one reform that makes all other reforms possible.

anbaric and Dogface: you responded to my comment but you haven't answered my question. Why is it that people can be criticized for the type of vehicle they drive or the type of food they eat, but not for the type of pet they choose to own? I see commercials on TV for cat food that is served with more fanfare than Ivana Trump's last wedding, while children go to bed hungry.

If it's important to limit the size of one's human family and one's carbon footprint, then it is also important to limit the demand for large meat-eating pets. And spare me the sad stories about the ones you adopted from the animal shelter.

Oh my god! Cee Cee, you are right!

Big Dogs are the problem… We need mass round ups in the suburbs, the urban areas, and Beverly Hills. As punishment, we can grind them up and use them as food.

Now what if I sight a "Big Dog" on a tee shirt and their eating a big old hamburger, what do I do Cee Cee?

Ah….got it, we shoot meat eaters too. Need to kill them cows too because them there cows do way too much farting. Birds! Birds they craps all over everything. Fish! Fish they is …fishy….they stink…gotta blast them to hell and let 'em sink to the bottom of the ocean. Because if they don't sink……….

Ahhh, wait a minute…….get out of here ….this is your nightmare not mine.

Thank you Francis for showing us what we have in common with the rest of the world.
-----------------------

Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?
Joseph Campbell

Thank you Frances for a clear, concise expression of the problem and the path to the solution.

Diet for a Small Planet was the first veg book i could find.

You can feed a dog a veg diet--they take to it better than cats.

anbaric, you can complain about trucked in food, but you also need to understand that inhabitants of large cities tend to not drive cars much, they walk or take public transportation. The net carbon footprint and fuel usage is probably equivalent to, or perhaps even less than, that of a suburban or small town dweller. I live in the middle of Chicago, my car is in storage, I walk to work, I do most of my shopping on foot too.

Btw, regarding the dogs, I too see way too many large dogs downtown. It's sad, most have nowhere to run. Most of the owners in my building do little more than take their dogs out to the alley after dark so they can take a dump out there. No grass, no running, no pleasure. Some pee in the hallway, poor things waiting so long to go out. It's ridiculous.

Snow crab, sounds like your daughter understands the big picture ! Good for her ! You must be proud. :-)

ceecee_em: Why don't you stuff your value judgments? You obviously don't like dogs in your precious urban environment, but did it ever occur to you that the urban environment is the problem? Giant, unsustainable "trophy" cities in which the inhabitants are 100% dependent on trucked-in, processed "food" from thousands of miles away just might be at the crux of the whole damned thing. Think about it . . .

Frances is always thoughtful and compassionate. This article is a good example. And by framing the problem as one of a deficit of democracy, we can begin taking her lead to think of more effective processes for making the will of the people the law of the planet.

Bravo Frances!

Thank you Frances. Common Dreams could use more of the insight and intelligence you bring.

I just heard my daughter yesterday compliment a person on "living lean". Good change from "living large". We are all more than large enough these days.Making obscenely bloated profits unfashionable may be the way to go, fashion is more powerful than morality.

We now live in a era of more respect for the various regions and what they have to offer. The American diet is no longer just cow meat, potatoes and something vaguely green; with all the immigrants, our diet has become more diverse. Soon, local specialies will make a come back as that is what the ground is well suited to grow and with the increasing demand for organic foods, growing locally is making a big comeback. What the WTO does is another matter; but eventually they do learn.

And what percent of the world's food, especially meat, do we give to pets? I see way too many giant "trophy dogs" that have no place in an urban environment - just one more example of conspicuous consumption.

There was no Irish Government in 1845. The famine, in part, was the fault of the British government that refused to repeal the corn laws, probably indirectly to deal with the 'Irish'!!
It would have been interesting to note the effect of the blight on mainland Britain had it adopted the potato more as a cheap source of calories for the poor instead of relying on corn (wheat) and sugar.
British Government(s) have used this tactic of demanding food exports from famine stricken areas a lot eg India, China etc etc. The modern market place had a good master and is a good student (statement made with a heap of irony)
Read Richard Manning's 'Against the Grain' for a good introduction to the history of food.