Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Open the Cages – Book Reviewhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/05/12/humane-economy-open-the-cages/
Being such a sceptical cynic this article on a news website smacks to me of the "Empire Strikes Back" – a planted storyhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2016/06/its-time-to-tell-livestocks-untold-secret/But it does offer an alternative narrative to the usual and reinforces the case for a mixed farming future. 1.3 billion people depend on livestock for their livelihood, out of which approximately 0.6 billion are poor farmers.60% of agricultural GDP in some developing nations, and five of the six agricultural commodities that fetch the highest value come from livestock.Access to nutritious meat, milk and eggs goes a long way to improving vitamin deficiencies, the major cause of “hidden hunger” which is estimated to affect around two billion people.Tackling greenhouse gas emissions from livestock supply chains is another key priority of the Alliance. It is estimated that in many regions, this could be reduced by 20-30% by implementing best practices. For example, research is underway in India to produce animal feed that will generate less gas when digested by livestock. In Colombia and Costa Rica, feeding Brachiaria grass to animals has been shown reduce emissions from urine patches by 60%.The nutrient-rich manure can provide a low cost source of organic fertilizer for crops. It can even be used as renewable energy. Biogas produced from livestock manure is particularly suited to household use in many mixed crop-and-livestock production systems – which make up the largest category of animal production in the world – as it improves both soil conditions and household sanitation. Biogas digester systems capture and utilize methane directly, therefore limiting total greenhouse gas emissions from livestock.A safer, fairer and more sustainable livestock sector that can be a lifeline for rural farmers and an engine for growth in the developing world is within reach.
Quote:The Chinese government has outlined a plan to reduce its citizens’ meat consumption by 50%, in a move that climate campaigners hope will provide major heft in the effort to avoid runaway global warming.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-consumption-climate-changeIf China can do this, will a socialist society do a lot better? Globally, 14.5% of planet-warming emissions emanate from the keeping and eating of cows, chickens, pigs and other animals – more than the emissions from the entire transport sector. Ssaid James Cameron. “Animal agriculture emits more than all transportation combined. Reducing demand for animal-based foods is essential if we are to limit global warming to 2C as agreed at COP21.” Livestock emit methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, while land clearing and fertilizers release large quantities of carbon. China now consumes 28% of the world’s meat, including half of its pork. Research released by the thinktank Chatham House in 2014 forecast that China alone is expected to eat 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year by 2020 and warned that “dietary change is essential” if global warming is to not exceed the 2C limit eventually imposed at the climate accord in Paris last year.
I wonder if this restriction will apply to senior members of the "Communist" Party?We're also being told that it may be necessary to start eating insects. I'm happy to do this if Her Majesty goes first.
I live in Thailand and eating various insects is common as it is in other parts of Asia. A bit crunchier than those slimey yucky things the rich presently eat out of shells… snails and oysters…And i am sure the King of Thailand has often eaten insects…Gourmet cooked, of course. All i have read suggests that globally we have to reduce our meat eating and it will become a niche market for special festive occasions or where the geography permits nothing but rough grazing for goats and the such-like. Maybe we may well eat many more rabbits and guinea-pigs which may be more sustainable flesh.
Something to stir things uphttp://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/07/20/stop-calling-vegan-food-cruelty-free/The video linked to in the article is worth a watchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=indTY0SXsac
I see it's still risky to eat vegetables too:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ecoli-deaths-mixed-salad-leaves-linked-outbreak-after-two-die-food-warning-a7142656.html
Consumers hungry for nutritionally superior food that has been ethically produced are the target of giant factory farms that have muscled into organic agriculture. In certified organic egg production, some industrial-scale operations manage as many as two million hens on a single factory where they confine up to 200,000 birds in separate buildings. These corporate agribusinesses, mostly engaged in caged, conventional egg production, now dominate the organic egg market. At best, these factory farm eggs should be labeled "produced with organic feed," rather than bearing the USDA-certified organic logo.http://www.alternet.org/food/buyer-beware-high-percentage-organic-eggs-market-are-illegal
Just to keep the pot boilinghttp://www.dw.com/en/should-animals-have-human-rights/a-19427091Animals like gorillas and chimpanzees are closely related to humans. But they have no rights. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics tells DW why great apes should be legally recognized . "Meaning rights to life, liberty and protection from torture. We would like to see them recognized in the law as people, therefore as beings who can bring a case in the courts. Obviously, through a guardian or advocate, as a small child would bring a case in the courts. But not simply (being seen) as items of property."
To be fair to the article, Singer is calling only for rights for apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans, in particular. And the rights are for legal protections, not full civil and human rights. If we took the definition of animals to its logical end, then we would be demanding rights for germs and bacteria, opposing the eradication of diseases, up the animal chain, would not malaria- carrying mosquitos be protected from extermination. Plenty of parasites would prosper if they received rights…So i think there will be a self-imposed common sense limitation to the extent of animal rights.
http://www.alternet.org/food/big-food-fights-reformThe food industry lobby fights back by claiming Green credentials using their employed science experts to provide the arguments that all they are concerned with is the consumers' welfare, the workers' health and safety and animal compassion….profits, after all are merely secondary concerns for a business.Sounds like the tobacco/fossil fuel denial tactics being used once again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.