tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19288377.post931684499954577435..comments2024-03-09T18:27:46.282+11:00Comments on The Nature of Robertson: Commercial killing of KangaroosDenis Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10031115992910569116noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19288377.post-15964165053985189042010-02-14T19:25:40.602+11:002010-02-14T19:25:40.602+11:00Hi Sebastian
I will refer your response to Brigid ...Hi Sebastian<br />I will refer your response to Brigid (who is not automatically posted with your response).<br />As for myself, I know I do not function well on a vegetarian diet, (not that I have ever tried it as a "diet", except for rare occasions). <br />There is something odd to me about distinguishing between animals and plants.<br />The theory used be that plants are not "sentient beings". But in fact, we know that is not the case.<br />I know a fungal specialist who refuses to eat Mushrooms, on the same basis.<br />I certainly agree that population control is the most pressing need facing the planet.<br />Thanks for your input.<br />Cheers<br />DenisDenis Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10031115992910569116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19288377.post-82588770731069554072010-02-14T19:03:54.915+11:002010-02-14T19:03:54.915+11:00While vegetarianism might make sense based on fund...While vegetarianism might make sense based on fundamentalist sort of morality, that animals are sentient beings and therefore should be endowed with certain rights, environmentally it doesn't make sense.<br />Just as agriculture and the domestication of animals has completely corrupted the natural world, so would a converse approach should it be undertaken today. The devastation that soya crops have caused to the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil is a case in point. It's ironic that most vegetarian protein comes from soy, perhaps the most environmentally devastating of crops. Don't even get me started on the use of corn for biofuel. <br />Livestock is devastating to the environment, no question. But at the very least we are utilising land in a manner that produces the most nutrient rich food. Yes, this is a very cynical anthropocentric view, but until we resolve to reducing the world's population, then this is how it has to be. <br />To improve animal welfare, the best step is to reduce human poverty. More wealth equals lower fertility and a greater push for conservation from a population. This is borne out by the fact that only we, the fabulously priviliged who need not worry about food and shelter, have time to worry about such things as animal welfare.<br /><br />Being a vegetarian was beside the point to me. There are stronger gestures and more effective efforts to be made. That being said, we all have different opinions, so each to their own as far as I'm concerned! My fiancée is still a vegetarian.Sebastianhttp://www.northqldbirder.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19288377.post-18787800285597104522010-02-14T11:37:01.491+11:002010-02-14T11:37:01.491+11:00Brigid (Miss Eagle) has sent me the following comm...Brigid (Miss Eagle) has sent me the following commments:<br /><br /><b>To Sebastian:</b> Would like to know why his vegetarian position no longer made sense, particularly environmentally.<br />.<br /><b>To you:</b> The post and pictures were great. However, we had a long way to go to get beyond the compassion of cute into looking clearly at ourselves and the issues. We still consider ourselves to be a dominant and superior species not just one of many species each with their own special functions. <br />Perhaps if we began to regard ourselves as just one of many species we might identify more with the problems of other species and we might be able to consider in a mature way the management of species in the wild. <br />I am thinking not only of kangaroos but also the camels which are causing problems. The problem is not easy to solve but - like everything - because we do not give sufficient thought to problems we look for the easy way such as to cull is to kill. Have we explored all our options such as contraception and more considered land and crop management and left ourselves open to new considerations. I doubt that we have.<br /><br /><br />Blessings and bliss<br />Brigid<br />aka<br />Miss Eagle<br />http://misseaglesnetwork.blogspot.com/Denis Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10031115992910569116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19288377.post-3639332734996932302010-02-12T22:03:45.295+11:002010-02-12T22:03:45.295+11:00This is a tricky topic. The culling of kangaroos h...This is a tricky topic. The culling of kangaroos happens whether there is an industry for their meat and leather or not. They are a direct competitor for pasture. The harvesting of kangaroos is done under a tag system by professional shooters. <br />To me, this seems far less barbaric than the horrific side effects that agriculture has had on this country. Macropods are one of a only a handful of native creatures that have thrived as a result of widespread tree felling and land clearing. It makes sense to me that a controlled harvest of certain abundant species is sustainable, and yes, even desirable if it means the animal is able to live a natural life prior to harvest.<br />There is a environmental argument relating to generation of greenhouse gases that I won't get into here, but suffice to say that Australia needs to shed its dependence on beef, chicken and pork. Lamb is a meat with a smaller environmental footprint, but really, considering what sheep go through in their lifespan, I think harvesting macropods is a better option.<br />Just my two cents! Great post Denis. <br /><br />P.S. I was vegetarian for nearly three years up until earlier this year where I reasoned that my position didn't make sense either morally or logically (as far as the environment is concerned).Sebastianhttp://www.northqldbirder.com/noreply@blogger.com