[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson



In article <587c7j$fb9@news.inforamp.net>,
   dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Dec 96 02:34:11 GMT, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>
>>So what do you propose?  Sewage treatment for animal waste?  This 
>>particular point is ridiculous, unless you are trying to tell me that we 
>>need to get rid of cattle, introduce a bunch of predators to keep animal 
>>populations down, and all become vegetarian.
>>
>
>Charlie,
> 
>Containment and rational treatment for animal waste, including feces,
>urine and offal, strikes me as really pretty fundamental.  I can still
>remember back in the early sixties when the feedlot operators
>maintained that it was ridiculous to prevent them from simply dumping
>both waste from the lots and offal from the slaughterhouses straight
>into the Mississippi.  It was a real bit of education for them to
>realise that they were profiting at the expense of everybody
>downstream, and it had to stop.
> 
>Now we find that every farm in the country is polluting their various
>downstreams.  Pounds of poisons where ounces should do.  Tons of
>fertilizers where pounds are called for.  And every damn cow pissing
>in the neighbours' water supply of six months later.
> 
>Yes, Americans should eat less meat, in order to improve their diet.
>Yes, reintroduction of wolves is probably a god idea, if only to stop
>the ungulates from breeding into moronity. And yes, everybody has to
>larn that picking up your garbage is part of having a life.
> 
>                                                        -dlj.
> 
>

You have to realize that there is a fundamental problem here regarding 
where to draw the line.  Nature will support a certain population of 
"natural" animal species.  These species will urinate and poop where they 
see fit.  This excrement will have the same effect as what you are 
complaining about.  In fact, I have already read a posting (some months 
ago) about too many wild ducks congregating at a particular location, and 
fouling (no pun intended) the water supply of that location.  If such a 
natural activity occurs, and has occurred for eons, why can't the 
environmentalists get it through their heads that *nothing* should be done 
about it?  Or are you telling me that the ultimate aim of the 
environmentalists is to *control* what happens in nature, rather than let 
nature take its own course?  If the answer to this question is "yes", the 
enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.

Have a nice day.



Follow-Ups: References: