NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/11438

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 2.5 KB | 61 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!tulane!wpg!russ
From: [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: WP Group
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:13:00 GMT
Lines: 50

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Rich Young):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Rich Young):
>>
>>Have you eaten any cotton lately, Rich?  Or chowed down on some
>>tasty rose buds?   Do you wear potato skins on your back?  Or
>>send grains to your loved ones on holidays?
>
> Is the growing of cotton, roses, potato skins, and grain for human
> consumption "non-livestock agriculture?"  That is, after all, the
> real question here...not whether I wear potato skins.

It's an irrelevant question, Rich.  As the WorldWatch paper observed,
it takes as much water to supply the average american with meat,
milk, and eggs as the average american typically uses at home
(roughly 380 liters per day).  It seems rather obvious that cutting
back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide
quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.  As an alternative,
would you have us cut back on "non-livestock agriculture"?  What
products would you have in mind?

>>>Quibbling over the semantics won't change the fact that
>>>non-livestock agricultural uses constitute more than 50% of the
>>>total water use in the state of California.
>>
>>Again, you're lumping cotton production, flower production, fruit
>>production, vegetable production, etc, etc, into a "single category
>>of use".
>
> Is "cotton production, flower production, fruit production, vegetable
> production, etc., etc." properly called "agriculture?" [yes]  Is
> it agriculture which is related to livestock production? [no]
>
> Voila!  What we have here is "non-livestock-related agriculture,"
> a "single category of [water] use!"

It's not a "single use", Rich.   It's a wide range of diverse uses
that you've lumped together in an effort to divert attention.

> ...
> You're dead in this one, Russell; admit it and go lick your wounds.
> The embarrassment will go away after a while.  In your case, I
> suspect that it will be a very short while, since you seem to have
> no shame.

You're dreaming, Rich, but what else is new.

--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans [phone]
[e-mail]   uunet!wpg!russ