What's your meat footprint?

[ottopilot]

What's your meat footprint?
I average at least 1 or two tasty meat and/or dairy products a day. I need to be a better steward of my planet. Here's why...

Did you know that the international livestock industry is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (link to UN FAO report)? This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. In other words, eating meat causes more global warming than all human transportation combined.

Why is the "meat crisis" not served up on the same menu as the other hot mainstream Global Warming entrés? It's hard to swallow, but shouldn't we be taking a stab at the largest single contributor to greenhouse emissions? We should at least bring it to the table, put it on the plate, and take it one bite at a time.

Meat IS tasty. But sadly, it is much too tasty for "serious" global warming champions not to be hypocrates when it comes to delicious, tasty meat. Here is some of the shameful evidence...   click to show 

Former Vice President Al Gore

Actor George Clooney

US Senator Hillary Clinton

Actor Leonardo Dicaprio

US Senator John F Kerry

Film maker Michael Moore is seen here being fed by his assistant

Help our environmental leaders get back on track and address the "real" issues impacting our environment. Instead of carbon offsets, let's look at meat, poultry and dairy "offsets". Let's organize Hollywood and kick off a whole new series of hypocratic feel-good concerts centered around our concern for the meat crisis! How many more polar bears are you killing with your evil meat!

So lets cut down on our "Meat Footprint" and save the polar bears!

Also, watch this very important video, "An Inconvenient Meal".

Spread the word, not the steak sause!

[Plan9]

God, don't tell Al Gore. He'll blame breakfast steaks for ending the world.

...

What if we just start eating humans, huh? Sounds like a plan!

FOR EVERY ANIMAL YOU DON'T EAT, I'M GOING TO EAT THREE.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

God, don't tell Al Gore. He'll blame breakfast steaks for ending the world.

...

What if we just start eating humans, huh? Sounds like a plan!

FOR EVERY ANIMAL YOU DON'T EAT, I'M GOING TO EAT THREE.

By your pro-meat stance, it's obvious that you want to kill polar bears, cook them slowly, arrange a salad with attractive garnishes, select complimentary wines, and sop their tasty polar bear juices with biscuits and wheat rolls.

What time is dinner?

[Plan9]

Polar bears?

I was thinking about the cuter animals first. Panda, koala, etc.

[The_Jazz]

Guys, this is Tilted Politics. Either you're engaging in satire or personal attacks. Neither is acceptable here. If this thread is going to remain open, please make sure that your future posts abide by the TFP Politics Rules and Guidelines.

If you're interested in continuing this discussion, please do so in accordance with the rules.

[Willravel]

I've actually stopped eating red meat recently and my health has improved noticeably. I'm thinking about cutting pork, as well. Fish and poultry do add to the methane mess, but no where near as much as larger livestock. Beef is the biggest offender by leaps and bounds, and let's be totally honest, we all eat too much beef as it is. It's not that healthy, and it adds to global climate change.

Ranching:
Deforestation
Massive waste of fresh water
Waste not only releases methane, but is a major pollutant (don't drink from the Mississippi)
Pesticides and antibiotics used are a danger to humans
Growth hormones cause uncharted problems for the animal and the human

Decomposing manure produces methane -- a greenhouse gas that, ton for ton, is 21 times more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, scientists say.

Methane accounts for 16% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. That is far less than the most prevalent greenhouse gas, CO2, which accounts for 75% of the global total. But methane is an attractive early target because it generates a big environmental bang for the buck. The methane produced by the manure of a typical 1,330-pound cow translates into about five tons of CO2 per year. That is about the same amount generated annually by a typical U.S. car, one getting 20 miles per gallon and traveling 12,000 miles per year. Normally, methane from manure wafts up into the clouds, thickening the gaseous blanket that is contributing to global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...f_main_tff_top

[dc_dux]

There is nothing new here, other than a veiled attempt (IMO) of the OP to minimize the impact of industrial (not just transportation) component of human activities that contribute to global warming.

The widespread consensus is that the anthropogenic impact on global warming results from both industrial and agricultural activities and that solutions should address both.

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There is nothing new here, other than a veiled attempt (IMO) of the OP to minimize the impact of industrial (not just transportation) component of human activities that contribute to global warming.

The widespread consensus is that the anthropogenic impact on global warming results from both industrial and agricultural activities and that solutions should address both.

I agree, but one thing that is important is that in our quest to address both we don't neglect both. An idea that would affect one of them and not the other is not necessarily a bad idea and i'd say go forward with said idea and then work on solving the other side.

Reducing our emissions won't come in one swift swipe but instead in many small swipes.

This is what happend to the Kyoto to many people were saying it doesn't solve the problem completely so it shouldn't be ratified..... so instead of doing something we are doing nothing. Hardly a good solution.

[Slims]

Meat-related emissions, are, mostly, just natural emissions of any animal. In order for us to reduce meat-related emissions we would not only have to stop eating meat, but kill off all the cows, chickens, pigs, etc. and not allow any animals to repopulate.

Those animals also produce much of the fertilizer in this country.

Furthermore, I have seen evidence that the vegetarian diet results in more animal deaths than does the carnivorous one. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97836&page=1

[Ustwo]

You know, I've avoided the politics section for a long time now, after it was merged with paranoia quite a while ago.

But when I saw this title in the recent posting list, I just had to look because I knew it would be coming sooner or later, though at least this form is amusing to me.

The problem is that its easier to vilify 'big oil' over 'big farming'. I'm sure in the near future people will try.

Oh and dc_dux you need to drop the consensus line, any serious scientist, even if they believe in the theory that human activity is resulting in a warming trend, wouldn't be caught dead using 'consensus' as validating their position. Science isn't decided by papers for vrs papers against and the winner being decided by a count.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Science isn't decided by papers for vrs papers against and the winner being decided by a count.

... unless it's the vast majority of all scientists working in a field vs. like 3 who say global warming is a myth. And those three are friendly with the current administration.

The IPCC data is public and I see no faults with it whatsoever. The only people I really see arguing against it have little to no data, and they're usually making fallacious appeals to emotion. I mean who the fuck cares what Michael Crichton has to say about global climate change?

[snowy]

This is the reason why my SO is a vegetarian; he doesn't want to contribute to factory farming and does not want to contribute to the environmental effects of meat farming in general. I don't disagree with his stance; rather, I think it's a good thing to be aware of when choosing food. Thus, I typically buy outside of the factory farming food chain.

However, it's easier for me to do so--I have the income now to be able to do it, and I have access to locally grown meat, eggs, and milk (in addition to the usual suspects of fruit and veg). The economics of our current food system often limit people's choices, and many people aren't willing to spend the extra dough to get locally grown meat, milk, and eggs. Factory-farmed meat is preposterously cheap by comparison.

To me, this is an interesting issue that ties right into the idea of "where does your food come from." There is no doubt in my mind that the environmental impact of such factory farming would be limited if more people bought outside of the factory farming food chain, by frequenting farmers markets, greenmarkets, and food co-ops. Not only is your dollar more likely to go to local businesses, but it goes to support a more environmentally-friendly industry, while you still get to eat your meat. Yum, meat.

There is actually a budding movement amongst former vegetarians to support animal and environmentally friendly meat farming. These former vegetarians, like myself, think that economically supporting these kind of farming movements is more important than just giving up meat altogether. The fact is, humans love meat. Meat tastes good. I'm not going to stop eating it, and neither are a lot of people, but we can choose a more positive alternative than taking part in factory farming.

The other upside is you're less likely to be affected by E.coli recalls.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh and dc_dux you need to drop the consensus line, any serious scientist, even if they believe in the theory that human activity is resulting in a warming trend, wouldn't be caught dead using 'consensus' as validating their position. Science isn't decided by papers for vrs papers against and the winner being decided by a count.

Ustwo...I agree that consensus is not a valid scientific methodology.

The consensus is in the fact that a broad cross-section of scientists from around the world who have studied global warming have reached a common conclusion regarding the impact of human activity....based on their individual and/or collective scientific arguments and valid scientific methodologies.

Originally Posted by Greg700

Meat-related emissions, are, mostly, just natural emissions of any animal. In order for us to reduce meat-related emissions we would not only have to stop eating meat, but kill off all the cows, chickens, pigs, etc. and not allow any animals to repopulate.

The greatest impact is not the natural emissions of the animals, but the agricultural practices, primarily the clearing of the rain forests (and other land management techniques) to support an agricultural export economy in many developing countries.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There is nothing new here, other than a veiled attempt (IMO) of the OP to minimize the impact of industrial (not just transportation) component of human activities that contribute to global warming.

What do you mean by OP (other party)? I have no interest in political parties. As they currently exist (IMO), they no longer represent us.

The point of drawing a comparison of the livestock industry to transportation is a matter of perspective. I have never denied the impact on the environment from industrial, transportation, personal waste, agricultural, scientific (etc.). I have also NOT vilified livestock as a monoptic cause.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The widespread consensus is that the anthropogenic impact on global warming results from both industrial and agricultural activities and that solutions should address both.

In perspective, the impact of livestock on the environment is fact. Not just meat, poultry and dairy consumption, but all the activities, supplies, feed, waste, infrastructure, transportation, etc. that support or enable the livestock industry represent the single largest classification as a world industry adversely impacting the environment. I'm trying to draw attention to the 500 lb. gorilla usually left out of the debate.

[dc_dux]

otto...I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

Perhaps you can see how the way you presented your concern in the opening post (op?) could be misinterpreted as satire or an attempt to downplay the impact of other human activities.

IMO, your last comment:

In perspective, the impact of livestock on the environment is fact. Not just meat, poultry and dairy consumption, but all the activities, supplies, feed, waste, infrastructure, transportation, etc. that support or enable the livestock industry represent the single largest classification as a world industry adversely impacting the environment. I'm trying to draw attention to the 500 lb. gorilla usually left out of the debate.

said it much better than your first post.

[ottopilot]

thanks dc_dux ... I must come off a little "tilted", but I truly mean well.

To all... I apologize for my brand of sarcasm. I write so quickly during short periods through the day, that I forget the humor may not be so apparent. I'm trying to get the flow at TFP... (didn't know what OP meant ). If deserve to get shot down, don't worry. I'm pretty thick skinned and I'll admit my mistakes.

Thanks for all of your input. The give-and-take is really refreshing.

[Cynthetiq]

I'm proud to eat red meat. I will not be guilted into or villified for enjoying something. I like imported meats and food products from around the world that can withstand the transportation across the oceans.

After seeing just how much food products around the world are being imported and exported this past year at the Fancy Food Show, it's a growing market not a shrinking one. So even if you stop eating meat, people in the US still want to have Tim Tams from Australia, strawberries from Latin American during the winter months, and inexpensive apple juice.

Pass the A1 steak sauce please....

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I will not be guilted into or villified for enjoying something.

I hope that's not a general rule. Cause Manson said that. Just sayin.

[Charlatan]

We have a bit of a problem...

Without the industrialization of our food supply we cannot support the massive populations we now need to sustain.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

Cyn raises the interesting spectre of global trade. Global trade is a good thing when there is a level playing field (but that is a little off topic for this thread).

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by willravel

I hope that's not a general rule. Cause Manson said that. Just sayin.

If I'm not directly harming someone ala murdering, assaulting, molesting, oppressing another human being by my actions, I will not allow someone to tell me something is bad just because they "think" that it is bad.

[Charlatan]

So Cyn... buying a blood diamond is OK in your books? You are not directly involved so your hands are clean?

[Willravel]

I think the real conundrum, and what's often the subject of my serious conversations, is how to drastically reduce the population of humans on the planet in the next 100 years. People on the whole are far too stupid to control themselves, and if the government tries to stop reproduction everyone's panties get in a bunch. Obviously killing people is out of the question (unless you're a neocon).

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So Cyn... buying a blood diamond is OK in your books? You are not directly involved so your hands are clean?

Again, I won't be guilted into it. If the diamond's origin is from South Africa, there is a good chance that's the case. But there are other mines outside of Africa, I don't take a blanket general statement that all diamonds are blood diamonds and are all bad. I still buy diamonds. I cannot guarantee where they originate from 100% but again, if I'm told that it's a South African diamond, maybe I won't buy it. Maybe.

Bad things happen as they do and have for millenium.

If we were to follow this mentality that X is bad and contributes to Global warming, well then NONE of us should be on computers at all, since the chemical waste and by products from creating microprocessors is very bad for the environment, but here we are discussing such a phenomenon.

I eat veal. I have no qualms for the animal being raised in a small box. Skogafoss on the other hand does. I'm happy to eat a nice veal chop or scallopini.

You may think that I'm a bad person for doing so, and I'm okay with that.

At some point you draw your own line and don't want to cross it. I know where mine is and won't allow it to be swayed by shame, guilt, or clever marketing.

[Plan9]

Right and wrong are both interchangeable and irrelevant on a long enough time line.

...

Meat footprint:

I guess my issue with this is... what the fuck are people supposed to eat?

Between religion, morals, the environment, etc... what is a viable option?

We're a disease to this planet. Fuck it, ya know? Let's just eat each other.

What can I wake up in the morning and feel good about eating that isn't destroying the planet and against my moral philosophy and religion?

Animal crackers?

[Ustwo]

Lets see....

Energy production: Bad
Food production: Bad

What pillar of civilization will be killing the planet next? Say tooned to this channel.

Oh btw, I had a double hamburger for dinner with bacon. Mmmmm bacon.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Energy production: Bad
Food production: Bad

You're right! The only way to get energy is from coal and oil. And our only source of food is beef! I'm glad you're here to suggest all of this, because otherwise we wouldn't know that solar power and vegetables aren't real.

[Psycho Dad]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Pass the A1 steak sauce please....

If it is a good cut and cooked right, no sauce needed thank you.

Politically, I'd bet there would be more of a negative impact on the world and people were we to quit eating what is only right to eat. Both in the terms of economics and world hunger.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets see....
Energy production: Bad
Food production: Bad
What pillar of civilization will be killing the planet next? Say tooned to this channel.

Heterosexual intercourse!

...

Seriously: What is safe to eat?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets see....

Energy production: Bad
Food production: Bad

Its not surprising to see such a smug response from someone who I assume unwilling to accept the consensus among scientists that human activities contribute to global warming.

And to cynthetiq, who doesnt want to be "guilted"...

No one is suggesting the most extremist actions that you seem to infer is required of you.

As individuals, there are numerous ways that one can lessen their impact on the environment without negatively impacting their lifestyle:

* walk when you can, dont get into your car for trips to the neighborhood store or to visit a friend nearby..it not only uses less fossil fuels, its healthier

* buy your meats and produces from a farmers market if you can...it not only supports sustainable agriculture, its healthier

* make your house more energy efficient....it not only utilizes less power from the polluting power grid, it saves you money.

There are so many other little things like these that can be done that may seem insignificant on the grand scale ....but small steps, if taken by millions, can start to make a big difference.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its not surprising to see such a smug response from someone who I assume unwilling to accept the consensus among scientists that human activities contribute to global warming.

And to cynthetiq, who doesnt want to be "guilted"...

No one is suggesting the most extremist actions that you seem to infer is required of you.

As individuals, there are numerous ways that one can lessen their impact on the environment without negatively impacting their lifestyle:

* walk when you can, dont get into your car for trips to the neighborhood store or to visit a friend nearby..it not only uses less fossil fuels, its healthier

* buy your meats and produces from a farmers market if you can...it not only supports sustainable agriculture, its healthier

* make your house more energy efficient....it not only utilizes less power from the polluting power grid, it saves you money.

There are so many other little things like these that can be done that may seem insignificant on the grand scale ....but small steps, if taken by millions, can start to make a big difference.

Done.

Done.

Done.

I live in a major metropolitan city. I walk to work. Our building recently upgraded our windows to energy efficient windows to the tune of several million dollars.

So I do that and people still tell me crap like, but do you buy diamonds? do you not (insert fad du jour) because that's just what the planet needs ala buying carbon credits?

The concensus of scientists have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again in the future. If you don't accept that as a possibility you are more smug than what you are accusing ustwo of.

[behindalens]

Similarly, I think there's a new point, of contention with banning of meat. Scientifically speaking, we're omnivores. Although we are also adapted to eat vegetables, we also require meat, for the most part. There have always been a lot of deluded vegetarians out there, who think that just simply switching to vegetables is healthy. Most of the time, it is not--vegetarians often have to take supplements because they are off meat. This is not to take it to the extreme, eating lot's of meat has been linked to numerous diseases. Eating it in porportion, say three or four times a week, has not.

Honestly, I don't forsee any action done in this area with regards to global warming simply because of the natural order of things. Eating Meat is the natural thing to do--it's hard to argue against ideas of natural order--especially seemingly basic ones. Pragmatically imagine how many natural order debates have come up against non-traditional relationships (homosexual, etc.) Now imagine trying to go up against the meat, with the "it's just natural" clout behind this.

I really think this is more related to overpopulation. Most people have issues with how the meat gets to the table, which has been reduced to very poor practices due to neccessities of feeding large populations.

I'm also a bit confused about humane meat farming--it seems very hypocritical to me. When something ends in killing the animal, is there any humane part of the process? Don't worry bambi, I'll kill you in your sleep.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So I do that and people still tell me crap like, but do you buy diamonds? do you not (insert fad du jour) because that's just what the planet needs ala buying carbon credits?

The concensus of scientists have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again in the future. If you don't accept that as a possibility you are more smug than what you are accusing ustwo of.

cynthetiq...I commend you on your personal actions but disagree with you on an acceptance of social responsibility as well.

I accept that the current consensus of the global warming scientific community may be proven wrong at some point in the future.

If we do nothing until such time, the environment suffers.....

If we do something in the way of policies that support both economic and environmental sustainability and a new consensus emerges, the environment is still better off...

So tell me, what do we gain by waiting to see if a new consensus might be around the corner...in two years, 10 years, 50 years...or not?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

cynthetiq...I commend you on your personal actions but disagree with you on an acceptance of social responsibility as well.

I accept that the current consensus of the global warming scientific community may be proven wrong at some point in the future.

If we do nothing until such time, the environment suffers.....

If we do something in the way of policies that support both economic and environmental sustainability and a new consensus emerges, the environment is still better off...

So tell me, what do we gain by waiting to see if a new consensus might be around the corner...or not?

What do we gain by guilting people who are already doing something into doing more? Animosity? Apathy? How much more should we be doing?

If we were to be doing all that we can, we would not be able to have this discussion because the computers we're using does alot of waste and damage to the environment. From shipping to creation of boards and mircochips, there's nothing there that's locally grown.

Should I be tithing my salary into carbon credits because it is the new thing to do as a "socially responsible" person?

I'm tired of these fringe groups continuing to demonize and vilify behaviors that a great number are not even doing the least amount of effort.

"I can't walk to work, it's too far," trumps their guilt or ability to do more. So what gains I provide, they do more than negate.

We do lots of conservation and reduce emissions, Mt. Pinotubo erupts and any gains from conservation are removed.

Again, I'm not telling people from the highest mountains that they should eat meat or not conserve energy, but to vilify and guilt those that do enjoy eating meat and driving is patently absurd.

[dc_dux]

I dont think I vilified anyone and again, you're talking extremes with examples like using computers and tithing your salary into carbon credits.

And you really didnt address the downside of taking some broad policy action versus doing nothing but waiting for a new consensus that might or might not emerge

I'm talking about policies that can be implemented that support both economic and environmental sustainability. The CO2 emissions law that passed in California last year is, IMO, a good model. It requires the reduction of iemissions of greenhouse gases (primarily from utilities and other industries) to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and it addresses the potential economic impact in reaching that goal. (Forbes article on the Cali law)

Is that really worse than doing nothing?

[Cynthetiq]

Sorry, I'm not a fan of California having grown up there.

The MTBE debate which I believe is just as much a bunch of horseshit. The whole Proposition 65 which does more to scare people into paralysis since it gets listed on everything from new cars to apartments.

Q: I recently bought a product that came with a Proposition 65 warning. How do I find out more about the warning and the chemicals in the product?

A: Businesses are not required to provide OEHHA with any information regarding their Proposition 65 warnings. To receive more information about the chemicals of concern and the levels of exposure related to a particular product's use, one should contact the manufacturer of the product. The decision to provide a Proposition 65 warning is made by the respective business based upon its knowledge of the types of chemical exposures it is responsible for causing to individuals. A business is not required to notify our office or any other regulatory agency when it decides to provide a warning.

Because we do not know why a business has chosen to provide a warning, we generally cannot respond to specific questions regarding the safety of a product’s use, why a warning is being given, for which listed chemical the warning is being given, how long the chemical exposures have been occurring, and at what level a chemical exposure is occurring. The responses to these exposure questions should be obtained from the business.

The list of chemicals subject to Proposition 65 is available at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html.

Q: My landlord just posted Proposition 65 warning signs at my apartment complex. Why is my landlord posting these warnings?

A: Tenants should ask their landlords for specific information regarding Proposition 65 warnings at their apartment building. Property owners and managers are not required to notify OEHHA when or explain to us why they provide tenants with a Proposition 65 warning. You can find general information on what tenants should know about Proposition 65 by reading our fact sheet for tenants at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/P65ten.html

Again, so we don't eat meat because of such crusades, then people who want to have off season produce get shipped their strawberries, apples, oranges, potatoes from Latin America, boom what savings and sustainability did we gain?

Oh but they are eating fruits and vegetables, it must be better

[Willravel]

Cancer shouldn't scare people, then. Interesting stance. Know anyone who's gotten cancer?

[dc_dux]

I have no idea what Prop 65 is....I was refering to Cali's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (pdf).

California, being the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world, is taking progressive action, balanced with economic interests.

Please read the act, and analysis from both sides, including the Forbe article, before passing judgment:

Schwarzenegger on Sept. 27 signed a statute that obligates the state to reduce its emissions of "greenhouse gases" to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Although the issue remains contentious, two recent studies found that the economic consequences of the new law are likely to be relatively minor. The regulations represent a new stage in the evolution of climate policy and may stimulate technological innovation that benefits other states. They could also lower the cost of compliance with any future U.S. national policy to address climate change.
(snip)

While these academic studies have helped policymakers understand the possible costs and benefits of implementing the law, they will not spell the end of the economic debate. Modelling economic costs far into the future is fraught with challenge.

Nevertheless, given California's high prevailing energy prices, it is likely that increased efficiency will lead to significant cost savings. In addition, California's economy is known for being innovative, environmentally conscious and technologically forward-looking. In this context, incentives for the development of green technology could enable California to emerge as a leader in this field. These factors seem to suggest that the law can be implemented successfully, which may make broader U.S. emissions-policy reform more likely.

Neither international pressure nor presidential leadership are likely to drive the eventual adoption of a federal emissions control strategy. Instead, national reform is likely to be the product of a successful state-level experiment, such as California's new emissions control regime.

Not that this addresses the agricultural impact which is at the heart of this discussion.

Yet still, you havent made a convincing case for doing nothing.

[Cynthetiq]

I'm not trying to make a convincing case of doing nothing. I'm not doing nothing. I'm doing those things that you've already mentioned. If doing more requires me to spend more time, resources, or money, I'm probably not interested in doing it. Especially if it's not mandatory for the rest of the people. Me saving and sacrificing money doesn't do much good if my wife goes out shopping and blows it all and then some. That is my point to this whole scrimp/save/sacrifice proposal, if not everyone is doing it and others are blowing it all and then some, seems pretty stupid that I sacrificed and scrimped.

Proposition 65 alerts and warns people that what they may be using may cause cancer in some fashion. Pretty progressive and forward thinking as the papers wrote when it was passed.

As far as people who have cancer? yes, I was in California this past weekend visiting an aunt who is succumbing to breast cancer. It is probably the last time I will get to see her so coherent. I hope that it is not the case, but I do expect that there is the possibility that she will not make it before I return to California again. I met up with a neighbor who's wife died in July of breast cancer. I recently learned that my first girlfriend's mother passed away a few years ago due to cancer. I have lost about 2 other friends (that I can think of off the top of my head) to cancer.

[Shauk]

I dunno, I eat birds more than bovines.

Chicken/turkey

I like tuna and other fish too.

I've never liked pork or beef though really, and I have always hated steak.

I mostly eat veggies more than any other type of food though.

[Charlatan]

Cyn... my comment about the blood diamonds is in an effort to understand where you draw the line on personal responsibility.

I am not talking about guilt here. I am talking about where you stand in relation to your responsibility to others. I think you have already answered in your back and forth with DC.

I agree with you though when you say you are unwilling to go beyond what you are already doing if nobody else is obliged to do so as well. I am, more or less like this myself.

I worry this is what will ultimately destroy us all.