|
Post by mistermuncher on Sept 28, 2009 13:06:17 GMT -5
The squeezing out isn't the whole story. The debt accrued by colonialist powers is still ticking, and will do for years to come. There'll be little or no meaningful relief on it for a long time. Meanwhile, IMF and World Bank enforce economic strictures upon further relief and loans, disallowing any kind of nationalisation of the remaining resources. In most former colonies, people are paying off the cost of their former oppression from a wallet already half-emptied by the oppressors.
The combination of tinpot dictators and ongoing warfare has provided a fertile ground for Western arms dealers and manufacturers, generally by selling their obselete crap to nations that can't afford them, then having their home nations spring for "export credit guarantees". That way, us Western taxpayers get pickpocketed when it leaves, and the Africans when it arrives. Still, though, thems good British/French/American/German capatlists at work, and only a commie would argue against it.
But, I digress. Eating meat. I'm of the school that if you don't know or can't handle where it comes from and the steps involved, fuck off and eat cabbage. I'd prefer food was sourced from less intensive and obviously cruel methodologies, too.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Sept 28, 2009 13:13:31 GMT -5
As true as all that may be, Sky, it could only be afforded as a reasonable excuse for the state of most African nations if you pretend that history started 50 years ago. None of the situations you describe happened entirely by accident nor wholly through the fault of the native Africans, as you're no doubt aware. Thing is, the tribal / religious violence predates even European colonization.* In fact, one of the "ugly little secrets" of the slave trade was that many African slaves were actually POWs captured during tribe-on-tribe warfare. So while European colonization did cause a good chunk of the problems, others were there to begin with. The problem, however, is that rather than face the actual issues that need to be addressed, far too many people would rather point the finger at scapegoats. I mean, does anyone have any idea as to how many millions, if not billions, of money have been given to the continent in the form of food, medicine, and cash? In fact, Corporate America (like Corporate "insert nation here") has actually gone out of its way on many, many occasions to help out the nation. For example, one major company (IIRC, General Electric; I'd have to look it up) redesigned a popular type of indigenous stove so that it required less fuel *and* resulted in less indoor air pollution. *In fact, this is one of the many reasons why I think Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart completely missed the mark. Achebe was offended by Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the sense that he thought Conrad was mocking African natives and praising European colonialism; he failed to note that Conrad's message was actually the reverse. Achebe set out to show the native, pre-colonialization Africans as being a noble people, but kept undermining himself along the way. One of the biggest places he does that is a chapter wherein the lead character - a man named Okonkwo - has himself a foster son from another tribe. To quote Wiki: This sets in motion a chain of events that result in Okonkwo being a total bastard to a number of other people before finally killing himself in protest over the fact that Europeans managed to peacefully convert the tribe over to their way of thinking. And yet Achebe treats everything as if it was normal and tries to make Okonkwo into some sort of heroic figure through his resistance and later death.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Sept 28, 2009 13:23:17 GMT -5
Something you're not really considering is how beneficial domestication is for the animals. Yes, they are bred and raised to feed us. But that very fact means that our survival depends on their survival. We will ensure that cows and chickens never go extinct because we rely on them for food. In the grand scheme of things, it's a win-win situation. The animals are ensured their species will survive, and we get the food we need to survive. We're even doing our best to develop reliable, responsible aquaculture, so we can have the supply of fish our population depends on without having to continue to hunt the wild waters to the point of no return.
This. I honestly cant picture any of those cows I drive by on the way to work ever surviving in the wild, 10,000 years of domestication has made 'being fat and tasty' the only desirable trait. Afew other popular traits are being slow and easy to manage. great for being farmed, useless in the wild. If humans had never started eating them cows, chickens and pigs would probably just be some animals living in a small part of the middle east instead of the enormous, worldwide population they have. Assuming they hadnt just gone extinct like those thousands of species man doesnt bother keeping around because we dont eat them.
And I've never been able to see what so immoral about murdering a cow, its not gonna accomplish any more in life just because you spared its life. Its gonna eat, sleep, mate and crap until it dies. Hell its only in the last century or so we stopped leaving humans with that level of intelligence to die, and that's only because of our vast surplus of resources. Places that don't have enough food to go around dont feel bad about letting them or an animal die.
PS: lightmelon, nice job. Some people in this topic might have been getting an impression that the stereotype of vegetarians being abunch of holier-than-thou pricks who think meat-eaters are unaware an animal is slaughtered for their dinner and cant go two sentences without explaining how they're morally and intellectually superior to those flesh eating savages was wrong. Thanks for reassuring them its dead accurate.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Sept 28, 2009 13:25:43 GMT -5
"Thing is, the tribal / religious violence predates even European colonization."
That's utterly redundant as an argument, though. Find me a nation which didn't have tribal fighting a (relatively) short time ago. And, to be utterly fair, a place having tribal warfare, then being invaded by a foreign power, who then fecks off again, and the tribal warfare starts up again? Hardly unique to Africa. Yugoslavia, perhaps? Shit, Ireland?
"In fact, one of the "ugly little secrets" of the slave trade was that many African slaves were actually POWs captured during tribe-on-tribe warfare."
Well, it's hardly secret. It's also an argument greatly beloved of apologists for the slave trade, completely missing the point that objections to slavery have little or nothing to do with it's (inherent in this case) racism and everything to do with the simple inhumanity of trading people as assets. Also, the notion that odious demand is excused or mitigated by odious supply? Not in any sane debate.
"The problem, however, is that rather than face the actual issues that need to be addressed, far too many people would rather point the finger at scapegoats. I mean, does anyone have any idea as to how many millions, if not billions, of money have been given to the continent in the form of food, medicine, and cash? "
The latter part, I would say, is wholly irrelevant. I don't think anyone giving to Africa is after a return on their investment. It's basic bloody humanity. I do often wonder upon seeing that argument how a few decades of charity stack up against a couple of centuries of taking every single thing that could be carried away, though. No-one's ever adequately answered it, though, surprisingly.
As for the former, citing different scapegoats isn't really helping matters.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Sept 28, 2009 13:29:27 GMT -5
As for the former, citing different scapegoats isn't really helping matters. My point is that if people can actually be honest enough to admit to what the real problems are for half a damn second, we could possibly get together and put pressure on those in a position to actually do something so as to get things done. Heck, look at Bill Gates. The guy doesn't even flinch at the prospect of dropping millions of dollars down on malaria research. He doesn't dicker with hows and whys; he just sees a problem and is doing what's in his power to fix it. Thanks to him, within our lifetimes we might reasonably see malaria contained in Africa. Think of how many people would be alive and able to contribute to the world if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 28, 2009 14:33:49 GMT -5
I don't get the whole vegetarianism thing. It's just so human-centric. I see vegetarians try to say it's because of a concern about life, but that can't be it, if so, they wouldn't eat anything. Other organisms have to die for us to live, it doesn't matter what you eat. To put plants in a different category is to say they're not as alive as animals. The only reason I can see is that they're less human than a cow or a chicken. After all, they are further removed from us in their physiology. Because something like this I personally don't see how being bred to die is the slightest bit humane. People in the line for capital punishment got there for a reason 90% of the time, maybe more. These creatures were born into slaughterhouses, chopped up just to supply selfish human demands of taste and habit. Applies just as much to plants as animals. It's still killing for our selfish demands to live. This also shows a human-centric view. I sure hope you don't have a salad today, because that's made from multiple species. By your own standards you are disgusting. Did you really just say that? Seriously? Time to get out the real science (sucks when there's a biologist on the boards). This is the human digestive system: Note the shrunken cecum and appendix, this is important. This is the canine digestive system (a carnivore): Again, note the shrunken cecum. This is the equine digestive system (a herbivore): Not the massive cecum. Why is this? Because the cecum is the organ that houses the bacteria responsible for breaking down cellulose. We can't do it, a dog can't do it, but a horse can. Do you know the major sugar in plants? Cellulose. A herbivore's intestines are structured in such a way as to get the most nutrients from plants as possible. Ours fit that of a carnivore much better. You can also look at the shape of our teeth. Human's teeth are in between that of carnivores and herbivores. If our diet was meant to be plants, we couldn't have our canines in the shape they are. Human teeth: A combination of flat teeth and stabbing teeth. Equine teeth: Notice how flat they are, they'd be useless against a steak, but great for grass. Feline teeth: Massive canines, of course, this fits a pure carnivore. Even the incisors and molars come to a point. I have more, of course I have more, I have a lot when somebody makes such an ill-supported claim, this one is biochemistry, amino acids. There are essential and non-essential amino acids, we can make the non-essential from other compounds. This is also why vegetarians often suffer from malnutrition. It requires great care, skill, and planning in order for a vegetarian diet to provide the needed amino acids. For a omnivore, it's easy, just eat a hamburger, problem solved. Oh, so you're also against farmers breeding animals that do provide more meat so less have to be killed. How consistent. You keep commenting about how natural things are, guess what, that's a big no-no logical fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good. Just because something's unnatural doesn't mean it's bad. I say, sitting on a sofa made from synthetic fibers typing away on a machine never found in nature. But death is natural, I thought you liked natural things. And you can't get around the fact that you kill as well. If you're alive, you kill. You kill plants for their chemical energy, you kill microbes so you stay healthy. And if you take any medicine, you're partially responsible for the scientists using chemicals isolated from killed animals and other organisms. Not to mention the animal test subjects killed to ensure that they're safe for humans. I'm even talking about aspirin and tylenol. And yet, you're content to murder other forms of life. So damn human-centric, killing is bad, but only if they're close to us.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Sept 28, 2009 14:37:21 GMT -5
PS: lightmelon, nice job. Some people in this topic might have been getting an impression that the stereotype of vegetarians being abunch of holier-than-thou pricks who think meat-eaters are unaware an animal is slaughtered for their dinner and cant go two sentences without explaining how they're morally and intellectually superior to those flesh eating savages was wrong. Thanks for reassuring them its dead accurate. Most vegetarians aren't like that. However: nothing makes me more determined to keep eating meat than a load of self-righteous whaargarbl about how evil I am for it. It's just a secular version of the fundie rhetoric about how we're all going to hell. I know where my dinner comes from, and I'm fine with it. And if you're going to appeal to science, then if we'd evolved as pure herbivores then we wouldn't have developed the urge to eat meat at all. If you want to be a vegetarian then fair play to you, but if you want to use it as an excuse to feel better than everyone else then you can fuck right off. EDIT: But death is natural, I thought you liked natural things. I blame the doctrine of original sin. Death isn't part of the natural order, it's an aberration introduced because humanity sucks and now we need to feel guilty about it and worship a Bronze Age camel herder's idol to make it all OK.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 28, 2009 15:08:23 GMT -5
God damn, Vene dropped the motherfucking hammer.
(Imaginary exalt to Vene.)
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Sept 28, 2009 15:43:16 GMT -5
obligatory But being serious, I don't think I could ever become a vegetarian simply because steak is too damn delicious. I know it's not ethical or moral, but CHOP ME UP SOME COWS. THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 28, 2009 15:56:09 GMT -5
Many animals are also crushed to death by harvesting machines in large farms. Id rather live in a shit hole knowing I'm about to die, than be crushed to death while running in vain from a giant machine. But, then again, this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 28, 2009 16:20:38 GMT -5
Long story short about Africa, most people can agree it was a combination between colonization and Africa just not being a very habitable continent. Whitey's not totally to blame, but you really can't ignore that many years of squeezing diamonds and rubber out of a place. Not that Africa is inhospitable mind you. The savannah and Ethiopia aren't exactly wastelands of doom. And there have been grand civilizations there until around the 16th century. What happened was that, in addition to the points Sky said, European powers controlled the continent until as recently as the 1980s. They left essentially a power vacuum filled in its wake by revolutionaries like Gafhadi and Mugabe. Instead of properly allocating the nation's resources, they sought to increase their power via terror and intimidation. Many Westerners take for granted that a new nation's birth is often a painful process. Americans were at war for the first 35 years of their existence with the British, and mind you half the countries in Africa aren't even that old. It'll take decades for the continent to stabilize into a recognizable system of states and nations.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 28, 2009 16:28:30 GMT -5
Hello there, omnivorous, but critter sympathetic poster here.
Vene, a big difference between plants and animals is that animals have nervous systems. Packing them up in tight spaces affects them a lot more than it does a lettuce patch. Unless there is some mechanism that we don't know about yet, plants do not think and do not feel pain.
Yes, the human system is omnivorous, but that doesn't mean that we have to consume tons of meat. A nutritious vegetarian diet is quite possible, it just takes a lot of thought and effort to execute (oh yeah, and money. Poor people can't afford to live off the nice, fresh fruits and veggies.)
I would love to see a world where no feeling thing was killed, but that just isn't realistic right now. It would require advanced crops and an overhaul of our entire food industry.
Also, I agree with what Vene says about the natural argument. If you truly wanted everything natural then you wouldn't be here right now. Smallpox is natural, antibiotics are unnatural.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 28, 2009 16:41:34 GMT -5
Right, the nervous system is the closest thing I have seen to an objective argument. Too bad for it that farm animals are barely even aware of the world around them, they've been breed to be as stupid as possible. It's also an argument that undermines the vegetarian position of killing being the problem because the nervous system implies that the issue is pain and there are ways to kill without putting the organism through unnecessary pain. And when you get a vegetarian like lightmelon saying that the problem is killing at all, I lose respect for vegetarianism and veganism. When you get a vegetarian saying that the human body is best suited to a vegetarian diet, that's when I lost respect. When somebody makes fallacious, hypocritical, and false arguments, I stop caring about their position real fast.
It's also worth nothing that just because something looks painful doesn't mean it is. When I was taking anatomy we would occasionally need live organs for the experiments (the organs were alive, the critter wasn't). We used frogs, they were killed by chopping their heads off. Because that's honestly the quickest and most painfree way of killing them.
And I do think that, in general, people do overeat meat. But some of this is due to the cost of production and health benefits, not solely for humane reasons. It's also worth noting that many foods that you would think are vegetarian are prepared using enzymes and such from animals.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 28, 2009 17:01:17 GMT -5
I would love to see a world where no feeling thing was killed, but that just isn't realistic right now. It would require advanced crops and an overhaul of our entire food industry. It would require a lot more than that. You'd have to convince the 99.99% of humans who aren't vegetarian to give up the meat they both love and need. You'd have to talk them into eating very specific vegetarian meals to get all the nutrition they'd normally just get from a cheeseburger. Or a piece of chicken. Or some fried fish. You get the idea. You're wanting to take options away from the people of the world because you project humanity onto things that aren't human. Cows and chickens do not have emotions. They cannot be sad, or depressed. They can, at most, feel uncomfortable in their living conditions. But they adapt within hours and it simply becomes as much a part a life as eating and pooping. Now, that isn't to say we couldn't treat some of the animals better. Abuse does happen, and that's not right. But that's not a problem with the fact that we as a species eat meat. And not eating meat doesn't really do anything but deny ourselves an important natural resource.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Sept 28, 2009 17:02:46 GMT -5
And when you get a vegetarian like lightmelon saying that the problem is killing at all, I lose respect for vegetarianism and veganism. Put it this way: if an animal is going to die anyway, is it better for it just to rot away rather than provide sustenance to those animals (including, yes, H. sapiens) above it on the food chain?
|
|