Misc.

» March 6th, 2014

 

I’ll be unable to post material for at least a week and, for the most part, will be disconnected from all online media. Plan on a fresh post a week from tomorrow. Also understand that, while I’ve been doing my best to regulate commentary (much of which has been amazingly good), I will also be unable to do that over the next 8 days as well. I would simply advise readers not to engage in personal attacks in the comments section and, if you are rebuked in a less than civil way, resist the urge to get into a slugfest. Makes everyone, not to mention The Pitchfork, look bad. Thanks.

On a final, note, I have long pieces coming out soon in The American Scholar and Conservation Magazine (both cover stories) and, possibly, the New York Times. There’s a chance these may come out while I’m off line, but I’ll post when they are published. Meantime, keep an eye out. Be well. Thanks, again.

James

8 Responses to Misc.

  1. Blessings to you while you are away James. And will look forward to all you write when you return. You are a bright light of intelligence and love for the animals. Thank you.

  2. magpie says:

    Thinking of you!

  3. Laura says:

    Looking forward to your return. I apologize for being a slug-fester…will behave myself in here from now on, no matter what :)

  4. Steve M. says:

    Just read the New York Times opinion piece. Very nice. For those interested: http://nyti.ms/1feJUqk

  5. Patricia Houseman says:

    Have you thought about looking at how much water is wasted in cokes, dr. peppers etc. Foods with no nutrition and useless calories.

    Patricia Houseman

  6. John T. Maher says:

    Read the NYT piece and kudos. The question is how to mve the message in the temporal sense from a page that can be clicked to another screen or, if anachronistically printed, recycled, to literally making meat a part of history and not a present tense reality.

    I have personally seen NYT writers eat burgers and extol the virtues of various fetishized animal products and so I say this foregrounds the issue of how to make the ideas you write about have meaning in the lives of others. I do not have the answer for this in conventional terms but I am hoping you keep at it.

    To the extent that one observes that California and the US have “reaped what it has sown” (Butler, Precarious Life) by means of your passage concerning water usage, viz, “That equals 631.6 million gallons of water wasted by an industry with a far more complex and resource-intensive supply chain than the systems that move strawberries from farm to fork” and “the Rancho incident reminds us that plants aren’t slaughtered, a process that demands 132 gallons of water per animal carcass, contributing even more to livestock’s expanding water footprint” and in terms of water shortage, in another context Judith Butler observed that such statements merely encode a collective desire and priority and the structural omnipotence. id. That is to say in our context, the desire to eat animals and the omnipotence of the Animal-Agriculture complex, referenced as the seeming helplessness of the consumer you describe. (I am informed that Vasile Stanescu, an excellent writer, wrote about Butler’s work in the animal context and it is on my reading list for this month).

    That is what we need to topple. How to do it when there is individual incentive enabled by structural conditions to eat as much meat as possible while hoping for a collective solution to the consequential dimension of meat production is apparently the dominant way of thinking for most humans?

  7. Frank Barrie says:

    THANKS for your op-ed in today’s NY Times:”Meat Makes the Planet Thirsty.”
    AND let’s not miss the opportunity to note the health benefits of a plant based, whole foods diet:
    http://knowwhereyourfoodcomesfrom.com/2014/02/12/forks-over-knives-preventing-disease-with-a-plant-based-whole-food-diet/
    Best wishes- Frank

    Frank W. Barrie, Editor
    http://www.knowwhereyourfoodcomesfrom.com

  8. Wayne says:

    With respect to the recent op-ed in the New York Times recommending a vegetarian diet as a means of reducing water consumption, this notion is simply absurd. Case in point, India, resident to the globe’s largest population of vegetarians. It’s also a society bursting at every seam, including water starved. Going vegetarian simply means there are more calories to devote to the production of other consumers. There are no national-level examples suggesting that going vegetarian leads to any demonstrable environmental benefits.

Leave a Reply