Part of the reason for soaring food prices are the growing affluence of countries like China and India, and a growing taste for meat among the middle class in those rapidly-developing nations. But meat requires a large amount of grain, and water, and land.
This issue actually goes far beyond the putative health benefits for humans of a vegan diet, and the ethical issues of killing animals for meat. It is deeply connected with the much broader issue of sustainability.
And if we believe ejherb's assertion that "the beef, pork, and poultry industries contribute massively more to global warming than automobiles," lab-based food production would mean a lighter carbon footprint.
More to be found in Human Nature Fray. AC … 12:15 p.m. ET
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
There wasn't even agreement on whether the article was pro-Hillary or anti. Linda Hirshman's " Yo Mamma" on Clinton and U.S. women's mothers brought out close arguments, ranging from the (slightly predictable) [Hillary] "reminds me of my ex-wife" to several readers who said she reminded them of Richard Nixon, to a Republican feminist's claim that "If I continue to hear the patronizing attacks against her based on the pitch of her voice or her appearance or her husband, I may just have to vote for her. Girls need to stick together sometimes."
There was some meta-discussion of why analyses like this appear. Jenniferwhatnot said, "Where are all the articles about men afraid to openly support Obama out of fear of offending their feminist girlfriend? That's right, there aren't any." And thank you KHpoliticalinnuendohere for this defenseofSlate:
The majority of Slate readers are educated and in touch with politics, especially those who post here on the Fray. These are the people who exhausted their attention to policy long ago. We know what the differences and similarities are, we've gone over both Obama and Clinton's with fine-toothed combs, so to expect an op-ed type of publication like Slate to rehash them over and over again is to completely misunderstand their goal and function.
The most controversial line in the article was this: "Only women seem to need to separate and destroy in order to start all over again with each generation." Many readers wanted to argue, Dickey Roscombe from literature:
Nothing says boomer narcissism like identifying a particular problem in one's own sphere of understanding and deciding it must be entirely new and unique. … It would take far too long to detail how western history and literature (from Oedipus to Henry IV to HW Plainview) has faithfully told and re-told the story of men rejecting the worlds and lives of their fathers. Certainly, it is a failure of Western culture to have for so long ignored the parallel stories of mothers and daughters, but to attribute to that story a uniqueness that denies the experiences of fathers and sons is to remake the mistakes of the dead white men that the second-wave feminists worked so hard to debunk.
Ian Kamaku's view was on a different plane, and possibly more provocative to half his readers—well not exactly half:
Just how does 52 to 54% of a population become a minority? Laziness? Stupidity? ... If only you [women] could unite around a leader ... ah, but therein lies the problem, but also the answer ... women will not follow a powerful leader. They will drive the hag out of their kitchens. There is a chance, perhaps a small one, but a chance none the less that when given an order by his father, a 30 year old man might comply. If a woman of 30 is given a direct order by her mother, the chances of her obeying are the chances of the sun moving around the Earth.