noel@cubsvax.UUCP (10/19/83)
India has eliminated much of its problems with starvation within the
last 10 years, largely through the efforts of village-based associations
which educate regarding nutrition and pool the resources of the community
to bring goods to market.
As I understand it now, much starvation and death from malnutrition
is occuring in Africa. The world produces more than enough food to feed
everyone, but the economic system and distribution channels are not
geared to preventing starvation.
--
-- Noel Kropf {cmcl2,harpo}!rocky2!cubsvax!noel 212-280-5517
-- 1002 Fairchild; Columbia University; New York NY 10027robison@eosp1.UUCP (10/19/83)
It is probably inaccurate to claim that people can get more food by eating cows raised on grain, than by eating the grain itself. Traditionally, it is a very good deal to eat meat from animals that eat GRASS and various kinds of weed plants that grow in soil which cannot be tilled. Where the land is good, agricultural prodction of grains for direct consumption is most productive. Our view of this problem is obscenely skewed in the USA, where we feed corn and grains to cows and pigs to produce better tasting meat, not less expensive food, and not larger quantities of food. In India, sacred cows certainly destroy part of the grain crop. If this amount is signifigant (anyone have figures?) it will be desireable (and not easy) to control the number of cows, but eating them will only provide a brief one-shot increase in available food.
z@cca.UUCP (Steve Zimmerman) (10/20/83)
Now wait a minute. Cows aren't held in higher esteem than people in India, nor are large areas of grain set aside for them. If you'd ever been to India, you'd have seen that Indian cows have it a lot worse off than Indian people. They don't kill cows in India, but they sure don't feed them like kings, either. Most Indian cows I saw appeared to be on the verge of starvation, at least compared to what I was used to in America. Females are used for dairy products, and males for manual labor, such as farming, which ends up producing more food. Using these animals for a lifetime of food production this way makes a lot more sense than killing them off for a few pounds of meat. India's problem is simply that there are more people than its land can support, and that farming technology remains almost nonexistent throughout most of the country due to lack of money. Steve Zimmerman
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (10/20/83)
Just because somebody makes a baby dosn't mean I'm responsible
for feeding it!!!!
GEORGEdave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/20/83)
Brian Crumby implies that if the starving children in India
could be fed by all the cows which are sacred, then the problem
is with the Hindus.
I question the wisdom of indirectly criticizing a religion in
this way. If people were starving in the United States and refused
to eat corpses of humans, would you make the same kind of comment?
If the religion determines that a particular animal is not to be
eaten, then the fact it may be eaten by others has no bearing on
the hunger problems of the members of the religion. Thus, I would
never suggest that starving Americans should become cannibals,
despite the fact that in some societies they might think us
silly to starve when all those nice bodies were lying around
ready to be eaten.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!daveengels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (10/21/83)
The book "Diet for a Small Planet" provides some facts and figures on protein content of beef and other meats vs. grains. They do some speculation of the amount of grain a steer would consume and how may people this same amount would feed. Their conclusion is that by eating beef, you don't feed as many people.
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (10/25/83)
If all there was to eat was another human body, you can bet your ... I'd eat it. That isn't the real point here however. To me, the point is, the religion (indirectly) generated those babies- let them now use whatever means available to care for them! Don't pawn it off on us.
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (10/26/83)
Diet for a Small Planet also points out that cattle are very useful for converting otherwise unuseable grasses and vegetation into meat. It is efficient to eat meat raised this way. Pesticides also reach greater concentrations in animals than in plants. (Higher up the food chain.) Tracy Tims watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo formerly hcr!tracy Human Computing Resources Corporation
jeffy@bnl.UUCP (Jeff Mattson) (11/11/83)
The Hindus aren't as fanatical towards cows as people seem to think. For a starving man, ANYTHING is "kosher." --Jeff Mattson PS Sorry if this has been said already, but I'm new and just reading this letter written on Oct. 28 on Nov. 11.
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/16/83)
#R:bnl:-24300:uokvax:2700011:000:529 uokvax!rigney Nov 14 20:25:00 1983 But the point is, if a farmer eats his cow during a dry spell, he'll have no cow when the drought ends, and he won't be able to plant or farm. He's *FINISHED* as a farmer, and has to move to the city, or die, or both. Since it might be hard for a farmer to let his cow live for the long term benefits when he's watching his children starve during the short term effect of a drought, very powerful reasons are needed to save the cow, and thus the farmer as well. Hinduism provides these reasons. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney