Great to see this story in the Bohemian. Last month I attended the memorial for my uncle, J. Woodland Hastings, a marine biochemist who dedicated his entire life to the study of these amazing critters. Uncle Woody died in August.
Anyway, you can read more about his life's work, some of which formed the basis for some of the practical applications of his discoveries mentioned in the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/science/j-w-hastings-87-a-pioneer-in-bioluminescence-research-dies.html?_r=2
And the book he co-authored about bioluminescence, published in 2013, is available at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Bioluminescence-Living-Lights/dp/0674067169
It is somewhat technical here and there but mostly a very fun read for those interested in bioluminescence.
-Woody Hastings, Sebastopol
Nicolette, I don't care if one eats meat or not, but after nearly 45 years of not eating meat I would never change. Raised 3 healthy children who as adults remain vegetarian.
Adequate protein and B12 were never a problem and done without meat, supplements or vitamins. Since discovering Macrobiotics I have never looked back. At 70 years old I remain healthy, active and drug free. Can the same be said for meat eaters?
A Well-Fed World specifically makes the connection about the harm caused by the "livestock" industry on global hunger and food security. www.awfw.org/scarcity-vs-distribution
Being a nudist, that's nice. Meet more nudists on nudistfriendfinder.org
The premise that ecologists have followed is that animals cause soil degradation and desertification due to over grazing. Based on this premise, Savory (with the support of all the other ecologists in his country) made the tragic mistake of removing elephants from the landscape. Savory acknowledges this tragedy and that he'll take this mistake to his grave.
What happened though without the elephants is that desertification got a lot worse. What Savory learned is that the elephants and large grazers were and are essential in preventing desertification and that animals are an essential part of maintaining grassland ecosystems. 2/3 of the earth non-submerged area is grasslands.
In America, the near extermination of bison took those large ruminants out of the ecosystem. Abolitionist vegans now want to further degrade ecosystems by doing away with grass fed cattle and other livestock. But despite misinformed editorials claiming that Savory's methods don't work, the proof is in the implementation with over 40 milion acres on 5 continents utilziing holistic management methods producing results.
Here are two excellent videos showing the methods and benefits of proper management and soil sequestion. Anyone who dismisses what Savory has been accomplishing is simply blinded by his or her food religion and has not spoken with any ranchers using these methods
The Soil Solution to Climate Change - http://t.co/SJpHvU4vFg
Soil Carnon Cowboys - http://vimeo.com/80518559
"This concept of cattle as agents of environmental remediation, and much of the intellectual underpinnings of Hahn Niman's analysis, is based on the work of Allan Savory."
Savory, responsible for the killing of 40,000 elephants because, he claimed, they were destroying the Savannah, now advocates the breeding of cattle to restore that same land, has never provided any reproducible data to back up his claims. His assertions are rebuked here: http://bit.ly/asavory and here: http://bit.ly/1zdoedf
She actually argues that eating meat is not morally wrong, and that it can be part of a health diet along with being a positive towards our environment versus the projected view that all meat production is a negative impact on our environment. Are you willing to acknowledge that humans have been eating meat since evolution formed modern man, and that our ancestral roots also come from meat eaters? Is the hawk immoral? What about the cat, dog, snake, salmon, bear, raccoon, hummingbird, etc.? How do you feel about wind turbines, hybrid cars, trains, plant farming, etc. killing countless animals everyday? I understand the point you are trying to make, animals feel pain (agreed) and that should be respected (again, I agree). But you are living in a fantasy utopia where death is not part of how our world operates, some animals/plants die so others may live. Should we do everything possible to make sure animals who are being raised for food are treated with respect and raised as humanly as possible, I say emphatically yes. Should they be slaughtered (processed for the PC crowd) humanly, without a doubt. If the author chooses to raise animals humanly and in a sustainable fashion, makes sure they are slaughtered humanly but still chooses to be a vegetarian that is her choice, and should not be used as an argument for why you dismiss everything she states in her article as bullshit just because you have a different opinion, what happened to using science to form an opinion instead of letting emotions skew your take on facts.
....What? This entire article, her entire ARGUMENT is full of paradox after paradox. She doesn't eat meat, and she "feels too strongly" about animals to eat them, but she argues FOR EATING MEAT??????? Am I the only one that realizes this is all complete bullshit? If animals didn't have feelings, if it wasn't WRONG to kill animal, if it didn't cause them pain, why would she cry and weep for them? This is so ridiculous. This entire article is bullshit. I am so through with irrational justifications. I cannot wait until a meat-eater with decent arguments actually arrives and gives me something to think about.
The author's points are well taken; we've let agribusiness take us into a horrible realm where the livestock is basically tortured in the name of efficiency. And we already know the damage done by intensive industrial farming, the vegetables starved of nutrients, crops modified to absorb more pesticides, the Amazon cleared for soybean production...
So why not eat eggs and meat and fowl provided by small, preferably local producers - just as we try to do with produce, baked goods, etc?
Nothing sensational at all, the author cites scientific reports to debunk all the myths that are being passed off as "science." maybe you should read the books as well its footnotes before making such ill informed comments. Besides any introductory environmental course that doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecosystems and soil health really isn't a very good one. Diets that require a lot of transportation for out of season produce don't have small carbon foot prints.
asset forfeiture purposes."as they say is just another way for law officers to take what you have and keep it even with no charges being laid. This his happening to more & more people and a stop should be made to it. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Oh, her case has absolutely nothing to do with her bank account, I promise. /s Sad, sensationalist piece that panders to the meat-loving crowd. What exactly qualifies this lady to call out a mass of scientifically published journals/reports as "flimsy science"? If this is the route the bohemian is going to take with such an impending issue, please cite sources.
Even the text used at the JC's introductory class for environmental science states that the best way to lessen your carbon footprint is to adopt a plant-based diet.
Not Harming Animals: What reasons cited by the author make no sense?
LOL how predictable regarding the vegan response to watch "Cowspiracy" and that the "real" numbers are the World Watch report numbers. Cowspiracy lost what little credibility it had citing the World Watch report. Here are two excellent critiques of that Wolrd Watch report that show how flawed that report's analysis was and why it's considered something of a joke. The second critique below is by a vegan
Climate Chicanery (clip and paste the links into your browser)
Vegan Stephen Walsh's critique
Plus here's a good review of "Cowspiracy" which points out that the movie is really one more concerned about pushing an abolitionist vegan agenda instead of a being genuinely concerned about climate change - http://exm.nr/1rrdpQy
Watch conspiracy, it's actually 51% of the climate earth issue, not 18%...13-18% is car and plane emissions, etc.
This makes no sense, her reasons...it is absurd and she is harming living beings that feel pain for her own desires and then justifying it. She should watch cowspiracy the documentary.
Don't forget to mention the newly created open space nature preserve Roseland Creek Park straddling between Burbank Ave. and McMinn Ave. We actually have an oak woodland in the middle of Roseland!
The article suggests Mercury News Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos threw Gary Webb under the bus, but the truth is more complex than that.
At the time, I paraphrased Ceppos' editorial thus: "Look, this was an extremely important story, but it was also complex and involved staggering amounts of information. It was probably the greatest challenge I've seen in my three decades as a reporter. For the record, I'd like to say that I'm not satisfied with a few points. We did a great job, but I'd change a few things if I had my druthers." In particular, Ceppos was right in saying that the series oversimplified the causes of the crack explosion in urban America.
But the NY Times pounced on his editorial and "produced an article and editorial as deceitful as Ceppos' work was noble" (quoting again my 1997 piece that appeared in the Albion Monitor). "The Mercury News Comes Clean," read the NYT editorial headline, falsely claiming Ceppos and the Mercury News were retracting all or part of the story.
To the contrary, Ceppos wrote in his editorial: "Indeed, one of the most bedeviling questions for us over the past few months has been: Does the presence of conflicting information invalidate our entire effort? I strongly believe the answer is no, and that this story was right on many important points."
The Times, Washington Post, and LA Times worked hard to discredit the series and succeeded, to their shame. The Post also refused to print a letter to the editor from Ceppos in response to their critique.
If Webb's series was flawed, it's because he didn't delve deep enough into those bloodied waters. Yet the Times misused the Ceppos editorial as an excuse to exonerate the CIA -- something far more deceptive than Ceppos's qualified admission that they couldn't conclusively link top CIA officials to the operation.
If there ever was a group that threatens civilization as we appreciate it, ISIS is it. I respect Rep. Huffman, but he offers no option other than the quasi philosophical muttering to "rethink the paradigm", whatever that's supposed to mean.
2014 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation