In a message dated 04/13/00 12:23:27 AM !!!First Boot!!!, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< >    I have a question, and I ask you because I am curious in your
 >view. What do you think a possible solution is in all this? Do
 >you think a completely "non animal" lifestyle would solve the
 >problems of the environment?  l. Plus what standing would you give for an
 >animal in society.?
 >     Now I am not trying to get you upset, and I hope you respond to
 >this post, but I recently read this article which asked a person
 >in favor of the AR movement the following question? Would you sign a waiver,
 >to never receive a prescription drug which contained an animal product in 
it.
 >Even if you knew that a drug with an animal product could save your  life
 >someday? Would you sign that waiver and why or why not?  How would other
 >Vegans on the list answer as well? I am
 >just curious?
 
 I'm not entirely certain that I've understood what you're asking me here
 correctly...the second part, (I'm not a vegan or vegetarian ) is pretty easy
 for me to answer. Sure, I'd sign such a waiver. I think the pharmaceutical
 industry and high tech medicine has gone way too far in the wrong direction.
 It'd be more a difficult decision, if say, I had a hypothetical wife and 
child
 who were terminally sick but could be saved by some technology that I
 disapproved of on ethical grounds. Doctors, especially in poorer countries,
 are having to decide who will live and who will die everyday. I don't envy 
them
 that burden...which leads back to the start of what you said...one of the 
major
 problems is our sheer numbers and the prospect of the predicted increase.
  From a cold blooded point of view, the more people who die, the quicker,
 the better- and the fewer born, the better. For a lot of people, that's too
 tough to face up to. We've got people working really hard to save other
 people's lives...but it seems to me, that if we don't reduce our numbers by
 our own volition, then Nature will do the job anyways, and probably in a
 very messy and unpleasant way, from an anthropocentric viewpoint.
 
 I don't know what you mean by "non-animal". We are animals. Of a peculiar
 sort. We remain animals whether we live 'naturally' (how is that defined ?)
 like say, the Yanomama in the Amazon Forest, or in a hightech skyscraper
 in Manhattan. Seems to me the problem is the lifestyle, and the numbers.
 Fifty people doing a slash and burn rotation in a thousand square mile
 forest will be virtually unnoticeable. But fifty thousand all doing the same
 will destroy the forest and their own means of survival. I don't have a 
problem
 about hunter-gatherers killing animals for food, etc. But we have debated 
that
 issue before, and I don't think we should open it up again.
 
 C.L.
  >>

It doesn't matter if your not a vegan, when I say "animals," I refer to 
animals
with no rights in our society.  Yes, people our animals but we are animals
with rights in our living system. (please exclude Endangered species.)
It's meant to be a general question. And I certainly agree "our" lifestyle
is quite a problem. Also, I agree we hacked on the h-g relationship enough.
So without being circular back to my question on part one.
I'll reword it a little, but what do you think we should do with all those 
"animals"
who we know cause harm to the environment as well?  Pigs and cows are a good 
example. 
      
*Animals refers to species without rights.  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%