The 100th anniversary International Vegetarian Union conference is being held this year in Dresden, Germany in August.
I was hoping to go, but it doesn't look like it now. Unfortunately I still seem to be on the programme.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
New painting
It's quite large (well large for me) and I don't know if it's finished yet as I'm not sure as to whether to paint in the face or leave as pencil.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Petition against Live Animal Exports
A good Sydney Morning Herald article today, directing people to sign a petition against Live Exports - why not go do that Now?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Meat and science
An article in the Australian today "Cloned Animals miserable, but safe to eat" says the US has decided that it is OK for consumers to eat meat from cloned animals. I can't see the economics in cloning animals for meat, but I suppose if there is an extra dollar to be made in animal exploitation then someone's going to do it. To me there doesn't seem to be any ethical difference in killing and eating a cloned animal as opposed to one raised normally. Though in the meat industry there is really no such thing as raised normally.
If science is going to be used in meat production I think In Vitro meat, whereby meat is grown from a culture outside of any living sentient animal, is a potentially much better route to take.
There are strong moral arguments made about the process and most Veg*ns seem to be opposed to it, but I think that it has potential moral uses. However unhealthy/unethical/expensive/environmentally damaging meat is, some people for social/cultural reasons are never going to become vegetarian. If this remains the case, artificially grown flesh would be a much better way of providing meat, as here potentially no animal has to die for its flesh.
The point of being a veg*n is to not eat meat as in that way we can help to stop the cruel raising, housing, transportation and killing of other animals. If there was a way in which the original cell deliverer was not harmed and all subsequent meat was grown from those few cells, then that would obviate most veg*n arguments. But there are those who believe eating other animals is morally wrong, no matter in what circumstance the flesh was gotten. For those who think all animals should be afforded the same rights and considerations as humans, the eating of any animal is the equivalent of cannibalism, which all sensible people believe is both morally wrong and repugnant.
If In Vitro meat ever becomes commercially viable the arguments will certainly become interesting.
If science is going to be used in meat production I think In Vitro meat, whereby meat is grown from a culture outside of any living sentient animal, is a potentially much better route to take.
There are strong moral arguments made about the process and most Veg*ns seem to be opposed to it, but I think that it has potential moral uses. However unhealthy/unethical/expensive/environmentally damaging meat is, some people for social/cultural reasons are never going to become vegetarian. If this remains the case, artificially grown flesh would be a much better way of providing meat, as here potentially no animal has to die for its flesh.
The point of being a veg*n is to not eat meat as in that way we can help to stop the cruel raising, housing, transportation and killing of other animals. If there was a way in which the original cell deliverer was not harmed and all subsequent meat was grown from those few cells, then that would obviate most veg*n arguments. But there are those who believe eating other animals is morally wrong, no matter in what circumstance the flesh was gotten. For those who think all animals should be afforded the same rights and considerations as humans, the eating of any animal is the equivalent of cannibalism, which all sensible people believe is both morally wrong and repugnant.
If In Vitro meat ever becomes commercially viable the arguments will certainly become interesting.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Fur and the right
Janet Albrechtsen has written a piece justifying her buying a fur coat in Canada by using a spurious Green argument put forward by the Canadian Fur industry. Their argument states that producing a fake fur coat made out of oil byproducts is a greenhouse contributor as opposed to using real fur which is apparently 'natural'. This argument of course ignores the climate impact of fur farms (for feeding, housing, transporting, killing, skinning and rendering animals) and the production of the coat, which when taken in total would make the fake fur coat both environmentally as well as morally greatly superior.
Albretchsen is just one of Australia's rightist opinion writers and bloggers, the most popular being Tim Blair, who routinely attack vegetarians and animal rightists.
This is a shame as animal rights does not otherwise have to be part of the left/right divide.
In Australia all the early vegetarian MPs were in the Liberal Party, and were afforded little problem over it. Even in the 1970s there were Liberals at the birth of the Animal Liberation movement in Australia. However the foundation of the Democrats by disaffected Liberals, seems to have stripped the Party of most of its vegetarian supporters, and the rise of Green politics continued that shift. On the Left and amongst environmentalist politicians vegetarianism has almost never been found. Certainly the current leading politicians Peter Garrett, Penny Wong and Bob Brown aren't giving up meat.
Which leaves the question, now that the Democrats seem to have disappeared from the political map, where will the generally conservative vegetarian and animal rights supporting voters go.
Albretchsen is just one of Australia's rightist opinion writers and bloggers, the most popular being Tim Blair, who routinely attack vegetarians and animal rightists.
This is a shame as animal rights does not otherwise have to be part of the left/right divide.
In Australia all the early vegetarian MPs were in the Liberal Party, and were afforded little problem over it. Even in the 1970s there were Liberals at the birth of the Animal Liberation movement in Australia. However the foundation of the Democrats by disaffected Liberals, seems to have stripped the Party of most of its vegetarian supporters, and the rise of Green politics continued that shift. On the Left and amongst environmentalist politicians vegetarianism has almost never been found. Certainly the current leading politicians Peter Garrett, Penny Wong and Bob Brown aren't giving up meat.
Which leaves the question, now that the Democrats seem to have disappeared from the political map, where will the generally conservative vegetarian and animal rights supporting voters go.
Imogen Bailey
Thursday, January 10, 2008
ALIA biennial conference
I really want to go to this conference in Alice Springs http://www.alia2008.com/abstract.asp
the only problem is I have to think of an idea for a paper.
the only problem is I have to think of an idea for a paper.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Vegetarian Bibliography
The 6th edition of my exciting Australian vegetarian and vegan bibliography is out! http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/50914/20080107-0941/www.ivu.org/history/australian-bibliography.pdf
Surprisingly considering the perceived growth in interest and take-up of veg*ism, that there were not that many works to be added in the last year, and not as many as in recent years. There are a few recipe books, but nothing very exciting. There was only 1 thesis and no works of an ethical/historical/sociological bent (except for mine). As opposed to Britain and the USA, in Australia there is still a distinct lack of scholarship and academic interest in the diet, both from a scientific and social/cultural viewpoint.
There are however a growing number of websites, mostly of the campaigning variety, but also some social. It would be nice if Australia could produce an organisation and a webspace as effective as PETA, but this doesn't seem to be possible. Australian animal rights although they can claim some minor 'celebrity' support can't seem to be seen as 'hip' . Hopefully PETA Australia will continue to grow, they seem to be able to get the media exposure that homegrown organisations can't. This is primarily though as they can persuade Australians to strip for them.
Surprisingly considering the perceived growth in interest and take-up of veg*ism, that there were not that many works to be added in the last year, and not as many as in recent years. There are a few recipe books, but nothing very exciting. There was only 1 thesis and no works of an ethical/historical/sociological bent (except for mine). As opposed to Britain and the USA, in Australia there is still a distinct lack of scholarship and academic interest in the diet, both from a scientific and social/cultural viewpoint.
There are however a growing number of websites, mostly of the campaigning variety, but also some social. It would be nice if Australia could produce an organisation and a webspace as effective as PETA, but this doesn't seem to be possible. Australian animal rights although they can claim some minor 'celebrity' support can't seem to be seen as 'hip' . Hopefully PETA Australia will continue to grow, they seem to be able to get the media exposure that homegrown organisations can't. This is primarily though as they can persuade Australians to strip for them.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Wikipedia mania
Being just a little bit of a Librarian, in the past I have edited (mainly for typos) and created records on Wikipedia. I have also defended it and the accuracy of its contents and even donated money to it.
So with a cheery heart, when I came across the Wikipedia entry for the last Australian federal election and finding that it failed to mention at all the very strong impact in the campaign of the Internet, YouTube, social networking, Kevin07 etc. I thought I would add a few sentences (thinking myself somewhat of an expert in the area). So I add away only to find next day it's deleted, with a note saying it's opinion and needs editing. OK thinks I and edits it and posts again. Once more it's gone the next day. I wouldn't mind but the entry is already full of crap - i.e listing all the presenters of the tv coverage on election night - as though that's important in an encyclopedia.
So I won't obviously bother again. However the problem is that this is happening increasingly. Some self appointed editors see fit to demark a page of their interest or that they have created and disallow anything they feel like. The strength of Wikipedia it seems to me is that anyone can add and edit. So one person writes something, someone else edits, someone else adds some more etc. This is great as through many people working on an entry it becomes distilled and a better entry. However what we have now is a situation where someone writes something, and then some busybody deletes it, so no editing, no refining by others, it either is approved and stays or is gone.
This is particularly the case with Australian entries. For some 'cultural cringe' reasons Australian busybodies seem to crawl all over Australian entries, creating, deleting and generally worrying that Australia isn't being represented well enough. I can't think which other country would be so pathetically obsessed with what other people think of them. As though Wikipedia was the sole medium through which Australia is represented.
The upshot is, if you want to write anything new on Wikipedia about Australia, don't add to an entry, start a new one, or don't write about Australia, which is what I'll be doing.
So with a cheery heart, when I came across the Wikipedia entry for the last Australian federal election and finding that it failed to mention at all the very strong impact in the campaign of the Internet, YouTube, social networking, Kevin07 etc. I thought I would add a few sentences (thinking myself somewhat of an expert in the area). So I add away only to find next day it's deleted, with a note saying it's opinion and needs editing. OK thinks I and edits it and posts again. Once more it's gone the next day. I wouldn't mind but the entry is already full of crap - i.e listing all the presenters of the tv coverage on election night - as though that's important in an encyclopedia.
So I won't obviously bother again. However the problem is that this is happening increasingly. Some self appointed editors see fit to demark a page of their interest or that they have created and disallow anything they feel like. The strength of Wikipedia it seems to me is that anyone can add and edit. So one person writes something, someone else edits, someone else adds some more etc. This is great as through many people working on an entry it becomes distilled and a better entry. However what we have now is a situation where someone writes something, and then some busybody deletes it, so no editing, no refining by others, it either is approved and stays or is gone.
This is particularly the case with Australian entries. For some 'cultural cringe' reasons Australian busybodies seem to crawl all over Australian entries, creating, deleting and generally worrying that Australia isn't being represented well enough. I can't think which other country would be so pathetically obsessed with what other people think of them. As though Wikipedia was the sole medium through which Australia is represented.
The upshot is, if you want to write anything new on Wikipedia about Australia, don't add to an entry, start a new one, or don't write about Australia, which is what I'll be doing.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Election 2007
My view of how political parties used the Internet during the last federal election is at:
http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2007/documents/Election2007.pdf
http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2007/documents/Election2007.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)