Can you tell me everything about 4H?

[Selkie]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

It is your considered opinion that not eating meat wins every time in terms of lives spared. Other people also have carefully considered opinions that lead to a different conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree. It is impossible to separate ongoing environmental destruction from the equations of "lives spared". Significant reduction of the rain forest has incredible implications for animals on the species, as well as individual, level, and agriculture is the #1 reason for total clearance. I do think you have considered the impact of agriculture, I just don't agree with every conclusion you reach based on your consideration. Using monkeys to harvest coconuts is indeed common and goes back hundreds of years, but usually in a much less negative way (I don't have an issue with working animals). The outcry against the abusive owners is gaining attention and hopefully reducing that, but I haven't seen any super solid facts. 

Maybe you don't realize that it is appetite for meat that is destroying the rain forest?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/27/how-beef-demand-is-accelerating-amazons-deforestation-climate-peril/

Cattle ranchers in the Brazilian Amazon — the storied rainforest that produces oxygen for the world and modulates climate — are aggressively expanding their herds and willing to clear-cut the forest and burn what’s left to make way for pastures. As a result, they’ve become the single biggest driver of the Amazon’s deforestation, causing about 80 percent of it, according to the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

[katilac]

14 hours ago, Selkie said:

Maybe you don't realize that it is appetite for meat that is destroying the rain forest?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/27/how-beef-demand-is-accelerating-amazons-deforestation-climate-peril/

Cattle ranchers in the Brazilian Amazon — the storied rainforest that produces oxygen for the world and modulates climate — are aggressively expanding their herds and willing to clear-cut the forest and burn what’s left to make way for pastures. As a result, they’ve become the single biggest driver of the Amazon’s deforestation, causing about 80 percent of it, according to the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Raising meat is, of course, included under agriculture.

Numerous factors and appetites are contributing to the destruction of the rain forest globally. Your link is specific to the Brazilian rain forest, and clearly states that poor land management, corruption, pollution, and various illegal acts are significant reasons why Brazil has such a horrific track record - they could be raising beef with much less devastation. 

Orangutans, gibbons, and tigers are three species that are heavily affected by the palm oil industry in rain forests - but not Brazilian rain forests, because they don't live in that part of the world. Some life-saving medicines are derived from plants in rain forests in one very specific part of the world, others from completely different areas.  So a smaller percentage of rain forest being destroyed in a very specific area can have consequences that are utterly devastating. It would be great if we could break it down into a simple math of prohibiting (how?) the things that destroy the biggest percentage, but we all know life isn't simple. I mean, I'm sure the orangutans try to be happy about efforts to save the Brazilian rain forest, but they keep getting distracted by thoughts of their own extinction. 

And again, the point (to me) is that we all have to decide what fights we are able to fight, and what we think will make the biggest difference, and then do our best to follow through in all of our imperfect humanity. Keeping to the rain forest for a minute, if a person thinks that personally eating no meat is an important moral choice for themselves that will have a positive impact, that's great. But if a person chooses to eat meat, and even hunt some of their own, but is also involved in efforts to expose corruption, improve land management, and pressure governments and companies to do better? That's also great, and arguably has the potential for a much larger impact. 

Person A can choose to look at Person B and decide that they absolutely must lack empathy for animals, because they willingly eat them and even hunt them (or raise them as livestock). Person B can choose to look at Person A and think they are the ones who actually lack empathy for animals and the earth itself, because they choose to eat vegan and vegetarian options and don't give as much thought as Person B does to how these choices can be quite negative as well.  

It's complicated. Assuming the worst of others because they make different decisions than you do helps nothing, and makes it ever so much harder for people to actually work together and get things done. 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by katilac

[katilac]

That was a really long and possibly depressing post, so in this one I present an orangutan laughing at a magic trick: 

 

[Drama Llama]

Does 4 H actually force kids to raise animals?  We live in a pretty urban area and have allergies in the household.  I had thought about 4H robotics for one kid.  Can he just do robotics?

[Selkie]

5 hours ago, katilac said:

Raising meat is, of course, included under agriculture.

Numerous factors and appetites are contributing to the destruction of the rain forest globally. Your link is specific to the Brazilian rain forest, and clearly states that poor land management, corruption, pollution, and various illegal acts are significant reasons why Brazil has such a horrific track record - they could be raising beef with much less devastation. 

Orangutans, gibbons, and tigers are three species that are heavily affected by the palm oil industry in rain forests - but not Brazilian rain forests, because they don't live in that part of the world. Some life-saving medicines are derived from plants in rain forests in one very specific part of the world, others from completely different areas.  So a smaller percentage of rain forest being destroyed in a very specific area can have consequences that are utterly devastating. It would be great if we could break it down into a simple math of prohibiting (how?) the things that destroy the biggest percentage, but we all know life isn't simple. I mean, I'm sure the orangutans try to be happy about efforts to save the Brazilian rain forest, but they keep getting distracted by thoughts of their own extinction. 

And again, the point (to me) is that we all have to decide what fights we are able to fight, and what we think will make the biggest difference, and then do our best to follow through in all of our imperfect humanity. Keeping to the rain forest for a minute, if a person thinks that personally eating no meat is an important moral choice for themselves that will have a positive impact, that's great. But if a person chooses to eat meat, and even hunt some of their own, but is also involved in efforts to expose corruption, improve land management, and pressure governments and companies to do better? That's also great, and arguably has the potential for a much larger impact. 

Person A can choose to look at Person B and decide that they absolutely must lack empathy for animals, because they willingly eat them and even hunt them (or raise them as livestock). Person B can choose to look at Person A and think they are the ones who actually lack empathy for animals and the earth itself, because they choose to eat vegan and vegetarian options and don't give as much thought as Person B does to how these choices can be quite negative as well.  

It's complicated. Assuming the worst of others because they make different decisions than you do helps nothing, and makes it ever so much harder for people to actually work together and get things done. 

 

After all these years. I thought I had heard it all when it comes to critiques against veganism, but "vegans lack empathy for animals and the earth" is a new (and bizarre) one.😄

[Wheres Toto]

34 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Does 4 H actually force kids to raise animals?  We live in a pretty urban area and have allergies in the household.  I had thought about 4H robotics for one kid.  Can he just do robotics?

Nothing is required so a kid should be able to just do the project area they are interested in.  We don't do any animal projects at all, just the STEM/robotics clubs that I run.   My county only has horses and goats for big animal clubs, both do more agility, dressage type stuff, and small animal clubs that are entire pet based not livestock - rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets, etc. 

[Starr]

Our kids were in a group that did different arts, public speaking etc. No one raised animals. Another friend was in a group with horses . There are others that raise animals. Check with your local office and other 4-H folks to see what’s going on in your area. 

[heartlikealion]

2 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Does 4 H actually force kids to raise animals?  We live in a pretty urban area and have allergies in the household.  I had thought about 4H robotics for one kid.  Can he just do robotics?

No. We didn’t do anything with animals. Robotics was not offered here, though. Son did archery.  

[itsheresomewhere]

3 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Does 4 H actually force kids to raise animals?  We live in a pretty urban area and have allergies in the household.  I had thought about 4H robotics for one kid.  Can he just do robotics?

Ours offers a variety of clubs for everyone.  From animals to archery, arts ( sewing, painting, crafts, photography,etc) drama and piano lessons.  

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, itsheresomewhere said:

Ours offers a variety of clubs for everyone.  From animals to archery, arts ( sewing, painting, crafts, photography,etc) drama and piano lessons.  

I got confused by the talk of making kids raise animals for slaughter.  It’s not a required activity, just one of the choices?

[teachermom2834]

3 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I got confused by the talk of making kids raise animals for slaughter.  It’s not a required activity, just one of the choices?

Just a choice and not all clubs will even offer that choice. There are urban 4-H clubs where no one has farm animals.

My ds has been largely consumed by 4-H since junior high. We got our first animal (a 10 pound fluffy pandemic pup) a year ago. He mows the yard and that is about as close to agriculture as he gets. 

[itsheresomewhere]

1 hour ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I got confused by the talk of making kids raise animals for slaughter.  It’s not a required activity, just one of the choices?

Just a choice.  And not all animals are raised for slaughter.