The internet is full of forums and soapboxes and there’s a lot of chaff hiding the grains of wheat. Just discovered an excellent website called ‘The Conversation’. In what way are ‘The Conversation’ articles and ensuing discussions, different to the multitude of other online material? What makes The Conversation special?
The content on The Conversation is written by acknowledged experts in academic and research fields – it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. Articles are topical, often presenting a controversial point of view and argued in a philosophically logical manner – so lively discussion results. Articles are edited by professional editors and any potential conflicts of interest are declared (although it must be said, everyone has personal bias to some degree, however objective they may believe they are). Articles are evidence rather than opinion based. The aim is obviously to encourage scientists and researchers to explain issues and points of view direct to the public, something that the scientific and academic communities have needed to improve. Interesting, thought provoking and well argued articles generate good quality conversation involving people who really do know what they’re talking about, well practiced in arguing a solid case based up by scientific findings (yes there is the odd animal rights extremist obsessive present on the forums, but objective debate rules the day). Launched in March 2011, the founding organisations involved in setting up ‘The Conversation’ are UTS, UWA, Melbourne and Monash universities and the CSIRO. Current sources of content are eight Australian universities – ANU, Adelaide University, Monash and Melbourne universities, Sydney and NSW universities, the university of Qld and university of WA.
I would encourage everyone who eats food to read Mike Archer’s ‘Conversation’ article titled: ‘Ordering the vegetarian meal: there’s more blood on your hands’. Mike’s written a very persuasive article backed up by scientific research – more effective than I’ve managed to do in the years spent blogging on about the same basic premise: vegetarians have a great impact on the planet than omnivores, because vegetarians/vegans are concentrating their food sources into one field, plant production, and cropping actually has a far greater impact on the natural environment (direct affect on native animals & microorganisms, and indirect affect on these species via the obliteration of native habitat). Basically, vegetarian smugness regarding their diet not having harmed animals, is delusional.
The resulting forum discussion is well worth reading also.
There are other very relevant and topical articles and subsequent forum discussions relating to agriculture on The Conversation, too. For example, ‘To feed the world, emissions must rise’, ‘Could your diet save the planet’, ‘From pests to profit, making kangaroos valuable to farmers’, ‘Time to modify the GM debate’, ‘What is the value of an animal’s life’ and a truckload of articles regarding Australia’s live export trade.
It is of course useful to participate in the many general public forums that exist, and discuss important issues which relate to agriculture and the environment. However ‘The Conversation’ presents a brilliant opportunity for grassroots primary producers to connect directly with university staff and research scientists, who are at the coal face influencing government and media opinion. The Conversation discussions are not to be missed.
Tags: Australian meat industry, Conservation and the environment, Image of the bush, Australian agriculture, Vegans & Vegos