The World-Cultural-Heritage

Africa and Latin America


Meat Industry

HUMANS ALWAYS HAVE PRIORITY OVER ANIMALS!


Ursula Sabisch, Lübeck. Germany


To all people!



Please let this writing be translated into many languages and be handed over to the corresponding people. The German-language document you may find here!



Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Sirs,

It is high time for a change of consciousness, preferably for  the people of rich nations who want to have meat on their plates every day.

Due to this greed for meat, whereby one should take a closer look at the word greed, people often have to starve or even die in the poorer countries of the world, because many of these poor countries, for example in Latin America, have decided to export meat, as the demand for meat has always been great and will always become greater.

The feed is often soya or wheat and many, many other foods that could have fed the people of the poorer countries but these foods are now being used for years to grow animals, especially the cattle.

This has been going on in this way for decades now, until now climate change comes up due to the specifically produced climate gases of the farm animals!

Otherwise, no one would have had to worry about this kind of export-import business!

As my person understood it from the news yesterday, 2 million animals are slaughtered every day. Whether this only applied to the FRG, one could find out retroactively.
A change of direction that kills several birds with one stone would be possible with the following suggestion:

Take the cheap meat out of the supermarkets. Split up the entire meat industry by creating several small slaughterhouses, which would allow many master butchers' businesses to be newly integrated.

In this way, animals could be professionally killed one by one in a natural way and overproduction could be better monitored. Not only overproduction, but also natural and healthy animal husbandry would be regulated by reducing the total number of animals worldwide.

The meat would be healthier, respectively healthy and fresh, the import of meat could be avoided; in return, the natives of the meat exporting countries could ultimately all live better through the food of the animal feed and the control for the used feed of the own agriculture would be given, which will certainly be noticeable in the state of health of many meat eaters.

However, it should be clear that the price of meat would have to be adjusted in line with reality and that meat would thus become much more expensive, with the health of the population of rich nations and the survival of the population of poorer countries remaining unaffordable!

The breaking up of an industrial chain does not have to create unemployment, quite the contrary; only renunciation must be practised equally on all sides and not just be a unilateral turn of change.

It must be added, however, that the meat industry, for example, should be made to work again in a short term in order to be able to end it once and for all, which would then have to waited and seen for regrettably, would have to be related to the cycle of life.

With regard to the climate-damaging gases, it is also important to mention that not only livestock, but increasingly the construction and dismantling of oil rigs in the North Sea, for example, are causing gases such as methane to escape from the seabed into the atmosphere, and if my person has understood correctly, in the Arctic/Antarctic, a lot of gases will also be able to escape freely into the atmosphere due to the melting of the ice on the seabed below the ice, which is probably partly regulated by nature, but a large proportion of which can probably not be changed by nature!


Note: What man can change or modify, he should implement in time, before implementation is prevented or made impossible by future catastrophes!


Yours sincerely

Ursula Sabisch  

Luebeck, 11 Jan. 2018