It has taken humanity less than a million years to claw its way to the top of the food chain. Just because we’re number one it shouldn’t follow that we act like humanoid equivalents of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, madly devouring everything in our path and laying waste to the lesser creatures. And that includes cuttlefish.

Beasts from the deep…Joss Valdman in The Advertiser

This isn’t intended as some animal rights rant. Groups like PETA are off with the fairies. Vegetarianism seems a militant lifestyle choice when pursued as a matter of morality, rather than simply as a valid response to not liking the taste of meat, especially on the part of those who can see no inconsistency between rejecting flesh but happily wearing leather shoes.

That said, there are some members of the human race who don’t seem to have evolved far beyond the T-Rex in their hostility towards the more vulnerable and less intelligent members of the foodchain.

There’s a kind of guffawing indignation whenever some plucky species comes along and gets in the way of what’s loosely described as progress.

The green and golden bell frog was public enemy number one in Sydney in the late 1990s when it appeared to be the only species in Australia which thought the Olympic Games shouldn’t go ahead. By any measure the green and golden bell frog is a low-rent creature. Despite having access to the majestic mangrove system of the Lower North Shore this mangy little amphibian opts instead for rough trade, living in large numbers living in a scunge-filled brickpit smack bang in the middle of what’s now Sydney Olympic Park. On account of its questionable lifestyle choices this poor frog endured sustained teasing from the sports-loving masses who said maybe the pit should just be cemented in so we could let the games begin. Happily a compromise was reached and the green and golden bell frog not only survived but became a bit of a star at the games, lending its likeness to the logo for the Olympic Park Authority.

Other species have had more success in actually stopping major projects in their tracks. There’s a legless lizard in the ACT – possibly legless after a big night at Mooseheads in Civic – which lives at the end of the Gunghalin Expressway and has successfully thwarted the full extension of the road.

A couple of parrots have also got the anti-development runs on the board. Peter Garrett closed a timber mill near Deniliquin because the logging of river red gums was destroying the habitat of the endangered green leek parrot. The decision cost 1000 jobs. Even the non-tree-hugging Howard Government acted to save another cockie, the orange-bellied parrot, ruling in 2004 that a Victorian wind farm could not proceed for fear the birds would be sliced up by the turbines.

All of these decisions were met with derision and even anger by the develop-at-all costs crowd. It’s also worth noting that the media love these stories and habitually give them the has-the-whole-world-gone-mad treatment. The uglier or more comical the creature the greater the ridicule it faces.

This is where the giant cuttlefish now finds itself. This majestic cephalopod is threatening to stop the construction of an explosives factory at Port Bonython on South Australia’s Spencer Gulf. The $350 million project would create 400 jobs in the construction phase and 80 ongoing jobs. Environmentalists fear it could also destroy the habitat of the giant cuttlefish. 

Being a fatter version of a squid, it’s unlikely to attract the same level of public sympathy as the orangutans of the Sumatran jungle or the doe-eyed baby seals of Canada. South Australia’s Minister for Mines and Energy Tom Koutsantonis is strongly backing the construction of the explosives plant but claims that he doesn’t want to do anything to harm the cuttlefish. I really like Tom but I reckon his idea of preserving cuttlefish probably involves olive oil, bay leaves and vinegar.

While Koutsantonis is at least claiming that he wants consideration for the cuttlefish, others are taking a much tougher line. My esteemed colleague Greg Kelton wrote on these pages this week that the cuttlefish stand-off showed South Australians were a pack of pedants and Nimbys who could never get anything done.

“Naturally there had to be some obscure species of fish at the top of the Gulf which the mob of whingers could seize on,” he wrote.

At the risk of being cast as one of the whingers, I reckon it would be a terrific shame if the cuttlefish were cast aside in the name of progress. Equally, the people of Whyalla have every right to ask whether their town and its environs are being used as a dumping ground for heavy industries which city people would never tolerate. It’s the same phenomenon we have seen in Sydney over the years where a suburb such as Kurnell becomes the venue for desalination plants and anything else that the leafy inner suburbs would rail against.

There have been some mildly amusing claims from the environmental lobby that the giant cuttlefish is such an untapped tourism drawcard that SA could actually make more money by facilitating cuttlefish-related holidays than it would from making explosives. Who knows, they may be right. And SA: The Cuttlefish State would make a terrific numberplate.

68 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Pete says:

      12:53pm | 08/04/11

      PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:58pm | 08/04/11

      Just curious, how many species of fauna and flora were destroyed when we built Sydney and Melbourne?

      Maybe we should bulldoze them and re-vegetate?

    • Catalytic says:

      08:28pm | 08/04/11

      @ J B1,The vegetables were shipped to Victoria where they established the trade unions,to this day know globally as the biggest vege patch in the southern hemisphere but gm techniques have rendered them tasteless and of a poor quality

    • iansand says:

      01:08pm | 08/04/11

      Is Erick a cuttlefish?  I’m confused.

    • Seanr says:

      01:24pm | 08/04/11

      Is Erick, James Arvanitikas’ alter ego?

    • iansand says:

      03:03pm | 08/04/11

      I don’t know, but they didn’t publish my contribution suggesting that Erick was a staff member.  I smell a conspiracy.

    • Dan says:

      04:42pm | 08/04/11

      For those that come here (like I did) before reading James and Erick’s online exchange, you need to read the articles a couple down the page to understand iansand’s joke.

      Well actually you just need to read the comments - the articles themselves are pretty much a complete w@nk but the comments are pure 24 carat gold.

    • stephen says:

      05:03pm | 08/04/11

      I don’t think he is.
      There was names beginning with g, w, and d.
      Hopeless they were, dumb, and an effigy.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:24pm | 08/04/11

      “My esteemed colleague Greg Kelton wrote on these pages this week that the cuttlefish stand-off showed South Australians were a pack of pedants and Nimbys who could never get anything done.”

      It read to me as if he pretty much implied that the endless noise from special interest minority groups is the opinion of everyone in SA. 
      You know, those groups that guys like him give a soapbox to whenever you need a dial-a-quote to find controversy or put so called ‘balance’ into an article giving them the attention they don’t deserve, and then report it as if it’s the opinion of anyone but a handful of idealistic twits.  Anything to justify a headline that screams “Outrage” I suppose.

    • Octavius says:

      01:37pm | 08/04/11

      I for one welcome our new Cuttlefish overlords

    • dancan says:

      02:27pm | 08/04/11

      Octavius, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our viewers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?

    • James1 says:

      04:01pm | 08/04/11

      My cat’s breath smells like catfood.

    • Levi says:

      06:33pm | 08/04/11

      You know what to do now Ralphy? Burn them! Burn them all!

    • Elphaba says:

      01:38pm | 08/04/11

      “Vegetarianism seems a militant lifestyle choice when pursued as a matter of morality, rather than simply as a valid response to not liking the taste of meat”

      Yes.  And those that bang on about how irresponsible everyone else is are annoying.  And I am very annoyed at people who won’t eat sheep or cows, but think that eating fish makes them a harmonious organism with the earth.  Show me that fish don’t have any feelings.

      Good post Penbo.  There needs to be some consistency in the animal rights world.

    • Seanr says:

      01:47pm | 08/04/11

      Agreed, what about all the innocent living vegetables and fruit slaughtered every year…why won’t someone think of the fruit…why..

    • Elphaba says:

      02:06pm | 08/04/11

      In fact, to be truly at one with the Earth, we should be living on sunshine and that’s it.

    • #justsaying says:

      02:36pm | 08/04/11

      I agree that it does seem a bit silly to eat some animals, but not all animals. And I also agree that people moralizing to others when they eat some but not all is incredibly annoying. However, I think there is a legitimate argument to be drawn from the idea that avoiding the slaughter (and poor treatment whilst alive) of some animals is better than avoiding the slaughter and poor treatment of NO animals.

      (Also, I am a vegetarian who wears leather boots. I bought all of my leather shoes from vintage stores BEFORE I started being a vegetarian. And while I often get funny looks, if my shoes and shopping decisions are no longer contributing to the slaughter of animals I can wear whatever shoes I like).

    • Elphaba says:

      03:12pm | 08/04/11

      @#justsaying, I don’t know, it seems to me that if you’re a vego for moral reasons, then why eat/wear *any* animals? 

      If you’re a vego for ‘I don’t like the taste’ reasons, then yeah, you might be choosier about what meat you eat, but at least you’re not thinking about the things you may or not be doing for the planet - it’s just like not liking any other food. But if the decision is purely morally driven, then the eating of some animals and not others seems… well, you know what word I’m going to use, starts with ‘H’.

      I do’t object to morally driven vegetarians.  In fact, I think on the whole, vegos receive a whole lot of crap most of the time and if they’re not bothering anyone and are upfront about being one when it’s appropriate without making a big deal, they should be left alone to do what they want.  But if you’re going to do it morally, go all the way.  Meat is meat, and all it’s associated secondary products like dairy and eggs.

    • bobw says:

      03:45pm | 08/04/11

      @Elphaba:  Is commitment to a principle invalid unless absolute?

    • #justsaying says:

      03:53pm | 08/04/11

      @Elphaba I conceded that I get how it can be seen as hypocritical - and for the record, I don’t eat any meat or dairy or eggs - but my point is more that if you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons, then you believe that all animal lives have value. And if you believe that all lives have value, then ‘saving’ some lives (but not eating say, chicken / pork / lamb / beef, but still eating seafood) is better than ‘saving’ no lives (by eating all kinds of meat).

      Alternatively, if a person minimises the amount of meat they eat for environmental reasons (by again, not eating beef / lamb / chicken / pork) but still eats seafood, ANY reduction in environment damage is better than NO reduction.

      So while I understand how it might be seen as some to be hypocritical, I think that it’s still justifiable and somewhat reasonable.

    • Elphaba says:

      04:16pm | 08/04/11

      @bobw, #justsaying, when the principle is as cut and dried as this, yes, I do find it somewhat invalid - if the person is preaching about how much good they are doing.  We’re not talking about ‘all’ principles, we’re talking about this specific one.

      If you’re a vegetarian or vegan or whatever for a moral reason (note, I’m am excusing vegetarian for taste reasons because… well, it’s taste, and not cut and dried), then you must be against the eating of all animals.  Vegetarianism for moral reasons implies that you think that the animals are a higher being beyond an animal, and as such, deserve to run free and not be eaten.  You can’t then eat fish and say ‘I’m a vegetarian but…” 

      Ad by the way, no one has told me why fish get the short end of the stick.  Is it the way they look?  Is it because everyone believes that fallacy of fish having a three second memory?

      I think what people who do do this don’t get to do, is tell other people what to do with their lives - and that’s the crux of my beef (‘scuse the pun) with it.  You want to be the pick and choose moral vegetarian, that’s fine, but you don’t get to toot on about how much good you’re doing for the environment.  That’s all.

    • The Original Oz says:

      04:32pm | 08/04/11

      If we were not meant to eat animals they wouldn’t be made of meat

    • mike j says:

      07:15pm | 08/04/11

      Fish get the short end of the stick, Elphaba? How about invertebrates? I haven’t known many vegetarian girls who could live in harmony with the spider in their room. Or bacteria and other microorganisms? The genocides we perpetrate on a daily basis against peaceful colonies of these so-called ‘germs’ are epic in scope. Moral vegetarianism is entirely arbitrary.

      #justsaying: “ANY reduction in environment damage is better than NO reduction”. For some reason you are linking environmental damage with the production of meat, rather than agriculture in general. By extension of your argument, animals are bad for the environment and should be eradicated.

    • People for Erick says:

      01:40pm | 08/04/11

      What does Erick have to say about this matter?

    • Erick says:

      09:46am | 09/04/11

      Since you asked ... I am somewhat torn. As an occasional greenie, I hate to see the destruction of natural sites, and especially the extinction of species (except for some, such as smallpox and mosquitoes. Yes, I’m human-biased).

      However, I also despise the deep-green attitude that humans are an offence against Nature, and that we should never build anything anywhere, ever. If humans are totally against Nature, why did Nature create humans in the first place? The Deep Green position is naive and anti-Nature.

      Then, of course, this is an explosives factory. Explosives! What could be more awesome than that? For this reason alone it should be built.

      But, for the sake of the cuttlefish, I ask: Why can’t this factory be built somewhere else, where it wouldn’t threaten a species? Alternately, why can’t this factory be built in such a way that it doesn’t harm the species in question? These questions need to be addressed.

    • Lord Cavendish says:

      01:49pm | 08/04/11

      We aristocratic South Australians refuse to despoil our pristine state for mere vulgar profit. We are entitled to and receive additional GST as tribute from the fundamental peasants of the eastern states whom we consider with the most slovenly marine invertebrates.

    • Chris says:

      08:44am | 09/04/11

      Hahaha. You’re joking right!
      It was ruined when you lot started living there. The place is a dump full of snobby wankers who think their crap wine industry is actually world class and illiterate nuffies who constantly whinge because they you can’t even hold on to a silly car race.
      Biggest mistake of my life was living there for 8 years. 8 years I could have been experiencing a better life here in Victoria.

    • Cows process paddock for human consumption says:

      02:11pm | 08/04/11

      Cuttle fish could benefit from a small re-branding.  Brand cuttlefish may be ugly and unlikable, but Cutiefish are lovable and who wouldn’t want to protect the little sweeties.

    • michael j says:

      02:17pm | 08/04/11

      AS our beloved Premier Bligh spent up to a billion dollars 6/800,000,000 mill last count on a dam site with plans that no doubt changed every week to keep Minster Garett happy, a monster of the fresh water pond the LUNGFISH poped   up his head and all bets were off,the lungfish lives in fresh water,now i suppose that this new dam was going to hold fresh water like all the other dams in SE QLD,and lungfish seem quite happy living in them,a mate of mine caught one a few years ago when fishing,put up a real good fight but shit eating he reckons,,but now the new dam out near beaudesert is full about 5 years ahead of time thanks to the summer rains we wont need another dam for ten years,,,,is there any chance SA be interested in buying a Billion dollar lungfish if the explosive factory don’t go ahead

    • mw says:

      02:59pm | 08/04/11

      That was also a proposal to build a dam on the most fertile/productive farming land in the entire country… The proposal never made any sense to begin with…

    • michael j says:

      08:03pm | 08/04/11

      YES a bit like those FRACKING gas fields they are trying to shove down our throat,,if the dam don’t work let the water out any-time,,,What do you do with millions of tons of SALT left over from a poisoned Artesian water basin,,,,

    • bella starkey says:

      02:27pm | 08/04/11

      H8 cuttle fish.

      Death to all the cephalopods

    • john says:

      02:56pm | 08/04/11

      Please don’t embarrass yourself by mimicking words of a radical islamist, with “death to all the {insert anything your can think of here}”.

      Even tongue in cheek im certain you are better than that.

    • Adam says:

      02:56pm | 08/04/11

      heart all cephalopods


      if served salt and pepper style

    • mw says:

      02:56pm | 08/04/11

      It is worth noting that location in question is a protected marine park and is actually the largest know cuttlefish breeding ground in the world. It is already internationally recognised as a tourist destination by scuba divers…

      It is also worth noting that within the bounds of the marine park there is already a steel mill and a natural gas refinery…

    • MarkO says:

      03:15pm | 08/04/11

      Sigh. David P. leads off with the usual swipe at persons who give a bit of thought to the food they eat- including the food from the flesh of animals.  Some clarification: - a “vegan” does not partake of the produce of animals at all. A “vegetarian” such as myself does not eat the flesh or product of an animal killed for that purpose - solely so that you can eat it. A vegetarian often does eat the produce of living animals, however, eg chicken eggs. Those of you who choose to eat only certain bits of dead animals eg fish or chicken breast are not vegetarians. You are Omnivores who are very choosy about the animal flesh that you eat (and good for you) .

      As for the usual furphy about my shoes (yes my office shoes are leather), the animals the hide came from were indeed dead.  So in this case I am using the product of an animal that is not living -certainly-  but also was not killed soley that I might wear its hide. It was killed for other reasons, quite possibly because someone else ate it.

      There are all kinds of grey and debatable areas here of course but I think we can be reasonably clear about one thing: a person who desires a little less death in the world, such as a vegetarian, is not particularly deserving of the lable “militant”.

    • BK says:

      04:50pm | 08/04/11

      Fortunately for me, the steak in my fridge for dinner tonight came from an animal that was already dead - someone else had killed it to make themselves a pair of shoes!

    • Elphaba says:

      04:57pm | 08/04/11

      @BK, gold!

    • Lisa H. says:

      11:01pm | 08/04/11

      I agree with you MarkO. but be careful chatting with the meat-eaters.

      It’s amazing how self-serving and one-eyed people can be when placed in the company of someone who eats a little differently from themselves!

      All their shades of grey and nuances of thought go out the window.

      Better call it your ‘religion’, hey, to get some understanding @ thepunch.

      What’s wrong Elphaba? A vego turn you down?

    • Elphaba says:

      09:40am | 09/04/11

      @Lisa H.

      No. 

      I’m trying to further my understanding of moral vegetarianism by asking questions about why things like eating fish but not eating cows is ok, and why wearing leather shoes is ok, etc etc.

      I like to learn and understand new things.  if you weren’t so busy patting yourself on the back for thinking about coming up with lame zingers you would see that.

    • Jason Todd says:

      10:25am | 09/04/11

      I take your point Lisa, but my problem with some vegetarians\vegans and some religious folk is the same. I have no problem with what you choose to eat or not eat or worship, as long as you grant me the same right. I personally couldn’t care less if you choose to eat nothing but raw lettuce, lovingly plucked off a west facing slope between the hours of 8 and 11 am. That is your right. However, if you try to make me feel bad, preach to me that I should follow your example, or hold yourself up as better than everyone else who does not partake of your chosen foods, then I am going to develop an issue with it.

      I do like ask questions about the motives vegetarians and vegans though, in much the same way I will question the religious, because I am interested in the reason people elect to follow a particular path. Talk to enough people, and you learn pretty quickly who is in it for reasons they believe in and who is in it just for appearances.

    • Lisa H. says:

      03:11pm | 09/04/11

      Elphaba, why is it okay to eat cows in our culture, but not dogs? why not eat cats? i think your argument that people should eat ‘all’ meats to please you (when you mean all currently culturally accepted meats) is silly. Culture is arbitrary in any case. Would you eat apes? We eat pigs, happily, when it is likely they are more intelligent than dogs.

      Ethicists, animal rights activists, environmentalists - even your own doctor - would probably agree that most people should cut down or limit meat eating. Choosing some meats over others eg white over red is probably a good way to start.

      Besides all this, wouldn’t you agree that some animals are ‘higher order’ than others? If you do agree with this concept, perhaps you might feel that other people might also have an opinion that some animals - ‘lower order animals’ - are more suitable as a food source than others. The intelligence of pigs is the reason I avoid eating pigs. My sympathy for cows - what I perceive as their individual personalities and their social interactions - is the reason I don’t eat cows. That and the doctor prefers me not to.

      I can wear leather shoes though - there are plenty of cow-eaters out there. My not eating cows is not going to change the overall popularity of cows as food.

      I’m not sure vegetarians, or even those that choose to eat some meats occasionally rather than ‘all’ meats all the time, really need to meet with your approval to do as they please. Your approach to vegetarian choices (‘all or nothing’) is less cohesive than theirs.

    • Lisa H. says:

      03:23pm | 09/04/11

      @Jason…  I can’t see vegetarians picketing butchers or demanding changes to cultural habits… the reality is that vegetarianism is reflected in some religions, but basically it’s a human response to a variety of human ethical situations.
      If your vego friends are preachy and annoying, perhaps you just need to find some other vegie friends.
      Or, stop pestering them with intrusive, personal questions, haha

    • Elphaba says:

      05:58pm | 09/04/11

      @Lisa H.

      You’re twisting my words because you can’t answer my questions.  That’s cool.  I am simply trying to further my understanding.

      Please explain to me this viewing of some animals as being of a higher order than others, and why particularly, fish are viewed as a lower form of animal.

      Please explain to me why instead of taking a moral stand against the wearing of leather, it is appropriate to wear leather shoes if you are a moral vegetarian, given that there are probably specific sections of farming related to marketable leather production.

      Perhaps it is a cultural thing?  We view the eating of cats and dogs to be unacceptable, however it is accepted over in SE Asia.

      Oh… and with regards to vegetarianism for other reasons, such as not like the taste, or it not agreeing with you diet-wise, I know, have experienced, and do experience, on a daily basis, more than you know. Assumptions are the mother of all f*ckups, remember.  I’m just trying to understand the other side.  If your reasoning wasn’t so flimy, and your convictions so shaky, you wouldn’t object to probing questions.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:03pm | 10/04/11

      You know elphaba, I don’t owe you an explanation for the foods I choose to eat, particularly as you don’t seem the type to lie awake nights worrying about the single-cell animals you are accidentally breathing in.

      At the end of the day, ‘I don’t like it’, and i I don’t want to’ are as good as arguments as any. You seem merely inflammatory, and not genuinely interested in the discussion in any case.

      And, YES, is a cultural thing. You are merely upset and demanding people justify choices that go against the food values you were taught as a child.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:25pm | 10/04/11

      Oh, and I don’t doubt that some animals are farmed purely for their skin. As I don’t go much for crocodile or ostrich handbags, that is not really a problem in my daily life. As these marginal industries are not highly intensive, it is likely they kill their animals in a way that is not overly automated. As long as they are not cruel or tortuous to the the animals living or dead, well, again, it’s not a problem to me. Each animal, each habitat, each animal-based industry, has its own parametres.

      As the daughter of a cattle farmer, I never once heard my parents or theirn friends discuss leather quality… in a life time of sitting around a table. That’s proof enough for me that in Australia, the market for cows is determined by the demand for meat. 

      Shades of grey, remember? Sliding scales of harm? Minimising footprints… you get the concept. It can never be black and white.

      It’s the same with eating fish. I care about the gross overfishing of our natural fisheries, and pollution of same. I prefer to serve my family farmed fish, occasionally, because we are told that fish is nutritionally important to growing chidren.

      Basically my family’s eating habits are personal, motivated by my desire for the wellbeing of my family, within the context of my understanding of the world around me. My food choices are not ‘political stands’ to be sneered at by you.

      You will notice that you brought this discussion to me. I have not demanded you justify your own personal choices in food.

      We are humans, our civilisation has grown on the use of the world and animals around us. The next level of social evolution means using our increasing technology to be more considerate not just of other races and the opposite gender, but other species too.

      anyway, I fear I am dominating the postings on this topic, so will end here. All the best to you.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:09pm | 10/04/11

      Lisa H, you should be a politician.  Your ability to evade a simple question is second to none.  I’m not trying to be inflammatory.  I haven’t called you names, and I haven’t been rude to you.  I am just attempting to further my understanding.

      I should have realised that is was a mistake to ask someone for clarification on an issue that they themselves cannot understand.  My bad.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

    • Syl says:

      04:58pm | 11/04/11

      Hah reading this thread made me laugh out loud at work.

      In summary

      Marko
      Underhanded swipe at meat eaters (give a bit of thought to the food they eat), while complaining about underhanded swipes at vegetarians (Oh, the irony).

      Lisa:
      OMG Meat eaters don’t understand and don’t want to.

      Elphaba
      Actually Im interested in learning more.  But there are some things I see as inconsistencies in the philiosophy of some vegos.  Do you care to answer them?

      Lisa
      No <unrelated rant>

      Elphaba
      Oh…. I don’t fully understand what you mean.  Could you please explain or answer these questions.

      Lisa
      No, you’re all the same, you dont care about me (fingers in ears) LA LA LA

      Elphaba
      Sigh….

    • Levi says:

      03:37pm | 08/04/11

      Don’t forget that Troglofauna that delayed a billion dollar iron ore project in the Pilbara for 2 years at Mesa A

    • Pauline Clayton says:

      04:05pm | 08/04/11

      It is highly questionable if those determined to save a cepalopod/lungfish/parrot care less about the creature.
      In Maleny those who were opposed to Woolworth’s trotted out the platypus. The fact said platypus had survived decades of arsenic and other environmentally unfriendly run-off from the site - a cattleyard; and had also survived drums of creosote used to protect the stumps of the bridge was never mentioned.
      Yes, the supermarket was constructed, the EPA officers who carried out the environmental checks and balances declared this development as an example of sensitive planning and would be used as a template for future creekside development.
      And the platypus family are still happily frolickying in the Obi, right below the supermarket.
      As MW alluded the lungfish we all know was a political out for what was a bad political decision to construct the Traveston Dam in a non-Labor held seat.

    • iansand says:

      04:52pm | 08/04/11

      But is anyone shopping at the supermarket yet?

    • Pauline Clayton says:

      01:17pm | 09/04/11

      Toanswer Ianand: Yes, and not only does the scary Woolies supermarket do a brisk trade, it employs 96 locals, and the only other supermarket in town the IGA is still doing well.
      Also mother’s picking up their children from the school can now park safety in the supermarket to do so.

    • Geoff Russell says:

      04:27pm | 08/04/11

      Truth is stranger than fiction applies particularly to cuttle fish ... absolutely
      amazing animals ... probably more brain power, and definitely more
      charm and charisma than the primitive Koutsantonis.  I know which species
      I’d prefer to save if push came to shove:

      http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2695601.htm

    • stephen says:

      04:32pm | 08/04/11

      28 comments for cuttlefish, heh ?
      Should have made it for just fish.

    • Dan says:

      04:44pm | 08/04/11

      Whats going on Penbo - trying to pick up a hippie or something?

      Its OK I get it, I love the ‘free spirits’ too. I remember this one time telling a girl all about my organic vegetable garden… anyway good luck, and take precautions.

    • ;o) says:

      05:39pm | 08/04/11

      Vegetarianism = an ancient word for those that could not HUNT or FISH

    • All says:

      05:57pm | 08/04/11

      BHP has no right constructing their desal plant at the top end of a gulf that has very little water turn over. A reroute and an extra 50 km and diversion to the Australian Bight would dump the salt by product into deep water with effective dispersal. To dump the unknown quantities of salt in virtual pond will soon claim sealife victims. Unfortunately the Rann Govt will not stand up to BHP, it does not want to ruffle their feathers and risk investment. Donations before environment is their priority. Also it would be interesting to tally up the latest number of Rann staffers who have now transfered to BHP media and allied positions. Good to have your own people on the inside to shove things the ALP way. Just adds to the list of dodgy decisions allowing mining companies with party connections, via insiders or lobby groups, into sensitive areas by Rann. No I am not a greeny just someone concerned with the rampant disregard for the environment from BHP and the SA ALP.

    • Daniel says:

      05:57pm | 08/04/11

      Pembo I thought you were gonna write more untrue garbage about the Greens…

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:16pm | 08/04/11

      Soylent Green is the future…..

    • stephen says:

      05:38pm | 09/04/11

      Saw that movie I think at about ‘75.
      Won’t happen. Biscuits ? Nah.
      More like Glaxo Smith Kline.

    • Lisa H. says:

      10:38pm | 08/04/11

      Leather and (some) furs are a byproduct of meat production. I don’t see any philosophical problem with being vegetarian and wearing leather or (some) furs. Animals that were going to be killed anyway for meat or pest control SHOULD be used in their entirety. Choosing vegetarianism is an ethical choice in the modern context.

      Aside from this point, the more we learn about animals, the more we discover the intricacies of their social systems, their ‘view’ on the world. The trained dolphins at seaworld can concentrate for much longer than my four-year-old son. Elephants, pigs and perhaps even cuttlefish are also worthy of respect because they show a worthwhile intelligence.

      First we had racial equality, and gender equality. In a world that is groaning under the greatest environmental imbalance of all - the excess number of humans - perhaps the next great ‘ism’ movement is respect for other species of animal life.

    • BK says:

      12:32am | 09/04/11

      Believing that leather is nothing more than a byproduct of meat production is just choosing an answer that helps ease a guilty conscience.

      http://www.idausa.org/facts/leatherfacts.html

      Be a moral vegetarian if you wish, but don’t gloss over the elements that might otherwise be an inconvenience.

    • Lisa H. says:

      03:17pm | 09/04/11

      I’m sorry BK, but you read to me like an apolegetic for the meat trade.
      Even if the entire population stopped wearing leather tomorrow, the cows would still be killed for their meat, and the skins thrown away.
      If leather was the central focus of cow growing farmers, branding would not have developed as the traditional method of marking their stock.
      The focus of farmers is on the quality of the meat… surely, we can all agree on that.

      I agree that tanneries can cause environmental damage… but I personally thing that plastics manufacture is also a cause for concern.

      The use of the entire animal is ethically attractive to me. As the daughter of a cattle farmer, I know the animal would have been killed anyway, as the major focus from the faring point of view is on meat production.

    • Josef says:

      03:44am | 09/04/11

      Ah, the never ending hunt for vegetarian inconstancy…the hunt that inevitably degrades from “I bet you wear leather” to “I bet you step on ants”.

      The underlying logic being that if you cause some indirect suffering you may as well cause a whole heap of direct suffering; lest you be an animal rights hypocrite in the eyes of the mighty warrior hunters of shrink wrapped juvenile animals.

      Seriously. If you want to go down the path of moral inconsistency we end up at the messy road of eating cats, dogs and ultimately soylent green. Why stop at cows, lambs and fish, oh mighty hunter?

      Stick to “if god didn’t want us to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat”. Indifference is better than faulty logic.

      If you want to eat meat go for it. Just don’t pretend that causing more suffering is in any way a morally superior stand to causing less.

    • Ruby says:

      07:33am | 09/04/11

      +1

      I find the vast majority of meat-eaters I socialise with have no problem with people having different eating habits like vegetarians or vegans, and vice versa. It is a personal choice. I think people like David who have a problem with other people being vegetarian, and feel the need to publicly attack them, just feel threatened by them and attack them to try to justify their own eating habits that they obviously feel deeply guilty about. They are too selfish to change their lifestyles in even the slightest way in order to embrace a healthier, more environmentally friendly and ethical alternative, and don’t want to be reminded of that.

    • James In Footscray says:

      08:09am | 09/04/11

      Yes, ‘militant’ describes vegetarians perfectly. You can’t even get near a butcher these days without being attacked.

    • stephen says:

      10:33pm | 10/04/11

      Next time you have jew on this site Penberthy i wanna have a talk to them.
      They’ve tried setting me up as paedaphile, terrorist, thief, (not entirely innocent) and anti-semite.
      I have more pull than you think I have,.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter