Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Readers Write: Eating Meat, Mindfully

By Alex Alper, AlterNet. Posted December 27, 2005.


A recent AlterNet article about the politics of eating free-range meat sparked a hearty debate among readers -- both vegetarians and carnivores alike.
Advertisement

Matthew Miller's article of Nov. 30, Eating Meat, Mindfully, spawned a colorful, insightful and, at times, heated debate among AlterNet readers about the ethics of eating meat.

Passionate responses to Miller's advocacy of the consumption of free-range, locally raised meat covered a range of topics -- from revolutionary land reform to eating "crunchy little toes" -- throughout the 200-plus user comments.

One of the early disputes brought up by readers was the question of whether there is such a thing as a "mindful" way to eat meat when it is, by many accounts, immoral, unnecessary and wasteful. Keith began, "Mindfully. Well as long as that's the most important criterion, I guess we can do just about anything. I mean, hey, what's Thanksgiving without a baby, crunchy little toes and all?"

Doubtom believes morality shouldn't factor into eating. "Only because of man's monstrous ego does he think he can or should rise above his station as an animal. He introduces artificial constraints called morals and hopes that this will miraculously change the order of nature. He is also silly and pretentious."

Ilbertine, quoting poet Robert Burns, challenges that it is precisely humans' ability for reflection and self-restraint that obligates us to follow moral standards: "The eagle from his cliffy brow/ Marking out his prey below/ In his breast no pity dwells/ Strong necessity compels/ But man to whom alone is given/ A ray direct from pitying heaven/ Glories in his heart humane/ And creatures for his pleasure slain.' Ilbertine goes on: "The carnivores must kill or die -- we DON'T. We are uniquely capable of reflecting morally on our practices."

But Mysticpal wonders, if morality is the principal rationale of vegetarianism, then how do vegetarians account for the moral contradictions inherent in almost all food production? "Ever stop to think how many billions of insects died in the production of the rice, grain, fruit and vegetables you alone have eaten in the past few years? Even if it was all organic (unlikely), the plowing, weeding, harvesting, etc. Insects feel pain too."

To counter this point, Mav argued that the inevitability of some sort of transgression does not justify discarding one's ethics altogether. "Of course no one can live completely cruelty free, but we should all of course try to live [as] cruelty free as possible. Just because you can't save all the kids in a burning nursery doesn't mean you should just walk away."

Still, fellow vegetarian Lydia Cypher argues that it's setting the veggie movement behind to focus only on morality as a justification: "Vegetarian advocates need to get real about the history of life on earth, which has clearly evolved along omnivorous [sic] lines, instead of dreaming of a utopian ideal that just is not true, no matter how much you want it to be. Do I care about the lives of animals used for food? Absolutely! But we'll make a lot more progress in promoting vegetarianism with intelligent discussion and delicious, readily-available vegetarian cuisine than with rude, disrespectful, sarcastic attacks on meat eaters."

Reader Keith feels that many meat eaters are not just immoral, but hypocritical. "It's amusing to me that, at the end of movies, they assure us that 'no animals were harmed in the production,' so everyone can feel warm and fuzzy as they file out on their way to McDonald's. Or when a bunch of people were protesting horse abattoir, furious that somebody was butchering horses, but somehow feeling cows were different."

But Doubtom insists that man is an animal -- therefore, eating meat is natural: "The sharp pointy [teeth] are called canines. Their purpose is for tearing into meat, and if nothing else, they should remind you of your close ties to the animal world, where eating each other is considered routine as well as inevitable." Similarly, Taxidave challenges: "Take a trip to the Serengeti and tell a few lions to 'put down that antelope, you don't have to eat it.'"


Digg!

Alex Alper is an editorial intern at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How about a simple Thank you
Posted by: owlbear1 on Dec 27, 2005 2:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To whatever it is you decide to consume to live.

Animal life, plant life, and your life.

ALL of it will be returning from whence it came in due time...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How about a simple Thank you Posted by: cyberfactotum
Eating stuff
Posted by: mazur on Dec 27, 2005 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always wonder how vegetarians feel about eating plants. They are alive too, you know, and even though they have no nervous system they still feel things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ating stuff Posted by: bl
» RE: ating stuff Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Eating stuff Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Eating stuff Posted by: mazur
» RE: ating stuff Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: ating stuff Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» RE: ating stuff Posted by: jfreed
» RE: ating stuff Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Eating stuff Posted by: Xynyx
The Efficiency of Eating Meat
Posted by: worksg on Dec 27, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cows, sheep and goats have been raised for meat for over 10,000 years. For all but the last 100 years or so these ruminants grazed on grass and weeds that have no food value to humans and produced high-quality animal protein. No tilling, fertilizers, insecticides or herbicides were necessary. Their manure improved the soil quality of the pasture land each year. In some countries this is still the norm.

Modern US confinement farms are inefficient and destructive to the environment and the soil. In them animals are fed "meat byproducts", and grain and hay produced by intensive tillage using petroleum-derived fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides, plus growth hormones and antibiotics. This system has much to dislike, but its faults come from the idiosyncracies of our economy and are not inherent in meat production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it just me....
Posted by: Jarnsaxa on Dec 27, 2005 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or did the sampling of comments chosen predominately reflect the Vegetarian point-of-view?

Just asking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it just me.... Posted by: jwg
» RE: Is it just me.... Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» RE: Is it just me.... Posted by: Jarnsaxa
Carnivores ?
Posted by: Jimbo on Dec 27, 2005 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans are obviously evolved ruminants but our technological innovations( i.e. knives and forkes) have bypassed the need to grow large canines and claws. There is nothing wrong with a species altering its eating habits. Not all modern day predators were such at the beginning of time. They opportunistically chose hunting and accordingly evolved traits to better suit them. So, I dont want to hear the lame excuse that lions and eagles have no other choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: Lizard
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: johnc271
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: Lizard
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: johnc271
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: Lizard
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Carnivores ? Posted by: rara_avis
Field trips
Posted by: alternetleslie on Dec 27, 2005 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't children get to go on field trips to the slaughter houses? Read Fast Food Nation. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The rules for slaughtering animals in the Bible insisted on quick, as painless and crueless techniques as possible. Compare that to current corporate methods where speed and cost reduction are the highest aim. Why is that any ordinary child, finding out the truth about how the meat got from those cute little farm animals in petting zoos, to their plate at home, immediately want to change to eat vegetation only. The more we study our bodies, the more we realize fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices are essential. We are the only species still not weaned from breast milk. We are the only species to suckle on another animal, our foster mother is a cow. Should we be surprised at so many people being lactose intolerant? But the drug industry sells quite a lot of that purple pill type of medicines. Some severe constipation can be totally cured by just not eating anymore beef. If you have ever breastfed a child and had to pump, then you would know that mechanical pumping of a cow is torture. Animal fat we recognize is unhealthy for us, but chefs still push well marbled (fatty) steaks for taste and tenderness. Visit a chicken farm and see the horrors of life in stacked small cages. Look at a mother pig at a pig farm in a metal cage so confined she can not move. I have seen it at a farm of a relative of a relative. The animals is not the life you would wish on your worst enemy. The prey of the lion, those antelope, are free to run away, but farm animals are not. Why do those antelope run? What chemicals are produced in an animal that hears the cries of the animals ahead of them being slaughtered and the smells of the death of their own species. Then we eat them, extra adrenaline, etc. and all. Then we wonder about hyperactive kids. Go take a field trip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Field trips Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Field trips Posted by: Xynyx
» Fallacy trip Posted by: johnc271
» RE: Fallacy trip Posted by: johnc271
» Fallacy facts Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Fallacy trip Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Fallacy trip Posted by: johnc271
» RE: Fallacy trip Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Field trips Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Field trips Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: Field trips Posted by: crusty
» RE: Field trips Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: Field trips Posted by: crusty
» RE: Field trips Posted by: crusty
The hardest button to button
Posted by: johnc271 on Dec 27, 2005 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's correct a few fallacies. We can argue the ethical points forever, but scientific ones are supported by facts.

Number One, we humans are not herbivores. Our digestive tract cannot be compared to mammalian herbivores, who have long DTs with several chambers to support the breakdown of cellulose and difficult plant-based nutrients by intestinal bacteria. Humans do not possess the same bacteria and do not derive the same amounts of nutrients from plants that herbivores do. The raw foodists have a nice idea in the purist notion that cooked vegetables lose a lot of their micro-nutritional value but most of the cells in raw vegetables are not going to give up their goodies because they have a cellulose wall that remains intact without bacteria to break them down. Yes, you can chew longer, but how long does that stay fun with raw vegetables? Cooking vegetables is a trade off, and makes most veggies palatable.

The reason a carnivore's digestive tract is short is not because meat putrefies quickly. It does not rot quickly. In cool weather meat ages and undergoes minor bacteriological and enzymatic changes for quite a while before actual putrefaction, whereby bacteria break down the macronutritional content of the flesh making it unusuable by animals for nutrition, not to mention unpalatable and toxic. In hot weather it will go about this more quickly, but not overnight. Many predators eat off the same carcass in hot tropical environments for days. They have a short DT because it is high in acid and it breaks down the meat quickly and extracts it quickly. A carnivore has a high metabolism and eats a lot of meat, its primary source of nutrition.
Humans are omnivores, and have neither the long DT and low acid of herbivores, nor a short/high acid DT of pure carnivores. Omnivory is not a decided-upon trait, it is something that is selected for. Evolutionarily, it allows a species a wider range of food choices, and thus, a wider range. More propagation. Most animals in the world could only follow a specific habitat to follow a specific food.
Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Natural=good? Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: Natural=good? Posted by: johnc271
not as simple as some say
Posted by: AWoronczuk on Dec 27, 2005 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hypocrisy is abounding in this entire discussion.

Someone is talking about saving energy. Are you using energy-efficient appliances, cars, electrical systems? The same goes for the argument about making the world cleaner and less polluted. Stop using your computer, stop driving a car, stop using modern conviences that require the output of factories. All these things pollute our world.

We can't argue for ethical changes if we are going to be hypocritical in other aspects of our lives.

The reason this dilemma exists is due to the economic grasp of meat in our economy. Eating vegetarian can be SO expensive. And if we are going to be truly ethical, we have to go vegan. We can't let animals be hurt by dairy practices, either! But the problem with becoming vegan is that it is so unhealthy, time-consuming, and unbelievably expensive that it isn't a practical solution for everyone.

Eating meat is not something we should just stop doing completely. I believe it should be weened down. Tons of health reports show that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables. We should. Meat should not be the overwhelming part of a meal. But some meat is essential. Fish maintains the health of the mind. Soy, now so heavily processed, isn't healthy, and reports should it is especially unhealthily for women. We need to maintain our own health as much as respect the rights of other life. If we shove meat out of our diets, the economy takes a dive, people go through more hardship...is this what we really want?

More things need to be examined. We need to account for all aspects of practicality, hypocrisy, and feasibility before we can accurately judge our eating habits with a moral and ethical vision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not as simple as some say Posted by: Snoopy Brown
Eating mindfully.
Posted by: alternetleslie on Dec 27, 2005 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least "primitive" tribes, considered the hunt and slaughter of an animal for food and clothing, etc. as a ritual sacred sacrifice and thanked the soul of the animal for giving their body that the hunters' tribe may continue to live. There is no such connection in our society. Think about the larger role the buffalo played in the spiritual life and customs of the Native American tribes. How often do we stop and say grace and thank the spirit of the bovine at MacDonalds either before or after we eat a hamberger? "Hamberger", "beef", "steak", "potroast", "meatloaf", "sausage", "hot dog", "pork", "ham", "poultry": what nice words. How we name things to separate ourselves and redefine things! Next time you talk about these things, call them by what they really are: dead slaughtered bovine. Then see how you change your eating habits without any effort. Just make sure you study nutrition to pick your foods wisely. Its all definition and culture. Viet Namese eat dog. Why not eat your dog or cat? Animals have a lymbic system, emotions, just like you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ating mindfully. Posted by: Scientz
» RE: ating mindfully. Posted by: deha
Picky Picky
Posted by: jwg on Dec 27, 2005 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the exception of a few monks, the vegetarians I have met have been very small, picky, bitchy people. I personally think this comes from a enlarged ego from thinking they are better than than those that eat anything that will not eat them first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: cyberfactotum
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: jwg
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: jwg
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Picky Picky: Michaelmammal Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Jarnsaxa
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Jarnsaxa
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Jarnsaxa
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
» RE: Picky Picky Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
I DON'T CARE!
Posted by: Scientz on Dec 27, 2005 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love meat... Call me a psychopath... Justify my behaviour with whatever delusion will make it easier for you to go on with your day...

I am certainly not uninformed... I have read numerous articles: In defense on meat-eating, condemning meat-eating, from the perspective of ranchers, from the perspective of vegan-activists, in depth analyses of the activities of slaughterhouses and how animals are killed... Bla bla bla...

I don't care...

I am not going to give a lame-ass "It's my biological destiny" argument either... I'm not going to point to science, and argue about canine teeth and intestinal length... That is only justification as well... Some one who believes they are right are trying to find evidence to support their claim so they can feel better about their opinion...

I don't need evidence...

I don't need persuasion...

I love meat...

Anyone who feels like meat is murder should abstain from eating meat... Anyone who feels like I (and millions like me) can be persuaded from this choice needs to face reality...

I love meat, and I don't need asinine justification to feel good about it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: pomes
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Gisele
» RE: I DON'T CARE!... Leviticus Rocks! Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: pomes
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: I DON'T CARE! Posted by: Scientz
A big problem...
Posted by: Rototoko on Dec 27, 2005 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Weather you are a meat eater of a vegiterian, are you (all) aware that every time you take a poop you are killing 3 or 4 trillion live! Without the bacteria that digest the food we consume we could not live. That bacteria comprises the large bulk of each poop. So how do you stop yourself from being a mass murderer every day you life???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A big problem... Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: A big problem... Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: A big problem... Posted by: jfreed
» RE: A big problem... Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
» RE: A big problem... Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
Stop being so self righteous
Posted by: Llama11 on Dec 27, 2005 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great, you don't want to hurt animals. Well most of us want to eat meat. Get over it. Go save the world or something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

did I hit a nerve?
Posted by: mountainrider on Dec 27, 2005 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, llama, maybe your New Year's resolution should be to try to be a little nicer. Peace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: did I hit a nerve? Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: did I hit a nerve? Posted by: Llama11
» RE: did I hit a nerve? Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: did I hit a nerve? Posted by: Llama11
» RE: did I hit a nerve? Posted by: mountainrider
just wanted to say
Posted by: Jeff Rohlk on Dec 27, 2005 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it hadn't been for humans eating meat, our brains never would have developed to the point they have. As soon as our ancestors started herding animals they developed a somewhat steady supply of meat which in turn lead to the further development of our brains. And also, no human i know is a carnivore. Does anyone know somebody who eats just meat? Humans who eat meat tend to eat other things as well making us omnivores, like bears and such.
One more thing, if a person would like to eat meat let them. Its a choice. I do agree that alot of meat in this country and others is "grown" in less than desireable conditions but not all meat is aquired this way. Think of the hunters who go out and get meat from the wild. Whats wrong with me enjoying some venisine my buddy has offered me or my neighbor gives me. I enjoy venicine more than any other meat and its much healthier than beef. As our species developed we ate more deer meat than anything else. Our bodies are setup to eat deer meat, not cow meat.
Sorry if i started rambling, just wanted to throw my two cents in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: just wanted to say Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: just wanted to say Posted by: Xynyx
free range?
Posted by: tomabe on Dec 27, 2005 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just going over the comments I realized that in the meat eating debate it seemed that consensus was that free range was better for us than the usual feedlot raised meat. Short term, I'd have to agree, until one realizes the incredible devastastion that has been wreaked on our environment by grazing vast tracts of former wilderness. Only 10% of our beef is raised on ranges but the land use is monumental.
If we were still eating free range buffalo or other indigenous wild meat, which would neccessitate preserving wilderness in order to do so, I'd agree that free range is the way to go. But the case is that we've wiped out more wilderness in NA in a century than the rest of the world combined, all to support our love affair with an middle eastern exotic range maggot named beef. This disregard for our environment will bite us all in the ass soon, speaking of meat eating. If you must eat beef, eat feedlot beef, for the sake of what's left of our wilderness. Forget about what has more feelings - plants, cattle, or insects, forget about how many bacteria you're killing with every bowel movement - for God's sake. Think about your home and what you can do to be in harmony with it, or at least do less damage...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: free range? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: free range? Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
hartsmartliving
Posted by: hartsmart on Dec 27, 2005 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eat meat and smile
Cause and effect in today's environment-- subject--obesity! Food science has yet to discover the true source of massive weight-gain. Do they not realize that the epidemic started with the pyramid food guide? Abandoning traditional food-- meat, saturated fat, salt, supplanting it with overloads of grains and green, drowned in water. It triggered a physical panic reaction-- get fat at all cost. Starch and sugar the ready source.
A predictable happening.
A valid statement? Abundantly clear, had you lived through seven years of starvation like myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hartsmartliving Posted by: dct1018
Gender Bias?
Posted by: medstudgeek on Dec 27, 2005 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While nothing is absolutely true, has anyone noticed that more women tend to be vegetarians? I'm just thinking of Fast Food Nation, where Morgan Spurlock assures us at the end that, while he has sworn off Micky D's, in pointed contrast to his girlfriend he is not vegan.

I also recall reading that, when people decide to do the low-fat thing, men tend to go for lean meats where women almost totally go veggie.

Has anyone noticed this in their personal life?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gender Bias? Posted by: dct1018
» RE: Gender Bias? Posted by: jfreed
» RE: Gender Bias? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Gender Bias? Posted by: rara_avis
For the love of mooers
Posted by: ssdd on Dec 27, 2005 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sometimes still can't believe all the debate that goes into personal diet choices. As a vegetarian, I have never been bitchy or rude or self-righteous to anyone. I don't care if someone chows down on a steak in front of me. I don't tell people what to eat because it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Eat dog crap for all I care, 'cause it's your damn body. Some people don't have an overabundance of food to complain about like we spoiled Americans, so shut up and mind your own dinner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For the love of mooers Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: For the love of mooers Posted by: Jarnsaxa
» RE: For the love of mooers Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
People forget where meat comes from
Posted by: lamar on Dec 27, 2005 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish more meat-eaters would hunt or farm. There's a respect for animals we lose when we buy it from the grocery store. It's one thing to eat a new york strip, and it's another to kill the cow yourself, butcher it, and prepare it yourself. I don't think people should kill everything they eat, but they should have this experience at least once in their lives. Don't stop eating meat, but don't forget from where it comes either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Swerve
Posted by: Kneel on Dec 27, 2005 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Try this: You're driving along a country road. A rabbit runs across your the road. If you continue straight, you'll kill it. With a slight swerve, you can spare it. No danger to you, no risk. Nobody's asking you plunge off the shoulder into the river or lurch into oncoming traffic. Just a slight swerve.

So which do you choose?

I saw where a guy in Washington State was charged with animal cruelty for intentionally running over a group opossums.

Should he have been? If that brought him pleasure, how is it different from someone else killing animals just because for the pleasure of the way they taste?

Consider, too, the assertion that ceasing to raise all this livestock would more for curbing greenhouse gasses than Kyoto (which, despite good intentions, will never be fully implemented, even should the US agree) with no downside.

Further, the health benefits for the individual are dramatic:

Contrary to the caricature of vegetarians just lying around munching dandelions and bemoaning the global slavery of animals, many athletes go veg at least while in training, and the only person to win the Iron Man three years in a row was vegan.

You really don't have to eat meat. You can get more than enough protien just from lemons. You'll have better endurance and stronger bones. (Heavy dairy eaters are more prone to osteoporosis than vegans. Surprise.)

With all the factors, from human and animal cruelty to antibiotic resistance to environmental destruction to global warming, it's hard to justify eating animals, just for the taste.

I was surprised by how much richer, paradoxically, my diet and food choices seemed to be when I dropped meat. Try it. (You also won't have to waste so much energy on the endless rationalizations.)

If you're considering it, you don't have to be ultra-orthodox. You don't have to go burn down a lab that's doing stroke research on rats (please, don't). You don't have to shriek at people going into McDonald's. You don't have to sustain yourself on dandelions.

All you gotta do is slightly change your menu.

That is, all you gotta do is swerve.




P.S. Also, be a flying vegetarian: request the vegan meal when you fly. It's usually waaay better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Swerve Posted by: mark
» RE: Swerve Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Swerve Posted by: johnc271
» Flawed analogy Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Swerve Posted by: mountainrider
I live
Posted by: davidaquarius on Dec 27, 2005 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live through food, air, and water.
I live through the grace of Nature, which provides me with these things.

Flora and fauna give of themselves so I may live. In due time, I shall give of myself so they may live.

I honor the sacrifice of those creatures, whether cow or carrot, that make up my meal by insisting that those who provide my food do so in a respectful manner.

It's not what you eat to live but what you do with the life you get from eating.

It seems some folks, even so called progressives, still find ways of separating and denegrating others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But how shall you be dead? Posted by: benzene
» RE: But how shall you be dead? Posted by: mountainrider
"I kill."
Posted by: Kneel on Dec 27, 2005 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Uh huh. How do you honor the sacrifice? Do you think your "honoring" makes a difference to the cow?

"Oh, thank you, Spirit of this Cow, for sacrificing yourself at a bloody, stinking abattoir, that someone could hack your dead carcass up, saw hunks of muscle away, feed them through a grinder... and then I could mold those into a chunk of ground up flesh and fry that chunk, with some onions, and of eat it, mindfully, with a bun and some lettuce. In this way do I honor your noble spirit."

Not sure if the animal feels the same way. Not sure it's exactly a willing sacrifice. Reminds me a bit of some other noble sacrifices that weren't. ("We give thanks to those who gave of their land and their lives that we could build this great nation.")

They give of themselves? You mean the cow runs to your plate and begs that you hack it up?

Exactly how will you give of yourself so cows may live?

That ought to be interesting.


I hope you're doing something awfully special with the life you (don't need to) get from that eating. I hope the additional, and completely unnecessary, pleasure you get from your meal would have been worth it to them.


There are reasons we might willingly sacrifice our lives. So it may be that animals would too.

Just, somehow, I don't think that among those reasons is making you feel you're getting a tastier lunch. Just a hunch, there.

No, they don't sacrifice themselves for you; they don't "give of themselves" that you may live. What a conceit.

What a crock.


It's not separating or denigrating anyone; it's poking holes in the obvious hypocrisy, appealing to reason. I'd expect someone to do the same for me.

Given the rationalizations, the nonsense about eating animals mindfully or honoring their so-called sacrifice (a sacrifice animals seem pretty reluctant about making) a lot of people feel uncomfortable about it.


And I think it helps to get the facts straight (e.g., the myths about protein).

If you feel gotta eat them, well, I guess you gotta eat them. If that brings you pleasure, pleasure that you feel is worth the pain you're inflicting, the resources your consuming, etc., well, than, that's a call you gotta make.

But please, stick with the frypan, and skip the crock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "I kill." Posted by: johnc271
» RE: "I kill." Posted by: pomes
Couldn't have said it better!
Posted by: ridebalanced on Dec 27, 2005 11:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You go there! And thank you. Nothing else needs be said, but can I beg for an invite to your home for New Year's? I get the feeling you're an innovative chef? Seriously, why the war over meat eating anyway? Focus on pesticides you dupes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EATING MEAT MINDLESSY: Of Hummers and Hamburgers
Posted by: Kneel on Dec 28, 2005 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What right do we have to criticize the self-interested "skeptics" on global warming, if we're ignoring the science, too?

Maybe we deserve to be ignored if we're going to spout nonsense ourselves.

Consider that methane is responsible for more global warming than CO2. A lot more. This from an excellent article at Earthsave:

"Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [...] This is a serious miscalculation. [...] CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming."

The most important gas is methane, "responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture."

"[...] Reductions in [the livestock] source of greenhouse gas have many beneficial side effects for the environment. Less methane results in less tropospheric ozone, a pollutant damaging to human health and agriculture. Moreover, the same factory farms responsible for these methane emissions also use up most of the country’s water supply, and denude most of its wilderness for rangeland and growing feed. Creating rangeland to feed western nations’ growing appetite for meat has been a major source of deforestation and desertification in third world countries. Factory farm waste lagoons are a leading source of water pollution in the U.S. Indeed, because of animal agriculture’s high demand for fossil fuels, the average American diet is far more CO2-polluting than a plant-based one."

We'd be surprised by someone calling herself an environmentalist but driving a Hummer. Maybe that's just 'cause Hummers are a little more obvioius and harder to obtain than hamburgers.

We're angered by the way lobbyists, the administration, the oil and gas companies, etc., ignore the danger of environmental catastrophe for their own pleasures and egos.

We insist we're different.

We're appalled by their ignorance of the science.

Perhaps we ought to be shocked at our own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plants have feelings too
Posted by: Llama11 on Dec 28, 2005 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a plant. Oh my god, you're chewing me up. Ahh! All that photosynthesis just to be devoured by some human. Plants of the world, we need to organize and strike back at the humans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plants have feelings too Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: Plants have feelings too Posted by: Llama11
C.S.Lewis on food habits
Posted by: mazur on Dec 28, 2005 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone here read Screwtape Letters? His comments about gluttony are quite deep, and seem to apply to this debate:

--
The contemptuous way in which you spoke of gluttony as a means of catching souls, in your last letter, only shows your ignorance. One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe. This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on gluttony of Delicacy, not gluttony of Excess. Your patient's mother, as I learn from the dossier and you might have learned from Glubose, is a good example. She would be astonished--one day, I hope, will be--to learn that her whole life is enslaved to this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed from her by the fact that the quantities involved are small. But what do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -&nbs