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
Advertisement
  • 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.

My Beef With Vegetarianism

By Daniel Lazare, The Nation. Posted January 22, 2007.


Is it defeatist to stick to a diet of tofu and sprouts? A new book covers four centuries of arguments for vegetarianism, from good health to fascist politics.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Daniel Lazare

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There are many horrifying moments in Anatoly Kuznetsov's great Soviet novel Babi Yar, but one of the most horrifying concerns, of all things, the death of a newborn kitten. The kitten has been born deformed, so the hero, a small boy living in Nazi-occupied Ukraine, has to kill it. But instead of doing it the usual way by drowning it in a bucket, he decides it would be somehow kinder to pound the animal to death with a brick. "It was a moist, warm blob of life," Kuznetsov writes, "utterly devoid of sense and as insignificant as a worm. It seemed nothing could be easier than to dispose of it with one blow." But when he lets the brick fall,

A strange thing happened -- the little body seemed to be resilient, the brick fell to one side, and the kitten continued its miaowing. With shaking hands I picked up the brick again and proceeded to crush the little ball of living matter until the very entrails came out, and at last it was silent, and I scraped up the remains of the kitten with a shovel and took them off to the rubbish heap, and as I did it my head swam and I felt sick.

Somehow, amid the myriad slaughters of World War II, it takes a frail and worthless kitten -- "as insignificant as a worm" -- to teach us something about the tenacity of life and the awfulness of taking it away.

I'm not sure where I was when I came across this passage some thirty-odd years ago, but I'm pretty sure it was in close proximity to settling down to a steak or chicken dinner. If I made any connection between the kitten and the dead animal I was about to consume, it has been erased from my memory. But if I had made such a connection, what exactly would it have been? Certainly, pulverizing a poor defenseless creature is bad. But does that mean that dispatching it quickly and efficiently in a modern abattoir with the good utilitarian purpose of feeding the hungry is good? If "defenseless" is the operative word here, does that mean it is morally permissible to take the life of a fellow creature as long as we give it a sporting chance to fight back or escape -- in a bullring, perhaps, or out in the wild? Or maybe sentience is the relevant issue (as utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, author of the 1975 manifesto Animal Liberation, maintains), in which case it may be bad to kill a kitten, but it's OK to kill an animal further down the evolutionary scale, such as a frog, a fish or a bug.

On the other hand, if life is the highest value and taking it is never, ever permissible, then what are we to do in the case of a poisonous snake that is about to strike a sleeping infant? Kill one to save the other, or stand back and let nature take its course? If all lives are equally precious, how can we choose between the two?

These are the kinds of conundrums that Tristram Stuart chews on in The Bloodless Revolution, his intelligent, readable, if ultimately unsatisfying, account of Western vegetarianism from the Elizabethan Age to the present. Many people no doubt regard vegetarianism as inherently frivolous and hence an unsuitable topic for serious intellectual history. But if The Bloodless Revolution does anything, it is to prove such skeptics wrong. One way or another, it shows that vegetarians have been in the forefront of some of the most important controversies of the modern era. The reason is not hard to fathom. Like everything else in life, food is multidimensional, which is why the question of whether to order fruit salad or a BLT is never solely a matter of taste but touches on everything from morality and aesthetics to agricultural policy, humanity's place in the natural world and even constitutional affairs. In the eighteenth century, to cite just one example, beef was as central to the English self-image as cheap gasoline currently is to that of the United States. Just as the ability to cruise down a highway in an SUV or pickup is what distinguishes an American from a Frenchman paying $7 a gallon to tool around in some mini-subcompact, the ability to consume great slabs of cow flesh was what distinguished John Bull from "Frogs" dining on onions and snails. Scruffy vegetarians seeking to take all that red meat away were barely distinguishable from Jacobin sympathizers wishing to guillotine the House of Lords.

If we are what we eat, in other words, then modifying the national diet was seen as the quickest route to changing the political structure, while resisting such demands was part and parcel of defending the status quo. Their analysis may have been naïve, but vegetarians' ambitions were immense and their critique was nothing if not sweeping.

Stuart begins his tale with Sir Francis Bacon, appropriately enough since Bacon was both a key figure in the Scientific Revolution that gave us modernity and keenly interested in the question of diet, health and longevity. This was a big issue in the seventeenth century for primarily scriptural reasons. The opening pages of the Bible are filled with people who live eight or nine centuries. But then, following Noah and his ark comes Genesis 9:3, in which God specifically gives permission to eat meat ("Everything that lives and moves will be food for you"). With that, longevity plummets. Since few people questioned the truth of such tales, the issue, as Bacon saw it, was what one had to do with the other -- whether not eating meat was the reason Methuselah lived 969 years or whether it was merely coincidental. Bacon never advanced beyond the speculative stage, but Thomas Bushell, one of his acolytes (and, it was widely reported, one of his lovers), put his master's theory to the test by retiring to the Calf of Man, a one-square-mile islet in the Irish Sea, following a period of riotous debauchery in the gaming houses, theaters and brothels of London. Bushell was hardly the first person to adopt a hermitic lifestyle, but he may have been the first to eschew meat and alcohol with the express purpose of improving his health. Although falling short of Methuselah's record, he lived to the ripe old age of 80 and died a wealthy man after developing the silver and lead mines of nearby Wales.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: vegetarianism

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:
what the hell
Posted by: Rshaw on Jan 22, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ok I agree with the health stuff, but saying that we have enough food is wrong. The affluent are eating well, yes, and many people are starving. We could not feed the planet if we all ate heavy meat diets.

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

» RE: what the hell Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: what the hell Posted by: drmflorida
» How many democracies... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: How many democracies... Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: How many democracies... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: How many democracies... Posted by: Daniel Shays
» A couple points Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» The US is a democracy? Posted by: igoeja
» RE: The US is a democracy? Posted by: cottontail
» RE: WAR FUNDING Posted by: sasquuatch55
» China vs India Posted by: igoeja
» RE: China vs India Posted by: timebomb734
» FreeMarkets and Democracies Posted by: igoeja
» RE: FreeMarkets and Democracies Posted by: timebomb734
On Human Nature
Posted by: socialpsych on Jan 22, 2007 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Try a thought experiment:

You are walking along the margins of a forest and find some ripe wild raspberries. Would you eat some?

On another occassion, you are walking along a road and see a dead deer, freshly killed by a passing truck. Would you eat some?

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

» RE: On Human Nature Posted by: mjabele
» Eat it. Posted by: ssmit355
» RE: On Human Nature Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: On Human Nature Posted by: blitzmesser
Interesting historical stuff
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 22, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can see humans craving meat once in a while for protein or whatever...So you'll probably never turn everyone into vegetarians.

Our obsession with meat is another thing (eg: http://www.slate.com/id/2157840/?GT1=9010).

I agree that some of it is a Red State thing, like big gas-guzzling trucks: It's our right as Americans to do whatever the hell we want, because we're #1.

Another thing I noticed is that old people love meat. Go to your local supermarket and see who's mulling around the meat section...So the way I figure, we just have to wait for all the old people to die off, and our per-capita meat consumption will go down.

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

» Do you know the reason? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Do you know the reason? Posted by: blitzmesser
Talk to some real vegetarians
Posted by: goldfishlaugh on Jan 22, 2007 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A shame that the author of this article seems to know nothing about actual modern vegetarians and goes by stereotype alone. The idea that vegetarians largely avoid alcohol is completely LAUGHABLE, not to mention the great line about piercings and tattoos.

And of all the vegetarians I've known (many of them borderline alcoholics), food scarcity has never been their motivation, and health has only been a secondary factor, after the concerns of the cruel and environmentally destructive conditions of the modern meat industry which views feeling and often-intelligent creatures as nothing more than objects to be used for profit.

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

» RE: Talk to some real vegetarians Posted by: emh@post.com
» modern meat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: modern meat Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: modern meat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: modern meat Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: modern meat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: modern meat Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: modern meat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: modern meat Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: modern meat Posted by: godsbedamned
» RE: Talk to some real vegetarians Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Talk to some real vegetarians Posted by: cottontail
VEGETARIAN
Posted by: bbfmail on Jan 22, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evidently the author knows little about how vegetarians feel and think and even less about bullfighting. When I went to my first and only bullfight years ago in Mexico, I asked my friend why the bulls kept their heads down. He told me it was because the muscles of the necks have been cut before they are let into the ring. Some fighting chance!

Seems like this book is being reviewed by an obvious lover of meat. I suggest he go to PETA for some information on how kindly the animals are killed during the "factory" farming process.

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

» RE: VEGETARIAN Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: VEGETARIAN Posted by: homesickalien
» Yep, you're right Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Yep, you're right Posted by: homesickalien
» RE: Yep, you're right Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Yep, you're right what culture? Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: Yep, you're right what culture? Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: Yep, you're right Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Yep, you're right Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: VEGETARIAN Posted by: familyfarm
Global Warming and Methane Reduction
Posted by: igoeja on Jan 22, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was an ovolactovegetarian for several years in my twenties, in the late 1980's, but the lack of convenient food sources, social pressure, and mild athletic anemia, pushed me to adopt more meat-oriented diet. Also, being an insulin-dependent diabetic, eating low-fat, low-carbohydrate protein sources reduced my need for injections. Over time, I have returned to vegetarianism, although my reasons are grounded in self-interest and concern for the environment.

My energy consumption is relatively low, as I live in a major city and very selectively use automobiles for transportation. Lately though, I have been reminded that domesticated animals are large contributors to global warming (methane creation) and inefficient protein producers (4 to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat). Additionally, vegetarianism, and related calorie reduction, are associated with increased longevity. Both have pushed my back to vegetarianism.

Regardless of the history, vegetarianism is a better choice. The legitimate gripe seems to be against meat-eaters.

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

ewww
Posted by: kww355 on Jan 22, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans haven't come this far on the food chain to eat tofurkey. If you knew your next meal was going to consist of lentils and soyriso, why the hell would you want to live to be 80 ?

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

» Sex... Posted by: igoeja
» RE: Sex... Posted by: oldmaninhisunderwear
» and Health Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: and Health Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: and Health Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: and Health Posted by: mjabele
» RE: and Health Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: ewww Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: ewww Posted by: mjabele
» RE: ewww Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: ewww Posted by: mjabele
» Yes, food IS like art for some... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: ewww Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: ewww Posted by: Daniel Shays
» Uh, because vegetarian food Posted by: WhuThe?!?
I'm Still Hungry...
Posted by: grumble-bum on Jan 22, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the whole topic of Vegetarianism to be pretty "hard to swallow". As a child, I was fed a primarily veggie diet, with the occasional fish or poultry. I believe this was as much an economic choice for my parents as it was "moral". It just cost less to eat less meat. Now, as an adult (& seasoned professional cook), I love eating meat. My justification for this is pretty simple. It friggin' tastes good.

I'm no scientist, but generally, if something appeals to taste, touch or smell, it seems to me that there are probably solid biological reasons. For the most part, the human body indicates quite effectively what it wants or needs to consume. Some exceptions might include "poisons" such as alcohol or hot peppers, but again, our bodies generally tell us when we've exceeded the benefits of a healthy dose (Okay, maybe alcohol wasn't the best example...).

I have no problem with Vegetarians, per se, but the overall logic gets pretty convoluted, in my view. I'll often ask someone who identifies themselves as such if they make that choice for health or morality reasons. If it's the former, fair enough I suppose (until recently, the "backstory" of meat has been pretty ugly for several generations), if it's the latter they'd better be ready for a healthy debate. Hey, they're the ones going around announcing their position! As for Vegans, a former Vegan friend of mine summed it up pretty well when she stated that Veganism is just a way for people to indulge in an eating disorder & simultaneously pat themselves on the back! By their logic, one might as well stop breathing...

In the end, none of these positions (my own included) is really perfect. Both a vegetable based diet & one including meat have their own flaws & benefits. I would recommend the excellent Omnivore's Dilemma for it's take on these arguments.

Now I need some breakfast...

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

» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: fallout1
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: fallout1
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: My Friend Ain't No Idiot... Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: My Friend Ain't No Idiot... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: My Friend Ain't No Idiot... Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: My Friend Ain't No Idiot... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: My Friend Ain't No Idiot... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: You have a point. Posted by: misterpunch
» Will You Marry Me? Posted by: grumble-bum
» Yes -- if you own a farm ! Posted by: alaskagrrl
» No, I do not, I'm afraid... Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: candara
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: I'm Still Hungry... Posted by: mcostas
» Please Reprogram Me. Posted by: grumble-bum
A debate without end...
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 22, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a meat eater, and have no plans to change. I have nothing against vegitarians, they can eat whatever they like whenever they want. I just wish that all vegitarians were as tolerant of my choice of diet as I am of theirs.

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

» Tolerance? Posted by: igoeja
» RE: Tolerance? Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Tolerance? Posted by: Kelly
» RE: A debate without end... Posted by: DanielT28
» RE: A debate without end... Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: A debate without end... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: A debate without end... Posted by: Deanna
This article does not address...
Posted by: cmaciain on Jan 22, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article does not address so many issues and makes a number of errors. For example, while claiming nature is cruel, he does not address that predators cull the weak, sick, and injured/unhealthy. They don't take the prime mating animals because those animals are healthy. Tell a human hunter to kill and eat the sick and crippled deer and leave the trophy buck alone and they'd have a heart attack. Also, this man has never been inside a slaughterhouse or he'd quickly change his tune about 'humane' killing.

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

The Veg Myth About Hitler
Posted by: sv on Jan 22, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler was not a vegetarian:
Berry on Hitler

Furthermore, I find it unfortunate Mr. Lazarre is so misinformed and prejudiced as to believe that vegetarians don't drink alcohol. Such ill-informed stereotyping, also evident in other parts of his article, really don't help any serious discussion on diet, lifestyle, and health.

There are a multitude of reasons to eschew meat, from the health-based to the spiritual. The most factual and proven are the incredibly deleterious affects factory farming of animals is having on our air, our soil, and our water. US factory farming is also incredibly energy-intensive, inherently barbaric, and intolerably wasteful. Meat and dairy prices in the US are unnaturally low due to government subsidies, and I, for one, am tired of paying for someone else to contribute to environmental destruction and humongous meat-diet-related health bills. Let carnivores pay the true cost, if they chose to consume such.

As a vegetarian for 26 years (last six as a vegan), I find Mr. Lazarre's attitude, unfortunately, altogether too common among people who feel they must somehow justify their consumption of dead animal body pieces by attacking those who choose not to do the same.

Mr. Lazarre would be well-served to better research the topic of vegetarianism before spreading unfounded myths as to who we are, and who we are not.

Mark
blogsite soulveggie

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

» RE: The Veg Myth About Hitler Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: The Veg Myth About Hitler Posted by: blitzmesser
The Vegetarian Through History
Posted by: Lady X on Jan 22, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a fascinating article. I was unclear about the author's
position on eating meat by the end of the piece.
It is amazing that vegetarianism vs meat eating has such a long and specific history.
I have been a Vegetarian since I was 15. My family are big meat eaters- usually barely cooked beef swimming in blood.
At lunch when I was 8, my grandfather brought a huge piece
of meat swimming in blood to the table- like human sacrfice.
I remember asking, "Do I have to eat this?"

I feel that meant eating, and the Old Testment notion that animals are less evolved and important than man is fascist.I think the Old Testament is fascist. Did God REALLY tell
people to eat meat? I mean, come ON.
To intentionally cause another sentient being to suffer,
when man can create many aware options about diet and
nutrition is fascist. If people ate each other it would be
cannabalism. Why is it different to eat an animal, especially
since they cannot defend themselves.

If people spent a week at a slaughter house, I bet there would be a pretty high number of converts to vegetrainsim.
The arguement that animals eat other animals is simply pathetic. Animals are driven by survival instincts in wild environments.
Man can make choices about what we eat.

We can choose not to raise animals who are born to suffer
so man can consume. Why is our identity so tied up in
subverting other species, or those perceived as weaker than we are ?
There are huge amounts of info on how to combine food groups so that people get enough, protein, minerals and
vitamins without killing animals to get food.
I believe people have to make their own choices. I also believe most people who eat meat have never really thought
about the process from force raising animals to the slaughtering of animals to when they are consumed as "food".
There was a film that came out recently called FAST FOOD NATION that many Vegetarians feel should be required viewing for everyone.
The next time you order a steak, hamburger or pork chops-
take a moment to reflect on where it came from and what
the animal might have been going through to die to become
your dinner or lunch.

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

Kill the snake, but ...
Posted by: marxalot on Jan 22, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To answer this hypothetical: "then what are we to do in the case of a poisonous snake that is about to strike a sleeping infant? Kill one to save the other, or stand back and let nature take its course? If all lives are equally precious, how can we choose between the two?"

You kill the snake. But take care not to feel gratified or righteous in doing so. Snakes do what snakes do.

We should try to maintain a sense of compassion for all living things, who along with ourselves must exist in an imperfect world and eventually suffer the pain of death. As a guiding principle that alone should lead you to consume less animal flesh.

And don't leave your baby out by the woodpile where the rattlers hang out.

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

» RE: Kill the snake, but ... Posted by: Lady X
» RE: Kill the snake, but ... Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Kill the snake, but ... Posted by: Lady X
The coming conflict of meat vs. fuel
Posted by: kwalls on Jan 22, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting NPR article this morning talking from the meat raising farmers point of view... the ethanol industry is going to be competing directly with green crops that are currently grown for feed. In the future, we may be forced to decide whether we want to drive or have our meat... kind of ironic for this culture. A more meatless diet may eventually just be an economic reality for everyone except the extremely wealthy.

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

» RE: that's just the BS they'd like us to believe Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» I haven't yet but Posted by: AdamG
» RE: I haven't yet but Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Humans are not Natural Carnivores...
Posted by: cielo on Jan 22, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carnivores have a short intestine...ours are long like an herbivore. We also lack sharp teeth and claws. Here's some elaboration:

Humans, as Harvey Diamond explains, are not natural carnivores:

"A carnivore's teeth are long sharp and pointed - all of them! We have molars for crushing and grinding. A carnivore's jaws move up and down only, for tearing and biting. Ours can move from side to side for grinding. A carnivore's saliva is acid and geared to the digestion of animal protein; it lacks ptyalin, a chemical that digests starches. Our saliva is alkaline and contains ptyalin for the digestion of starch. A carnivore's stomach is a simple, round sack that secretes ten times more hydrochloric acid than that of a non-carnivore. Our stomachs are oblong in shape, complicated in structure, and convoluted with a duodenum.

A carnivore's intestines are three times the length of its trunk, designed for rapid expulsion of animal proteins, which quickly rot. Our intestines are twelve times the length of our trunks and designed to keep food in them until all nutrients are extracted. The liver of a carnivore is capable of eliminating ten to fifteen times more uric acid than the liver of a non-carnivore. Our livers have the capacity to eliminate only a small amount of uric acid. Uric acid is an extremely dangerous toxic substance that can wreak havoc in your body. All meat consumption releases large quantities of uric acid into the system. Unlike most carnivores and omnivores, humans do not have the enzyme uricase to break down uric acid.

A carnivore does not sweat through the skin and has no pores. We do sweat through the skin and have pores. A carnivore's urine is acid. Ours is alkaline. A carnivore's tongue is rough, ours is smooth. Our hands are perfectly designed for plucking fruit from a tree, not for tearing the guts out of the carcass of a dead animal as are a carnivore's claws."

quoted article

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

Another viewpoint...
Posted by: henderson on Jan 22, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another viewpoint is that we ALL have choices; even the animals. Perhaps we are ALL equal, equally loved by Creation. Humans consider themselves “intelligent”, able to “think”, at the “top of the food chain”. But what if everything has consciousness? What if every animal and every human CHOOSES to be born into this world at this time, knowing full well the direction that their live will take, for the lessons to be learned?

Isn’t there a theme of suffering and death and “moral superiority” running through this debate? What if “death” isn’t the “end”? What if all of this is only an illusion? What if Earth is only a playground, a place to learn “lessons” for EVERYTHING, animals included.

(“Channeled” material by Emmanuel)
The gifts I wish to give you are my deepest love, the safety of truth, the wisdom of the universe and the reality of God.

With these four things, nothing will deter you. You will follow your hearts swiftly to your destination, which is Home.

I know there is confusion and doubt and what appears to be chaos. Can you see that beneath these surface shadows there is eternal Light? This earth plane is neither the beginning nor the end of your existence. It is simply a step, a schoolroom.

My friends, let me impress upon you how solidly you are planted in eternity, how brilliantly you can shine in your own physical world, how possible it all is, how beautifully the Plan is designed.

In God’s Plan no soul is alone, no soul is ever lost.

You have become caught in the illusion that your identity rests with your capacity to struggle. It does not.

Your true identity is awaiting you beyond effort.

The key to remembering is to remind the self not to be afraid of anything, anywhere, anytime, ever.

Illusion cannot destroy reality. Can a shadow on the wall hurt you?

Death cannot kill You. Pain cannot hurt You. Disease cannot make You ill. Years cannot age You. Fear cannot touch You.

Welcome Home.

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

» RE: Another viewpoint... Posted by: homesickalien
Nonsense Review
Posted by: wordster on Jan 22, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This review is so full of inaccuracies and illogic that it's difficult to pick just a few of them to comment on. I'll try.

He said;
"If life is the highest value and taking it is never, ever permissible, then what are we to do in the case of a poisonous snake that is about to strike a sleeping infant?"

Thats a complete misrepresentation. No one says it is "never, ever permissable" to take a life. I doubt anyone thinks that acting in self-defense is wrong.

And the characterization that we eat only sprouts and tofu is nonsense. I haven't had either in years. The vegan diet is delicious and unlimited.

As for the notion that humans are meant to be meat-eaters. View this short and hilarious video by Bizarro cartoonist Dan Piraro.

http://www.bizarro.com/videos/mov/VeganVideoWeb.mov

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

» RE: Nonsense Review Posted by: Jayzer
Ok..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 22, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many people no doubt regard vegetarianism as inherently frivolous and hence an unsuitable topic for serious intellectual history."

Anyone who would think what and how we eat in any form to be inherently frivolous (and who are these "many people", anyway???) obviously hasn't paid much attention to the state of the world these days or over time.

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

It's a moral issue --Not simply a choice
Posted by: wordster on Jan 22, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meat-eaters often suggest that choosing to eat meat is simply a choice or matter of taste or opinion...that they are free to eat meat and vegans are free to choose not to.

But it is not simply a dietary choice, like I prefer chocolate ice-cream and you prefer vanilla or I like salt and you choose to go salt-free.

Some issues are moral issues and some are not. You would not say that someone should be tolerant if you enjoy killing, robbing, or cheating people or polluting the air that others breathe. Those are moral issues that are wrong.

Capital punishment, abortion, destroying the environment, and killing animals are also moral issues. Moral issues are usually issues that affect or hurt others. If you think morality is just a matter of opinion or taste or choice then you're saying that the rightness or wrongness of robbing or killing or polluting is just a matter of opinion or choice. Clearly, this is not true.

wordster

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