Vegetarianism and Religion

[steve jones]

All,

A close friend and I recently a somewhat of a heated debate over the morality surrounding the consumption of meat. Personally, I have strong views but are completely open and excepting to other's (even if I disagree with them wholeheartedly).

I wonder what you will make of it. I wonder if anyone can show me the error of my ways (which I am entirely open to), or bring to light other aspects of the discussion that I have yet to consider:

The vegetarian issue is one that fascinates me.

I know people who say they just simply dont like meat and therefore dont eat it. Fair enough!

I know others who've adopted vegetarianism because they believe meat carries health risks... those associated with saturated fats, salt, etc. I dont buy into that one quite so easily. Personally, I dont think there is anything wrong with eating meat, healthwise, provided its part of a balanced diet. I might even go on to say thats its essential!

Then there are people who explain that they have no problem with meat per say, but wont eat 'manufactured' meat due to the factory processes that it endures, along with the ill treatment of the animals, etc. For me, this is by far the most compelling argument. Myself, I prefer not to eat processed meat as much as possible. And Im reluctant to eat to packaged super market chickens, as I know they're treat very poorly. I am very much against 'battery' meat. VERY much against.

However, the stance that I never truly understood, though fully accept, is that regarding the morality of killing animals. I can see how people might be offended by the actual slaughter, given that we are so sheltered from such things. But it seems clear that animals such as cows, sheep, etc, literally evolved to end up on our plates! Admittedly, these animals in their current state are domesticated. In natural ecosystems, the animals from which our domesticated stock derive invariably fit into this place within the food chain. By denying our own place in the food chain, we are in many ways denying the nature of our existence. I might even go on to say that we are defying 'nature' and therefore God (if we are to assume that nature is evidence of 'a creator'... not necessarily a Christian one). Indeed, the health implications often associated with vegetarianism might give limited factual support to such an 'out there' theory. I gather that vegetarians often need to suppliment their diets to maintain adequate nutritional levels.

The paradox being that religious and spiritual people seem to account for quite a percentage of vegetarians. They seem to want to apply human morality to the natural world. But is it our place to dictate to nature? And if we do, how can we consider ourselves followers of the God that created said natural world for us?

See, this is where I get deep... lol.

Eating meat is almost a spiritual thing for me. I see it as an acknowledgment of who we are and where we came from. If there is evidence of God, it is in nature. And as part of nature, we have a obligation to embrace our instincts. Some people like to say that as humans, we are above such animal urges. This is probably the most heretic view possible imo! It assumes that we are greater than God and the world that he has created for us. Again, a glance at our modern life may well show evidence supporting such a theory - the destruction of the natural world, the devolution of the human species, etc.

You might point out that it is the following of instincts that has lead to world war, the AIDs epidemic, etc. And you'd be quite right. Human nature forces to see such widespread death as being a terrible thing... as humans we cant help but feel that way. But in terms of nature, these are all very natural things. Disease controls population. Fighting ensures natural selection. Sometimes I think that the dichotomy between human morality and the nature of the world makes us almost incompatible!

Understand that I am not trying to debate the nature of human morality. We cant help but see such tragedy as being just that. My point is that our morality seems to be pointing us head on with the natural world. When I think about peoples who are in balance with nature (the Native American's for instance), I see many faults with our own civilization.

Admittedly, this is probably getting a little deep for the occassional cheese burger.

But still, I think that life and death are the most fundamental of philosophical issues. If we are to live through the animal's death, as nature (and therefore, God) intended, then we should fully acknowledge and even celebrate the life and death of said creature, out of respect if nothing else. We see examples of such behaviour running throughout history... yet abruptly stopping at our modern age. Not surprising, we are the civilization least in balance with nature. Indeed, nowadays we choose to reform our meat in order to disguise its origin. Half of our kids wont eat 'proper' meat! But they'll guzzle McDonald's like there is no tomorrow.

Ironically, in an age where so many of us are disgusted by the thought of our food once walking around on four legs, compassion and respect towards animals and nature seems to be at an all time low!

And THAT is my issue with the consumption of meat. I strongly feel that we need to re-establish that link between the prey animal and humans. I truly believe that young children should be around animals, involved in both their lives and deaths. We need to remember that we are part of nature, not seperate from it. I believe that if we embrace who we are, then we'd be far better for it.

Above all, we need respect the animals that we consume. They give us life, and for that we owe them a fit and natural life along with a humane and respectful death. But I certainly dont think that we should deny ours and their places within the natural order of things.


SJ

[thalbergmad]

Can't really see the point of a cow, unless you are going to eat it.

Thal

PS: leaves space for pianistimo response.





































































































































































Thal

[steve jones]

Lol 

Actually, Im very hoping to hear her opinions on the issue.

Id urge her to keep all guns, knifes and rolling pins out of reach 

SJ

[ramithediv]

Lol 

Actually, Im very hoping to hear her opinions on the issue.

SJ

You will regret this statement, I assure you. 

[thalbergmad]

Actually, Im very hoping to hear her opinions on the issue.

I am sure you will do and "opinions" is the correct word. Opinion would not do her justice.  
If she gives you any trouble, just remind her that her tambourine has got calf skin on it.

The Bible seems to have many incidences of sacrificing animals, so i suppose they were eaten afterwards.

I am going to try to keep out of this one as i really don't know much about the issue. I have been a large meat eater all of my life and it has never done me any harm. I am sure even pianistimo is partial to the occasional pork lolly.

Completely normal i is.

Thal

[steve jones]

Hmmm, sounds ominous! 

Well, just for the record, this is a serious thread! I am not in anyway attempting to insight trouble, trolling, or anything other than an insightful and construction discussion.

While I take my own views seriously, I dont hold them to be written in stone. Neither do I take offense in their criticism.

So if Lady P is likely to bring a passionate and unique perspective, then I shall very much look forward to a contribution from her... provided any and all deadly weapons are sheathed 

SJ

[pianistimo]

pork lolly?  brits have wierd diets. 

ok.  to start - i will have to agree with the statement that the native indians are among the best preservers of natural habitats of animals and are careful not to waste meat, bones, skin, etc.  i grew up in alaska - and the natives there still want to pass on their ways to their children but are finding in modern day society a lack of compassion for animals.  i heard that an older native man who was used to hunting seals told about how he and his father would sit and wait for the seal or sea lion to appear - and then all the men in the hunting party would wait for it to take a big breath (thus allowing it to float in the water) and then they would all shoot it in the head at the same time.  the animal died quickly - there was no waste of flesh - and it floated instead of sinking.  the younger people for lack of guidance have been observed to get drunk, shoot the animal before it takes a breath, hit it in multiple places, and sometimes allow it to sink because of not thinking about hunting techniques deeply.  in fact, just being drunk makes their shooting inaccurate.

this is obvious lack of respect for the animal.  i think this can be definately the case in meat packing as well.  how many pounds of beef do we really need as a nation.  should we grow beef with hormones and have much more meat than we need to eat - or should we let it free range and eat less meat.  i tend to think the latter. it would be healthier for us - and happier for the animals.  some would live that way.  can you imagine if the food chain reversed and we were hunted by cows?  for one thing - we'd hope that we weren't done in unmercifully.  and, if done in - that we wouldn't be embarrassed by the inordinate amount of fat packed on us from forced overeating.

sometimes, i don't know what to think.  if it were up to me - i'd never shoot anything.  not a bird or a squirrel.  my cat is about 20 years old and she is treated like a human.  if i had to shoot the meat i was going to eat - i would definately be a vegetarian.  i tried to be one last year - but it didn't work out.  i do miss eating that occasional hamburger - but i've tried to use packages of hamburger now in portions (freezing it).  using much much less meat for spaghetti and more sauce.  also, i'm attempting to find more recipies that use only veggies.  it is possible to eat meat only once or twice a week and have other things with more veggies.  if you don't eat meat at all you have to worry about getting enough protein, don't you?  beans, i guess.

what i think would be optimum is for people to not think that meat must be consumed daily.  i don't think it is good for us and the hormones probably cause some cancers.

[ramithediv]

pork lolly?  brits have wierd diets. 

Sorry, this made me laugh for ages.
Still having trouble stopping. 

[soliloquy]

If I don't eat the delicious steak then some less deserving fat guy is going to  The cows are going to be killed whether you're the one eating them or not.


Besides, does anyone know how many rabbits and groundhogs a year are killed by wheat threshers?

[prometheus]

I am vegetarian and anti-religious.


Religion is flexible to enforce any dogma for no reason but to enforce something that sounds specific and important. Therefore, many religions have dietary dogmas.

I don't like dogmas.



The reason I don't eat meat is rather simple. We humans are evolved as omnivores. This means we rot away the dead parts of both plants and animals inside our bodies for nutrition because we can't produce it ourselves.

Now because I am a modern human I can make choices about my diet. So I look at the consequences of my actions.

We produce meat in factories by stuffing animals, that have been bred into freaks of nature, full with vegetables.

Most of these creatures are near relatives; mammals. So one reason not to eat them is the same as the argument against cannibalism. Now, one may argue that this is merely an emotional rather than a rational argument. But still this seems universal to all humans. Eating kin is disgusting.

Second reason is suffering. All morality is based on reducing the suffering of all creatures. The animals that are turned into meat in our factories suffer a great deal. I don't want to be one of those animals.
At the same time the suffering of a plant significantly less than that of a mammal. If I were a corn plant I would have little trouble with being cut down and chopped into bits.

Third reason is the ending of life. This is surely a destructive process. If we want others to respect that fact that we are alive then we should do the same to others. Killing should be avoided. We kill millions of fellow mammals each year. The animals that have to die for our profit is gigantic. Yes, you read that right. No one manages a meat factory because they need food. They do it because they need money, they want profit. Not a meal.
Of course the life of a human is not the same as the life of a chicken. So obviously the life of a chicken is also not the same as the life of a potato plant.
So we should value the life of a single pig over that of multiple plants.

Fourth reason is probably the most important right now. It's about resources, about sustainability. It's about inefficiency.

Producing meat is a terrible waste of resources, generates a lot of pollution, is unsustainable and very inefficient. Rather than feeding humans we feed pigs, chickens and cows. It takes a lot of vegetables to get 1 kg of meat. I heard it's at least 10 kg of vegetables.
Because of this we need ten times farmland, then we produce a lot of dung/manure, kill off a lot of animals and then finally we have meat. And let's not forget all the fresh water needed.
Things have gotten so bad that we throw most of the meat away because we only want to eat the 'good bits'.
The amazone rainforest is destroyed because we need more soy to feed our livestock. The CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methene generated by meat production is also very large.

So basically eating meat is more immoral than eating plants and destroys the planet about 10 times faster.

[thalbergmad]

if it were up to me - i'd never shoot anything.  not a bird or a squirrel. 

I tried to shoot a squirrel once as it was pinching me bird nuts.

Thankfully for the squirrel i missed. Thankfully for me, the arrow was stopped by my neighbours shed.

Thal

[pianistimo]

you must have huge birds.  we feed ours seeds.  are you sure you're ok?

[steve jones]

I am vegetarian and anti-religious.


Religion is flexible to enforce any dogma for no reason but to enforce something that sounds specific and important. Therefore, many religions have dietary dogmas.

I don't like dogmas.



The reason I don't eat meat is rather simple. We humans are evolved as omnivores. This means we rot away the dead parts of both plants and animals inside our bodies for nutrition because we can't produce it ourselves.

Now because I am a modern human I can make choices about my diet. So I look at the consequences of my actions.

We produce meat in factories by stuffing animals, that have been bred into freaks of nature, full with vegetables.

Most of these creatures are near relatives; mammals. So one reason not to eat them is the same as the argument against cannibalism. Now, one may argue that this is merely an emotional rather than a rational argument. But still this seems universal to all humans. Eating kin is disgusting.

Second reason is suffering. All morality is based on reducing the suffering of all creatures. The animals that are turned into meat in our factories suffer a great deal. I don't want to be one of those animals.
At the same time the suffering of a plant significantly less than that of a mammal. If I were a corn plant I would have little trouble with being cut down and chopped into bits.

Third reason is the ending of life. This is surely a destructive process. If we want others to respect that fact that we are alive then we should do the same to others. Killing should be avoided. We kill millions of fellow mammals each year. The animals that have to die for our profit is gigantic. Yes, you read that right. No one manages a meat factory because they need food. They do it because they need money, they want profit. Not a meal.
Of course the life of a human is not the same as the life of a chicken. So obviously the life of a chicken is also not the same as the life of a potato plant.
So we should value the life of a single pig over that of multiple plants.

Fourth reason is probably the most important right now. It's about resources, about sustainability. It's about inefficiency.

Producing meat is a terrible waste of resources, generates a lot of pollution, is unsustainable and very inefficient. Rather than feeding humans we feed pigs, chickens and cows. It takes a lot of vegetables to get 1 kg of meat. I heard it's at least 10 kg of vegetables.
Because of this we need ten times farmland, then we produce a lot of dung/manure, kill off a lot of animals and then finally we have meat. And let's not forget all the fresh water needed.
Things have gotten so bad that we throw most of the meat away because we only want to eat the 'good bits'.
The amazone rainforest is destroyed because we need more soy to feed our livestock. The CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methene generated by meat production is also very large.

So basically eating meat is more immoral than eating plants and destroys the planet about 10 times faster.

Some compelling arguments. I would agree with most of what you have to say, especially about the industrialisation of slaughter. Frankly, this disgusts me.

Eating meat is less economically viable that grain, yes. However, I fear that our food is 'cheap and nasty' enough as it is. I worry that if we start putting price above quality, we may end up eating the freeze dried remains of our dead relatives  Im only half jesting!

I think that the nutritional benefits of eating meat (not to mention the enjoyment) make it worth a spot on the menu. Though I certainly think we could do with eating less.

I guess my main disagree with your post would be the view you take on death. As humans, we seem programmed to fear death, and this creates a kind of empathy with the death of other animals. I am by no means immune to this! However, I try to view it in the bigger picture - death = life, life = death. The cattle that we domesticate for food lives solely for us to eat. The animals that they derived from were always the 'prey' in the natural ecosystems.

Yes, we have a choice of whether or not to kill them. And yes, as modern humans we have ingrained reservations against this. But it seems that the natural world does not. Within natural ecosystems, these animals evolved to become prey. By denying this, are we also denying their existence, their purpose?

A friend sent me a quote. I happen to find this quite disgusting, but I'll post it regardless:

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." (Alice Walker)

This seems to typify some of the more radical beliefs.

SJ

[wotgoplunk]

Sporadic vegetarian and Atheist 

I do enjoy meat, but don't like the fact that animals died.

So I alternate months. 

[steve jones]

Something else Id like to ask.

How to many vegetarians justify the consumption of fish?

I know many veggies who regularly eat fish. Perhaps fishes arent cuddly enough to count? 

SJ

[pianistimo]

it is interesting that before adam and eve sinned - alice walker seemed right.  woman was not subjugated to man through childbirth. in fact, it could have been the other way around.  men may have laid eggs or something.  although, i highly doubt that would have been the case since the man was made first.  ok. then, God tells them 'behold, i have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed, it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, i have given every green plant for food.'  (gen. 1:29)

even daniel seemed to benefit from a vegetarian diet rather than eating the king's diet.

also, there are references to the millenium in other books - that say the lion will eat straw like the ox, etc.  so - it appears that death will be something that is a curse and not something that is typically observed day to day.

meat eating seems to have entered our world when death entered.  by the time of noah - God had made it clear which animals he considered 'clean' and 'unclean.'  basically, explaining which animals were scavengers and He wanted the scavengers to be uneaten because of typically breeding more disease in their digestive system.  the clean animals typically chewed the cud - and were more vegetarian.  genesis 7:2 'you shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, and male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female....'

then, in genesis 9:3 - the very first mention of meat eating: 'every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; i give all to you , as i gave the green plant.  only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.'  the israelites, however, were told to observe dietary laws of clean and unclean meat.  'kosher' being the term for that. 

steve, i am with you on the idea that fish is meat, mammals are meat - and they both probably feel pain and sufferring but cannot process it.  just like the deer that is hit by a car suffers but dies not knowing that it could have avoided this by not walking in front of cars.  so much for evolution after this much time of having traffic.  deer's brains are quite undeveloped.  in fact, they walk towards headlights.  in any case, why go fishing and let the fish go?  quotas are ridiculous.  if you catch too many fish you have to throw some back?  for private fishermen who are out in small boats - this is just insane.  there are no quotas for subsistance fishing are there?  *maybe there are?  many people are basically in that situation and use the fish and meat for the freezer through the winter.  i think people should be allowed to hunt and fish all they want as long as they use the meat.  and, that they are not wasteful or uncompassionate in how they hunt. 

what seems to be out of balance is, as mentioned, using hunting and fishing for profit.  this is what is the problem.  if everyone was living on a more subsistance basis - it wouldn't matter.

[thalbergmad]

just like the deer that is hit by a car suffers but dies not knowing that it could have avoided this by not walking in front of cars. 

Sorry to digress, but i am sure a deer has enough awareness to get out of the way of a car. Regretfully, cars can move much faster than deers, so some will get run over.

I am stunned by the revelation that fish is meat, as i did not know this.

Thal

[pianistimo]

actually, deer here stop.  transfixed by headlights.  they try to get hit.  the faster you go - the more likely a deer will step in front of your car. 

about the fish - fish are like 99% meat. anyone who doesn't understand this has never gutted a fish.  1% gut.  i do not know about squid.  i think they're all muscle.

[mike_lang]

actually, deer here stop.  transfixed by headlights.  they try to get hit.  the faster you go - the more likely a deer will step in front of your car. 

about the fish - fish are like 99% meat. anyone who doesn't understand this has never gutted a fish.  1% gut.  i do not know about squid.  i think they're all muscle.

(Sigh...)

[ahinton]

it is interesting that before adam and eve sinned

Grrr! STOP IT! You're pianistiming the subject!...

- alice walker seemed right.

Who's Alice and why and where was she walking?

woman was not subjugated to man through childbirth. in fact, it could have been the other way around.  men may have laid eggs or something.

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs; that applies just as much to men as to women. Stop it, Susan.

although, i highly doubt that would have been the case since the man was made first.

Is that a case of eggs-igency?

ok. then, God tells them 'behold, i have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed, it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, i have given every green plant for food.'  (gen. 1:29)

even daniel seemed to benefit from a vegetarian diet rather than eating the king's diet.

BibibibibibibibleleleleSuSuSuSuSuSusansansansansan...

also, there are references to the millenium in other books

Other books? you mean ther are OTHER books! - wow!...

that say the lion will eat straw like the ox, etc.  so - it appears that death will be something that is a curse and not something that is typically observed day to day.

Can we get back to a sensible appraisal of the subject, please?...

meat eating seems to have entered our world when death entered.  by the time of noah - God had made it clear which animals he considered 'clean' and 'unclean.'  basically, explaining which animals were scavengers and He wanted the scavengers to be uneaten because of typically breeding more disease in their digestive system.  the clean animals typically chewed the cud - and were more vegetarian.  genesis 7:2 'you shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, and male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female....'

then, in genesis 9:3 - the very first mention of meat eating: 'every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; i give all to you , as i gave the green plant.  only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.'  the israelites, however, were told to observe dietary laws of clean and unclean meat.  'kosher' being the term for that.

For which? Susan, please try to be coherent and clear and stop constantly resorting to that Bible of yours...

steve, i am with you on the idea that fish is meat, mammals are meat - and they both probably feel pain and sufferring but cannot process it.  just like the deer that is hit by a car suffers but dies not knowing that it could have avoided this by not walking in front of cars.  so much for evolution after this much time of having traffic.  deer's brains are quite undeveloped.  in fact, they walk towards headlights.  in any case, why go fishing and let the fish go?  quotas are ridiculous.  if you catch too many fish you have to throw some back?  for private fishermen who are out in small boats - this is just insane.  there are no quotas for subsistance fishing are there?  *maybe there are?  many people are basically in that situation and use the fish and meat for the freezer through the winter.  i think people should be allowed to hunt and fish all they want as long as they use the meat.  and, that they are not wasteful or uncompassionate in how they hunt. 

what seems to be out of balance is, as mentioned, using hunting and fishing for profit.  this is what is the problem.  if everyone was living on a more subsistance basis - it wouldn't matter.

There's no difference between the dealings with animals including fish and vegetables and fruit in the terms which you mention; all are sold for profit. I'm with you on making the best use of all the produce, of course, but please don't try to distinguish animal/fish products from other foodstuffs in this way, because it makes no sense.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

actually, deer here stop.  transfixed by headlights. 

Fortunately, here in the UK, we don't drive around with our headlights on all day.

If what you are saying is true, it would make deer culling a lot easier. Instead of getting wet, covered in crap and freezing cold crawling around with a shotgun, you could stay in your car and switch on your headlights. This would save a lot of trouble.

I think i will write to Lord Lovat, he might be interested.

Thanks

Thal

[pianistimo]

it makes no sense in a technological society.  basically, alistair, i agree that it's easier to buy fresh meat than live on a farm or be a hunter/gatherer - but playing 'devil's advocate' i would say that if people had to shoot their own meat - they would do less of it.  the animal is hurt and dies. 

what if human meat was available in the stores?  would cows have any sense of compassion when they ripped open the plastic packages and made human hamburgers?  this is assuming that in evolution cows can pass up humans by turning from vegetarian to omnivorous.   how would you feel if a cow said there was no difference between buying your freeze dried relatives than bags of herbs or lettuce?  (which felt no pain when harvested - excepting the occasional scream and ouch that people who are extra sensitive hear when they harvest veggies)?

i urge you to reconsider - if only for the sake of argument.

thal - sometimes in the daytime - without headlights - they come running across the freeway in a sort of frenzy to 'beat the traffic.'  explain that!  deer have not evolutionized much.   

[ahinton]

Fortunately, here in the UK, we don't drive around with our headlights on all day.

Unlike in your beloved Grønland...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

thal - sometimes in the daytime - without headlights - they come running across the freeway in a sort of frenzy to 'beat the traffic.'  explain that!  deer have not evolutionized much.   

You change your story, now they don't even need headlights.

This must be a special breed you have only in PA. My encounters with deer in Scotland would indicate that they go out of there way to get the hell off the road.

Thal

[ahinton]

This must be a special breed you have only in PA.

There are several breeds of creature that are generally recognised to be unique to Pennsylvania; I'd rather though that you already knew that. The lesser-spotted pianistimo is a classic example thereof; one prominent naturalist has famously documented this species as being characterised by some unusual behaviour that has been recognised independently by several distinguished photographic researchers as being characterised by an innate desire to slide down poles in a lascivious manner with a Bible in the hand the while - not that I have yet had direct personal experience of any such thing, you understand...

My encounters with deer in Scotland would indicate that they go out of there way to get the hell off the road.

Well, you can't blame them, can you? (and you probably don't); that said, there's nothing quite like good game and other properly reared and hung meat-producing animals - and we should treat them with the utmost technical brilliance and respect, otherwise we would risk abusing not only them but ourselves as recipients of their beneficence. We're very fortunate to have such a resource; we should use it wisely and major in on locally reared produce, whether the animals concerned are eventually to be humanely slaughtered or just shot (in the case of wild ones).

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

that's because they do understand one thing.  that you all are driving on the wrong side of the road.

what is this again, alistair, about lascivious pole dancing?  you have a very active imagination and cannot seem to rid yourself of this idea - even though i pointed out that it is a remote one.  do you have circumstancial proof.  evidence that anyone (pianists or non-pianists) have ever seen me pole dancing? 

[leahcim]

do you have circumstancial proof.  evidence that anyone (pianists or non-pianists) have ever seen me pole dancing? 

Yes, IIRC you posted about it once.

edit: My bad, you actually said you'd pulled your husband off whilst watching pole dancing but he just laughed? https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15403.msg164684.html#msg164684

[ramithediv]

I tried to shoot a squirrel once as it was pinching me bird nuts.

you must have huge birds. 

Well, she only uses the top half of the bath tub. 

[leahcim]

but playing 'devil's advocate' i would say that if people had to shoot their own meat - they would do less of it.  the animal is hurt and dies. 

Lucky animal if he's dead before he's eaten. A lot of predators eat warm meals.
In the UK that'd be true because not many of us have guns.

Although we're better equipped than the Canadians that club together. We'd probably have 2 people on the door ''scuse me squire, I think you oughta be getting into the oven...we don't want any trouble..." and a back up team to wade in if it flares up.

I'd happily kill what I ate. Maybe we could do it like climate change and, those that feel guilty about flying to Barbados and so on, they could pay me to kill animals to offset what they've eaten? [It'd have the advantage that if I didn't actually do anything at all, and just spend the money, it'd be exactly like Carbon offsetting]

what if human meat was available in the stores?

In parts of the world where they still have animals, we are, more or less. Not just for food either. As Don Corleone said "Hippos, you can't reason with them.." and we all knew what the Don wanted when he said that.

Lionesses will happily rip a strange baby lion cub to pieces if it strays onto their territory.
It's a jungle out there. [Yes I know...but I can't spell Savannah]

[steve jones]

it makes no sense in a technological society.  basically, alistair, i agree that it's easier to buy fresh meat than live on a farm or be a hunter/gatherer - but playing 'devil's advocate' i would say that if people had to shoot their own meat - they would do less of it.  the animal is hurt and dies. 

I think you're so right, and I agree whole heartedly. Though it may not be practical, I think that in an ideal world, we'd all have little alotments at the bottom of the garden with a pig and a few chickens! Seriously.

We need to re-establish a respect with these animals. Hiding them away in battery farms is not even close to being suitable. But I fear that it is the only practical way at present.

Perhaps if kids were educated better during school, they might be more prepared to invest in organic meat or even better, suppliment with there own?

My father often tells me about his childhood. Post war, my grandfather was a butcher. He was also an award winning gardener. He would grow and process most of their food himself. My father tells me about how he used to play with the young piglets, then when it was time help get them ready for slaughter. He would help pluck the chickens when need be, etc. He and my grandfather we also keen fishermen. They would regularly go out into the estuary and catch sea bass for dinner.

To me, this is all very healthy. My father grew up with both the life and death of the animals. Nowadays, while not growing his own, he does have a level of respect for them that you dont find in most people. Above all, he realises that his meat was once running around, a living and breathing creature, probably very cute!

On the other hand, I know people who will only eat meat that has been pulped and processed so many times its completely unrecognisable. They are in such denial about the origins of their food that they'd happily eat processed garbage just to remain with heads buried in the sand. These people have never had anything to do with the life and death of there animals. They have no emotional investment in them and therefore no respect.

I think that these people are the ones who need to get real. Schools need to educate rather than shelter.

[prometheus]

However, I fear that our food is 'cheap and nasty' enough as it is. I worry that if we start putting price above quality, we may end up eating the freeze dried remains of our dead relatives  Im only half jesting!

The food industry is a very dirty business dominated by a few giant corporations. And consumers are, unlike humans, only influenced by the price of a product.

I think that the nutritional benefits of eating meat (not to mention the enjoyment) make it worth a spot on the menu. Though I certainly think we could do with eating less.

We definitely eat too much protein. And if I only cared about nurtition I would probably still eat fish. I don't see how the enjoyment of something justifies the damage done.

I guess my main disagree with your post would be the view you take on death. As humans, we seem programmed to fear death, and this creates a kind of empathy with the death of other animals.

There is a big difference between accepting, or not, death and causing death. I recently posted something about the general view of death. But this has little to do with it. If a human genocide is committed then I don't relativise it by saying they would have died anyway or by saying that they would have suffered if they had lived.

I am by no means immune to this! However, I try to view it in the bigger picture - death = life, life = death. The cattle that we domesticate for food lives solely for us to eat. The animals that they derived from were always the 'prey' in the natural ecosystems.

The crime is giving them life as well. Breeding freaks of nature whose only function is to be killed as food is cruel.

I have nothing against predators killing their prey, be the predator or the prey human, as long as it is part of a natural ecosystem.

these animals evolved to become prey. By denying this, are we also denying their existence, their purpose?

These animals evolved  by trying not to be prey. All the ancestors of all the 'prey' animals alive all succeeded in surviving until they reproduced.
You make it sound like they have 'losers genes' and deserve to be eaten for it. They are all survivors.

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." (Alice Walker)

This seems to typify some of the more radical beliefs.[/qoute]


I don't understand what you mean with radical beliefs. It's quite an unavoidable position if you ask me. Only reason to disagree with it is if you think god created animals for the sole purpose for us to eat them.

[ahinton]

that's because they do understand one thing.  that you all are driving on the wrong side of the road.

Everyone other than the most drunken idiots in UK drive on the wrong side of the road...

what is this again, alistair, about lascivious pole dancing?

What is it? I cannot tell you. You tell me. You're the one that does it. I don't do any kind of dancing.

you have a very active imagination

Well, I do hope so, for it would be abit stupid of me to be a composer without one, surely?...

and cannot seem to rid yourself of this idea - even though i pointed out that it is a remote one.  do you have circumstancial proof.

You're asking me? (!)...

evidence that anyone (pianists or non-pianists) have ever seen me pole dancing? 

There's a pictures thread on which you can post such evidence if you so choose, Suze...

Best,

Alistair

[steve jones]

The crime is giving them life as well. Breeding freaks of nature whose only function is to be killed as food is cruel.

I agree. Again, I have no support for the industrialization of meat products. That said, I am not offended that new breeds have arisen out of farming any more than I am regarding the diversity of domesticate dog and cat breeds.

I have nothing against predators killing their prey, be the predator or the prey human, as long as it is part of a natural ecosystem.

Define natural?

Are there any circumstances that you feel allow humans to be part of such a system?

These animals evolved  by trying not to be prey. All the ancestors of all the 'prey' animals alive all succeeded in surviving until they reproduced.
You make it sound like they have 'losers genes' and deserve to be eaten for it. They are all survivors.

I dont think thats what Im saying. Rather that the animals we eat today ALL (unless Im mistaken) are derived from creatures that natural occur as prey within natural ecosystems. We are not talking about eating cats and dogs here! The kinds of animals that we eat have come from animals that were and are hunted in nature.

I feel this is where comparison between said animals and humans fail. We have lived at the top of the food chain since pre-history. Cattle, be it domestic or otherwise, have never been anywhere but.

Again, I agree with you on many of your points. But on the fundamental level, I dont think there is anything wrong with man consuming the diet that he has evolved to require. Indeed, if people ate a more balanced diet, I find it highly unlikely that we'd need Omega 3 and Zinc additives to keep us with sufficient nourishment.

SJ

[mike_lang]

There's a pictures thread on which you can post such evidence if you so choose, Suze...

FtLoG, please no!

[pianistimo]

i wouldn't worry too much.  there isn't one.

i like to watch ballroom dancing mostly.  and no, i don't even think my husband was watching when i saw the pole dancer on tv.  he was at work.  i told him about it, though.  she came to women's homes and taught them how to dance for their husbands.  that is a bit different than dancing for everyone in the neighborhood.  besides, in pa - if you're caught doing that - you may as well be a witch in a puritans stew.   

i'm surprised that people don't see the connection between movement and music, though - sometimes.  musicians (as i said earlier in the thread) are often terrible dancers.  why?  they don't need to be.  probably because they just sat at the piano too much.  as you get older - i think the realization is that dancing won't kill a person.  i've always liked dancing - it's just that i'm not that coordinated.  as i said - if i spun around a pole i'd probably get dizzy after the third go around and fall down in a heap.  forget the climbing and turning upside down part - which would literally land people like me in the hospital.  i've already been in the hospital.  no need to do this over again.  no.  i prefer 'safe' dancing.  like 'safe' sex it is not intended to cause immediate arousal.  though i'm not sure about salsa dancing and flamenco.  you know - line dancing, ballroom dancing, maybe learning how to waltz. 

[mike_lang]

but, you know - in terms of what turns women and men both on - i think it is...

...not pole dancing by middle-aged bible thumping Pennsylvanians.

[leahcim]

in terms of what turns women and men both on - i think it is being cocky enough

Well, that works for Scandinavians apparently.

[pianistimo]

speak for yourself, ML - good catholic that you are.  tell me that you're a dancer.

people talk about dance as though it is something bad.  i think it's how you use it.  i think dancing can be beautiful and that people should try it more for exercise.  *i'm trying to convince my hubby of this.

[ahinton]

i like to watch ballroom dancing mostly.

It takes all sorts, I suppose. At least watching it would appear to be perfectly harmless...

and no, i don't even think my husband was watching when i saw the pole dancer on tv.  he was at work.  i told him about it, though.  she came to women's homes and taught them how to dance for their husbands.  that is a bit different than dancing for everyone in the neighborhood.  besides, in pa - if you're caught doing that - you may as well be a witch in a puritans stew.   

You're no Pennsylvanian ambassador, are you, Susan? Whatever kind of attitude is that? And how can you bear to continue to live there amongst it? I know I couldn't...

i'm surprised that people don't see the connection between movement and music, though - sometimes.  musicians (as i said earlier in the thread) are often terrible dancers.  why?

This is certainly true in my experience; there are quite a few exceptions, admittedly, but what you write is true nonetheless.

they don't need to be.  probably because they just sat at the piano too much.

Not every musician does that; OK, most do spend some time at the piano at some point, but other performers and singers do stand in order to perform, conductors almost always do (unless they are disabled) and composers are perhaps the worst offenders as they sit to do all their work (one exception to this is the American Augusta Read Thomas who once told me that she always stand to compose, working at scores on a large drawing board rather like a visual artist, but this, I imagine, in pretty exception).

as you get older - i think the realization is that dancing won't kill a person.

I think that this can be realised at any age, actually, but it doesn't come without its attendant risks of accidental injury and bone problems such as arthritis, rheumatism, etc.; a worryingly large proportion of professional dancers end up with these and similar kinds of problem in retirement.

i've always liked dancing - it's just that i'm not that coordinated.  as i said - if i spun around a pole i'd probably get dizzy after the third go around and fall down in a heap.  forget the climbing and turning upside down part - which would literally land people like me in the hospital.  i've already been in the hospital.  no need to do this over again.  no.  i prefer 'safe' dancing.  like 'safe' sex it is not intended to cause immediate arousal.  though i'm not sure about salsa dancing and flamenco.  you know - line dancing, ballroom dancing, maybe learning how to waltz. 

Well, as I said, it takes all sorts. It simply has no appeal whatsoever to me and I cannot figure out how it has one to those who take to it (I just accept it as a fact). To me, music itself is what dances (when it does) rather than people "dancing" TO it. Years ago, I played for classes at what is now called the Royal Acaademy of Dance in London and I always felt like a fish out of water doing it; much as I could admire the technical brilliance of much of what I saw, I still failed to appreciate it as any kind of expressive force or what everyone else there perceived as its indelible relationship with music. In a break on one such occasion I even said to one of the dancers that I didn't feel as though I was contributing anything the the proceedings and that they'd surely do just as well without me, whereupon several of them threatened to lock the door to prevent my "escape" as they felt that there would be no point in them being there without me playing. That may have been very flattering (especially given my lack of pianistic prowess), but I still couldn't really understand it. The bottom line is that I have never felt any motivation to dance. Nothing I can do about that!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

people talk about dance as though it is something bad.

I have to say that I've never actually heard anyone doing that and I don;t do so myself either; I just simply cannot understand or feel motivated by it in any of its forms.

i think it's how you use it.

Well, I just don't use it at all...

i think dancing can be beautiful and that people should try it more for exercise.  *i'm trying to convince my hubby of this.

One has to have an aptitude for it in the first place, surely?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

sometimes, i don't know what to think.  if it were up to me - i'd never shoot anything.

And yet on several occasions you have defended, with considerable forthrighness, your nations constitutional right for citizens to bear arms; what's the point of having a gun if you are determined never to use it?

what i think would be optimum is for people to not think that meat must be consumed daily.  i don't think it is good for us and the hormones probably cause some cancers.

I agree, in principle, although each individual would be better off seeking to find the diet that best suited them at any given time rather than be dictated to or dictate to themselves without the benefit of professional dietary and nutritional advice. Personally, I don't eat meat every day and I don't really feel that I want to any more than I'd want to give it up, but I doubt that most people would be harmed by daily meat eating; I imagine also that people living in the place where you were raised would need daily meat rations rather more than those living in less inhospitable climes.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

you're always full of surprises alistair.  first you say you 'don't play piano' and then i find out that you played for a royal academy of dance.  that says something!  i bet you were better than you let on.  otherwise, they'd have let you leave. 

interesting about the friend who composes whilst standing, too.

about the guns.  i neither own one or know how to use one.  probably would need some kind of hand rest to avoid hitting anything and everything.  i see people use their left hand - but what good is that?  have you ever tried to steady your right hand with your left hand.  it just doesn't work in real life.  snipers set it on a ledge.  if i had to shoot -i'd do that.  of course, i don't know what i'd be shooting at.  i always tell my son if he joins the military to maim instead of kill.  you know, shoot a hand or something.  they can't shoot you back that way.  frankly, i don't really know what i'd do in a war situation.  if i felt that i needed to defend our country -i'm sure i'd borrow the nearest gun and start blasting.  when one runs out of ammunition - then what?  that's why God is necessary.  anyways - modern warfare kinda nixes the idea of some kind of revolutionary war to take back our country in the 21st century.  when foreign firms are buying up usa companies right and left - we won't be working for anyone american for the foreseeable future.  may as well raise a white flag over your head - or determine that money is unnecessary to life and start a farm in the back woods.

[ahinton]

you're always full of surprises alistair.  first you say you 'don't play piano' and then i find out that you played for a royal academy of dance.  that says something!  i bet you were better than you let on.  otherwise, they'd have let you leave.

What I mean is that I am not a pianist and the very meagre amount of pianistic facility that I have
was enough to allow me to get by in that situation; it's all a long time ago anyway.

frankly, i don't really know what i'd do in a war situation.  if i felt that i needed to defend our country -i'm sure i'd borrow the nearest gun and start blasting.

You've just contradicted yourself. First, you don't know what you'd do and then you tell us what you'd do!

when one runs out of ammunition - then what?  that's why God is necessary.

So God's a mere piece of ammunition? I rather doubt that He'd be flattered by such a description...

anyways - modern warfare kinda nixes the idea of some kind of revolutionary war to take back our country in the 21st century.  when foreign firms are buying up usa companies right and left - we won't be working for anyone american for the foreseeable future.  may as well raise a white flag over your head

That's far from peculiar to US; almost every country on earth has companies and other entities owned by other countries.

or determine that money is unnecessary to life and start a farm in the back woods.

First buy the backwoods and then seek all the necessary legal and planning permissions to build and run the farm. You'll need money for all of those things, though...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

I've never been on a "factory farm" and I can't say whether your descriptions are close or not.  They don't match what I saw growing up so I was initially skeptical, but people have been able to convince me stuffing geese for foie gras actually happens.

I grew up in farm country and saw how friends treated their animals.  They not only gave them the fine care necessary for a substantial investment, they by all accounts loved them.  I never saw a cow or goat mistreated, but instead treated as well or better than family. 

And at slaughtering time they killed them without a qualm, and ate them.  Without being able to articulate it, it was clear they considered city folk who couldn't face both realities (the loving care and the killing) to be deficient.  And those who decried the killing and continued to eat at McD's were of course hypocritical. 

pianistimmo, here's what I do to hold a gun steady if I really intend to shoot something (as opposed to simply practising target shooting as a skill)  I have a camera tripod.  On it is mounted a U-shaped channel filled with foam rubber padding.  The barrel rests on that and i sit behind it waiting patiently.  And yes, I eat what I kill.  (With some exceptions like skunk, etc.)  An alternative to the tripod, if you have a car handy, is to split a section of swim noodle halfway and push the slot down on your car window.  I've used this waiting up for a raccoon that was eating the ducks the kids were raising. 

[pianistimo]

i'm confused.  'split a section of swim noodle?'  ok.  like a sling of sorts?  i suppose you learned this in boy scouts?  this has gotten me thinking of subsistance living - although it's been so long since i've been cold - i think that would do me in right there.  just one night of cold weather.  surrender.  i really don't know how the guys at valley forge did it.  and, if i had to hunt and fish to eat - well, i think i'd just start eating twigs and berries.  although roasted turkey would get me. 

i always watch survivor man - and also watched a show the other day of a guy who was a terrible skiier being led on a tour of the alps mountain range.  making it from remote cabin to remote cabin.  the fact he survived it all gave me hope.  one bad mistake and there goes - well, just about everything.  drop the pack in the water, or down a gorge.  there's all your food and supplies gone.  not to mention any weapons. 

not sure what this has to do with vegetarianism or religion.  how did religion get into this anyways?  just asking!  are there religions that require you to be a vegetarian?  i suppose it would be easy membership for a few weeks. then, gradually sneaking a few hamburgers or steaks here and there.

[mephisto]

I understand what vegetarians say, but I don't see the moral problem in killing an animal. If I had the same moral standars as some vegetarians maybe I would have been one too.

It tastes so incredibly good, and humans are made to eat meat.

How do you vegetarians get your B12 vitamins?

[steve jones]

It tastes so incredibly good, and humans are made to eat meat.

As usual, common sense prevails.

Well said.

Meat tastes good because our bodies want it. Sweet food tastes good because in the natural world (ie, a world without added salt, flavor enhancers and refined sugars), sweet = nutritious. Point being? Our bodies tell us what they want. As someone said earlier 'enjoyment has nothing to do with it'. On the contrary, I believe that enjoyment has EVERYTHING to do with it!

In the natural world, if we want it, its because we need it.

"How do you vegetarians get your B12 vitamins?"

They dont have Hollands and Barrett in your part of the jungle? 

SJ

[ahinton]

not sure what this has to do with vegetarianism or religion.  how did religion get into this anyways?  just asking!

That's a question I never thought I'd live to witness you asking! I've no idea what it has to do with it myself. My position on this is probably already sufficiently well known here not to warrant much elaboration or reiteration, but - just to summarise - I am not a vegetarian, I am utterly against "factory farming" and in favour of the best possible standards of animal husbandry for the benefit of those animals that we then have the privilege and pleasure to consume and for ourselves in that enjoyment. I don't have any "religious" thoughts about this at all and I don't shoot the meat that I eat, although this latter fact is principally down to three factors - (a) I don't have the time for that, (b) I can't see well enough to do the shooting and (c) I can't afford the kit to do it (which, like all else here in UK, is horrendously expensive).

What I want to know from you, though, Susan, is how did dance get into this? At least "religion" is part of the thread title, however irrelevant it may also seem to be here. And, for the record and for the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding, whilst I may have very slender grasp of what it is that dancers do and why on earth they do it, I do not eat them...

Best,

Alistair

[steve jones]

To clarify, Im curious about peoples views on the consumption of meat in light of their religious / spiritual / philosophical beliefs. We are talking here about the morality of killing to sustain ones own life, or not as the case may be.

What provoked me to start this thread was a recent conversation with someone of strong opinion in both areas. I felt that I saw a contradiction in their views - if you believe in God (a creator), and you acknowledge fundamental natural principles such as the cycle of life and death, the process of energy from the sun moving through the food chain and providing life, etc... then how can you believe it immoral to consume animals? Is this not to deny the very nature of the world, and therefore the God that created it?

I got called everything under the sun, but I never actually received a rational response to this question.

Hence, I put to Pianostreet to show me the light! 

SJ

[pianistimo]

i don't understand why a personal choice would get you called everything under the sun.   it's just not their business what you eat.  perhaps they thought you were undermining their own beliefs by believing something different.  i don't really see how what one person eats affects another person.  maybe they need to take a step back and realize that vegetables can sometimes kill a person.  look at what happened with simple bags of frozen spinach.

if one wants to know what the bible says - one merely reads the chapters about clean and unclean meats.  eating meat is in the bible after the supposed 'fall.'  my theological differences with people are usually about the 'fall' and involve whether sex is bad.  as i see it - adam and eve didn't get reprimanded for having sex and told they 'fell.'  God merely asked them how they knew they were naked.  ok.  different subject. 

in the new testament - paul explains that 'all things are clean' but not all manners of eating it are beneficial to worship of the true God. for instance, if food is offerred to idols - why pretend you are worshipping an idol. today, typically people aren't in temples eating to artemis or whatever.  also, there is a prescription in the bible not to drink the blood of an animal because it's life is in the blood.  i tend to be very careful on that one because uncooked meat also carries disease and/or bacteria.  also, a correlation has been found between some shellfish and certain cancers. perhaps God knew why he called scavengers 'unclean.'  they eat garbage off the bottom of the ocean.  also, scavengers like the owl, cormorant, hawk - they're also called 'unclean.'  basically clean animals and birds are listed in the bible as having specific features to look for (they are interestingly divided into categories - uncloven or cloven hoof, chew or don't chew the cud) two of those features must exist for an animal to be considered clean.  the clean animals must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud.  the camel has a cloven hoof but doesn't chew the cud.  who would want to eat a camel anyways?  birds are listed specifically as to type of bird and the distinction is that they are not predatory over dead animals.

what churches make an issue of vegetarianism vs. omnivorianism?  scientology?  i think to some jewish faiths (ie messianic) there is an indication in the bible the shabbat looks backwards and forwards at the same time.  for one brief moment (day) we rest and feel the birth of creation and the renewal of it at the second coming.  if the earth will be in complete harmony again - then the animals and trees and everything alive will feel this peace as we do.  it is said that the little child will lie down with a lion.  and the lion is said to eat straw like an ox.  as i see it - God can make life any way He sees fit ...and if He did at creation - what is stopping Him at the return of Jesus Christ?  that is an issue of faith vs seeing, though.  what we see now is far different.  the food chain is basically following predatory instead of vegetarian ideals.