: Thanks for your reply, I think most of your points are pretty fair. I guess I interpreted the essay a little differently. I am used to being received with hostility when people find out I am a vegetarian.I know, I'm often as guilty as the next man (though I hope it's usually in a fairly mpost-modern, self-mocking and ironic way; well here's hoping anyway!! ;) I'm quite interested as to why it is such a social stigma. I suppose in the first place it implies a belief strong enough to alter behaviour. Dare I say, I see quite a few similarities between the fundamentalist-christians and the fundamentalist-ecologists/socialists/vegetarians. Both are very unusal in turning their backs on a society which tells them how to behave, behaving differently and being prepared to be mocked for their beliefs and behaviours. I suppose what this page shows is that even in a modern conformist socety there are still those who are prepared to stand and have reasonable debate, even when they believe the other side to be wrong. It also implies a form of moral superiority which we humans don't really approve of (if you don't believe me look at the history of the early church, or the treatment of prophets who said the wrong things in the acient world): whether we're right or wrong, we don't like being told we're wrong. I suppose finally, and especially in Europe post WW2 there is a real belief that food should not be wasted, and the turning down of what remains high prestige food here it a major slight on a host.
: You say there is no need for "wallowing in the precise details of what is involved by those who already know in depth." I would reply by saying most people do not know in depth what occurs. Furthermore, people have developed a defense mechanism which allows them to temporarily deny or dissociate from the brutality of a slaughterhouse (or from other meat industry consequences [see below]) while eatin' a big honkin' burger.
What interests me, as a result of this discussion is this: When our ancestors lived an early pastoral/agrarian lifestyle, and indeed in tribes where this type of lifestyle is still lived, vegetarianism does not seem to have been the norm. This is despite the fact that there was no separation between slaughter and consumption, it was invariably the same people who herded and tended the animal, slaughtered it, butchered and then cooked it. The argument that the lack of connection between consumer and producer didn't exist, yet neither did vegetarianism. So I wonder if the separation hasn't had an opposite effect.
To explain it another way I will use a personal illustration: I'm a medical student and one of the first things that we do in this country is human dissection. It's something which holds a morbid fascination for almost everyone (and yes I do know lots of stories which would make you squirm). Whenever I talk to people about it (suprisingly often, and I promise you it's not a subject I bring up, though once an interest has been expressed I feel it's my duty to give all the information) the thing I hear most often is "I could never do it", indeed a lot of my frineds, and I'd include myself, believed they could never do it. And yet once you've started it ceases to be disgusting and becomes a part of everyday life. In fact it becomes an enormously interesting learning experience. I think the same is true where slaughter is still necessary, it is something which is just done, there is no sort of cultural taboo associated with it. It is not until we become separated from it that we are firstly affected by, and then repelled by it. I believe that in a society where we had to slaughter our own food vegetarianism would all but disappear. This is not, you have to understand a moral justification of meat eating, but rather an explanation of the fallacy of linking production and consumption.
Despite that I have to say that I'd agree with the argument which says if you can't deal with Ermintrude the Cow being your beef (I bet she'd taste weird) then you really oughtn't to be eating it. I can.
:I have seen this in myself and in others jsut about every day of my life. In many cultures it is common to be grateful and recognize the sources of one's food before dining. In our culture this is not commonplace. Some of us may thank a higher entity, or the bounty of the land, but rarely do we thank the sentient beings involved (including the food-producers.)
Sad and true. And probably partially for the reason I've given above.
:: Scrooge: "On a totally different tack I'd like to know what the reasons other than distaste for flesh are for vegetarianism/veganism since that was what my original post was about."
: My list of reasons are, in no particular order:
: -cruelty to animals in factory farming
: -opposition to the proprietary/stewardship mentality which allows animal domestication
: -habitat destruction in the world's most biodiverse region (curiously, ill-suited to pasture-lands)
: -the above leads to soil erosion, massive species extinction, global warming
: -land-grabbing from subsistence farmers to meet the demands of greedy north american diets
: -mentality (most prevalent in north america) that animal products are necessary in your diet, or even that they are healthy at all in the quantities we consume them
: -inefficient use of grains and arable land when a third of the world is undernourished
I haven't got time (after my expostion above) to address all these-I'll do it in another post. Sufficed to say that with the exception of the second one, which I disagree whole heartedly, I see none of the others, the fundamental bases of all of which I agree with, as overwelming reason to totally change my lifestyle. I'll explain why next time. They are-to me at least-far more convincing reasons than any number of pictures of slaughtered pigs.
Scrooge
