![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Omnivore's Dillema or, How Do You Spell "Hypocrisy"?
As I think I've mentioned before, I've dropped about 30 pounds in the past six months. The process began as the silver lining to the cloud of misery that was my break-up with Laura - for once, sadness and rage led me to eat less instead of more.
When I realized what was going on, though, I started paying attention to my diet. More to the point, with how much I was eating, not what I was eating, since I have always eaten well. Living on Kraft Dinner and potato chips has never been my style.
That said, the quality of my diet has changed in a couple of significant ways since I stopped cooking for two. On the one hand, I've been eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, along with such things as granola, nuts and cheese, while on the other, I have been eating much less meat, largely because - used to cooking for two people - what I would cook would far too often go bad in the fridge.
I have by no means become a vegetarian (let alone a vegan), but having now often gone days in a row without the flesh of an animal passing through my gullet, I have come to the gut-level realization that vegetarianism is not an impossibility for me.
A couple of weeks ago, fadefromnothing posted an impassioned rant about the evils of carnivorism. From a strictly pragmatic point-of-view, I thought her piece was poor propaganda - too easy to dismiss it as "emotional" (that the argument, that basing a belief on one's feelings is "irrational" is bogus is an argument for another time) - but I had a hard time rebutting the rational arguments that underlay her feelings. In fact, I found it impossible to do so.
Getting away from the anger underlying that post, I find three basic points to Sidra's argument:
(Sidra further compared our modern willingness to torture and slaughter our fellow (thinking and feeling) animals to women's rights, slavery and concentration camps. And, though the comparisons may seem over-the-top to you, when you think about it, the idea is hard (impossible?) to rebut.)
Last Saturday, after my friend Vernski and I had talked ourselves out about Borat, I paraphrased Sidra's post, and described my discomfort in the fact I had been unable to argue against it.
Now Vernski, despite his long-term co-habitation with a vegetarian, is to my mind notoriously carnivorous. Where I make stir-fries, he broils thick, bloody steaks.
And so I was more than a little surprised when he agreed with me (and with Sidra).
Yes, he said, there is no justification for eating meat, no more than there was for the slave trade in the 18th century, or than there is now for sex tours of daycare centres in Thailand.
And yet, we both acknowledged, that this intellectual understanding of a moral fact was not going to stop either of us from frying up some bacon in the morning.
I like to think that I am a pretty good human being. I try not to lie, I make a point of not taking advantage of the weak or vulnerable and on at least a couple of occasions I have fought down fear and put my face on the line to protect a stranger from possible violence by people who could most likely have easily broken my body the way a child smashes her grand-mother's antique china tea-cup.
Long story short, Vernski and I agreed that eating meat is wrong. And yet we also agreed we will both continue to consume the flesh of what were once living, thinking and feeling creatures, into the foreseable future.
If you grant (as I do) that he and I are at the very least reasonably good people, how do you explain our willingness to engage in a practice we both agree is - in a word - evil? How is it that I am not emotionally tortured by the dichotomy between what I think and what I feel?
[Edit: According to this month's Harper's, "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warned that livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep and chickens are among the world's top three environmental threats:the agency said that livestock production, largely driven by the demand for meat, pollutes water, destroys biodiversity, and, when the entire production cycle is taken into account, produces more greenhouse gases than the transportation sector."]
When I realized what was going on, though, I started paying attention to my diet. More to the point, with how much I was eating, not what I was eating, since I have always eaten well. Living on Kraft Dinner and potato chips has never been my style.
That said, the quality of my diet has changed in a couple of significant ways since I stopped cooking for two. On the one hand, I've been eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, along with such things as granola, nuts and cheese, while on the other, I have been eating much less meat, largely because - used to cooking for two people - what I would cook would far too often go bad in the fridge.
I have by no means become a vegetarian (let alone a vegan), but having now often gone days in a row without the flesh of an animal passing through my gullet, I have come to the gut-level realization that vegetarianism is not an impossibility for me.
A couple of weeks ago, fadefromnothing posted an impassioned rant about the evils of carnivorism. From a strictly pragmatic point-of-view, I thought her piece was poor propaganda - too easy to dismiss it as "emotional" (that the argument, that basing a belief on one's feelings is "irrational" is bogus is an argument for another time) - but I had a hard time rebutting the rational arguments that underlay her feelings. In fact, I found it impossible to do so.
I don't care how good murder tastes. It is archaic, brutal, unecessary, and unethical. By supporting the industry, you are supporting the unecessary torture and death of innocent beings...STOP LYING TO YOURSELF. STOP KILLING PEOPLE AND ANIMALS. (fadefromnothing)
Getting away from the anger underlying that post, I find three basic points to Sidra's argument:
- (Other) animals are thinking and feeling beings;
- We in the rich world have no necessity to consume animal protein; and so,
- It is morally wrong to butcher (other) animals, whether for food, clothing or (presumably especially) for sport.
(Sidra further compared our modern willingness to torture and slaughter our fellow (thinking and feeling) animals to women's rights, slavery and concentration camps. And, though the comparisons may seem over-the-top to you, when you think about it, the idea is hard (impossible?) to rebut.)
Last Saturday, after my friend Vernski and I had talked ourselves out about Borat, I paraphrased Sidra's post, and described my discomfort in the fact I had been unable to argue against it.
Now Vernski, despite his long-term co-habitation with a vegetarian, is to my mind notoriously carnivorous. Where I make stir-fries, he broils thick, bloody steaks.
And so I was more than a little surprised when he agreed with me (and with Sidra).
Yes, he said, there is no justification for eating meat, no more than there was for the slave trade in the 18th century, or than there is now for sex tours of daycare centres in Thailand.
And yet, we both acknowledged, that this intellectual understanding of a moral fact was not going to stop either of us from frying up some bacon in the morning.
I like to think that I am a pretty good human being. I try not to lie, I make a point of not taking advantage of the weak or vulnerable and on at least a couple of occasions I have fought down fear and put my face on the line to protect a stranger from possible violence by people who could most likely have easily broken my body the way a child smashes her grand-mother's antique china tea-cup.
Long story short, Vernski and I agreed that eating meat is wrong. And yet we also agreed we will both continue to consume the flesh of what were once living, thinking and feeling creatures, into the foreseable future.
If you grant (as I do) that he and I are at the very least reasonably good people, how do you explain our willingness to engage in a practice we both agree is - in a word - evil? How is it that I am not emotionally tortured by the dichotomy between what I think and what I feel?
[Edit: According to this month's Harper's, "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warned that livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep and chickens are among the world's top three environmental threats:the agency said that livestock production, largely driven by the demand for meat, pollutes water, destroys biodiversity, and, when the entire production cycle is taken into account, produces more greenhouse gases than the transportation sector."]
no subject
Humans are biologically omnivores. We haven't evolved sufficiently enough to get past this. No one screams at a polar bear that the seal pup it's eating is murder. Why do we attach such morality, when we too are animals?
For the record when I found out about the energy hierarchy in high school, I tried vegetarianism for six months. I saw my doctor and nutritionists so that I got all that a body needed. I still wound up miserable, sick and highly anemic. My mother out of sheer frustration fixed me a steak and put it on my plate. I haven't looked back since. I accept that I'm a hard wired carnivore. I do better with meat protein than vegetable protein. I don't process a lot of vegetables properly either. This is my biology and I accept it. I feel no more guilt than a lion thinking, "Yum zebra." This is the way my body is. Why should anyone deny me my RIGHT to live within my biology based on their moralistic objections.
Re: Values
I'm of the school that man is a natural pescetarian (eats fish, no meat/fowl/dairy/eggs).
The polar bear hunts its own animals, it is tailored to do so with sharp incisors, sharp claws, agility, the ability to widthstand cold weather when it swims through freezing water for its prey. Similarly, the omnivores of our planet are capable of catching their pray without the use of farms, guns, knives, sedatives, etc...
Our incisors aren't sharp enough to comfortable tear through raw meat, we aren't agile enough to catch much more than fish and some small rodents, and we most definitely are not of the strength where we can rip a cow to shreds.
I agree that vegetarianism isn't for everyone. Especially if you were raised on a high meat-based diet with quite a bit of sodium, processed foods,etc..., and our culture does an excellent job of relating these things to comfort, and that you must be consuming these to feel at ease with your health. If we've been raised like this, then it is hard to change our lifestyles.
My argument, however, was not about wanting everyone to be a vegetarian/vegan, I think I cite that quite clearly. It was about getting people to stop denying things and trying to sugarcoat things for themselves. We lie to our children about how our food comes from big, beautiful farms where animals are taken extremely good care of... where in fact, the majority of the meat we consume comes from giant factory farms which operate much like prisons, and I think it is important that people research the source of their food. I'm sure we would make different decisions if we all knew what exactly happens to what we are eating, especially in terms of hormones and such.
There is a vital difference between the way we do things, and the way polar bears do things.
Nutrition is nutrition. I get what I need from a plants-based diet but unfortunately, many people would prefer a steak over a cup of spinach... whereas there are countries in this world where the latter would be the feast of kings.
I'm not trying to enforce how eating meat is wrong on anyone, but living by buddhist principles, I do think that unlawfully taking the life of another creature without necessity is murder, and I am tired of people denying it.
Re: Values
This is where I have issue with this philosophy. ALL creatures kill the food they eat. What is to make a blade of grass LESS important than a bear? I disagree with having a hierarchy of life. Almost all life consumes life to live. In that we are animals, we do not photosynthesize and thus we must kill to eat.
I disagree with pescatarianism. Why does a fish have more rights than a cow? What about the people who don't live anywhere near fish? Are they natural pescatarians too?
And what about the people who where raised with farm fresh everything. Do they also have need of processed food?
There is too much generalisation within your argument for me to give it much merit. I beleive that part of the reason scientists cannot come to a consensus on our 'natural' diet is that it perhaps they too over generalize based on their own bias of what is natural to them.
PS The bodhivista does state that vegetarianism is the way to go simply because they do not believe in harming potential souls on their life path. Which many monks will happily debate with you in that they too do not believe in a hierarchy of life, but they have to eat SOMETHING. Has nothing to do with unlawful murder as you state.
Re: Values
Translation: I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, I'm just saying it's murder and I'm sick of you denying it.
:-)
Our incisors aren't sharp enough to comfortable tear through raw meat, we aren't agile enough to catch much more than fish and some small rodents, and we most definitely are not of the strength where we can rip a cow to shreds.
We are, however, smart enough to do all of these things with our opposing thumbs. And in fact, our giant brains and opposing thumbs have given us the ability (and seemingly the desire) to crush all life on the planet and use it purely for our own selfish gains. Thus we obviously are naturally intended to be the sole inhabitants of the planet...we have evolved to extinguish other life!
(tongue firmly in cheek...)
Re: Values
I'm so glad you defined that term! But I don't believe it's true. We may not have sharp claws, but - as a species - we can digest just about anything except raw cellulose.
My argument, however, was...about getting people to stop denying things and trying to sugarcoat things for themselves. We lie to our children about how our food comes from big, beautiful farms where animals are taken extremely good care of... where in fact, the majority of the meat we consume comes from giant factory farms which operate much like prisons, and I think it is important that people research the source of their food.
That was a point I didn't address when I referred to your post. You talked about the ritual slaughter of the goats and how it upset you, and it occurred to me that it is probably better to know that the meat you're eating was a living thing the day before, than to buy a shrink-wrapped package at the grocery store.
Evolution
That's been my belief as well, though I've had some cause due to this post, to question that thesis. But I haven't yet been convinced it's wrong.
If your body really is built to eat meat, then I don't think even Sidra would have a problem with it. She did - even when writing a self-admitedly emotional rant - differentiate between need and desire.
Re: Evolution
Therein lies the crux of humanity does it not? We as people need a lot of things, but deny ourselves that because we don't desire them. My body needs more rest than I give it. But until I have time to slow down and rest, I deny myself that rest. The self controls the body, even to the point of harm. I think we can rationalise most needs away based solely on our desires.