Just a few more thoughts on the subject. It seems to me that if it weren't
for our ability to cook meat, we wouldn't be omnivores, but vegetarians. From
a biological standpoint, our intestines aren't made to digest raw flesh like
those of carnivores. This may seem irrelevant, since we have fire, but I think
it speaks to the question of why meat is not good for us, even when it is
healthy meat. Certainly, since we don't need to eat other animals to be health
y, since it damages our health as well as theirs, why do it? I guess it's done
for taste and convenience, but tastes are cultivated and can change, and the
longer one lives as a vegetarian, the less inconvenient it will seem. It is
not at all inconvenient to me. I know some of the vegetarian cookbooks have
fancy recipes (that result in delicious dishes), but you can also just cook a
variety of grains, vegetables and fruit however you like them. If you have var
iety you don't need to worry about protein--we need much less than the meat and
dairy industry has led us to believe. To those who wonder why it's worse to
kill other animals than to kill vegetables I might point out, when you eat an
apple, you're not killing the tree; when you eat a zuccini, you're not killing
the vine (which will die, whether you eat it or not, come winter). It makes a
difference to me that many other mammals have central nervous systems about as
developed as ours, which means they experience pain acutely. I think they also
experience dread and fear before being slaughtered, and anger at being mistreat
ed (I've seen it in their eyes). Of course, if I had to eat meat to survive I
would, but since I (and the animal and the planet) are much better without
doing so, I think we should stop torturing these other sensitive creatures(inc.
also birds, etc). If you're interested in the connections between meat-eating
and patriarchy, you might want to read "The Politics of Meat" by Carol Adams.
For other reasons why to become a vegetarian, there's John Robbins, "Diet for
a New America." All the Moosewood cookbooks ("Enchanted Broccoli Forest" is
one) and Greens cookbooks ("Fields of Greens") are good, tho not necessarily
quick. Best wishes to all, Deborah Janson
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 7 18:52:37 1996
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jill morstad)
Subject: Cows & Carnivores
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 19:52:33 -0600 (CST)
Be careful not to over-romanticize the practice of keeping
livestock. I grew up a relative *city kid* in South Dakota: kept
horses on a farmer's pasture and in exchange for part of my boarding
bill, did plenty of chores. Tending to even a few cattle, milking,
feeding chickens, gathering eggs, helping with breedings and
birthings, vaccinating and mending fence to keep the goats in...no
work for the tender-hearted, and these animals are in no way *pets*.
Tho I can certainly read and intellectualize the arguments
regarding the *politics of meat*, I'm uncomfortable with the
philosophical underpinnings -- analogously, as a person who trains
and shows dogs when she's not teaching, I think Elizabeth Marshall
Thomas ought to be run up the flagpole for the horrendous and
completely irresponsible ways in which she conducted her *research*
for *The Hidden Life of Dogs*.
FWIW, I find Vicki Hearne's musings on the human/animal
relationship (in particular, her definitions of *kindness* and
*anthropomorphism*) far more palatable (if you'll pardon the
expression).
Jill
Lincoln, Nebraska
--
Jill Morstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 7 19:04:08 1996
by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (PMDF V5.0-4 #12962)
07 Jan 1996 18:58:00 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 21:03:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Deborah D. Janson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: correction
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recently wrote a message to this list in which I cited a book about the con-
nections between meat-eating and patriarchy. Unfortunately, I gave the wrong
title. It's not "The Politics of Meat," but "The Sexual Politics of Meat: A
Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory." It is by Carol J. Adams. Cheers, dj
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 7 19:09:23 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 15:08:02 +1300
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rachel Fitzsimons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a comment on milk
At 09:02 AM 8/01/96 +1000, you wrote:
>As a farmers daughter from New Zealand (a small but major diary-product
>producing country at the bottom of the globe), I was interested by the
>recent cruelty to captive animals discussions on this discussion group.
As an urban woman from Aotearoa/New Zealand I am certainly not an
expert on dairy farming practices but I do have some problems with the
perspective voiced here.
I do drink milk - especially recently as I am pregnant and find milk
to be the most readily accessible form of calcium aside from a pill.
(I know broccoli is great too but you can't skull it in the morning
when you're late for work)
>I had never heard notions of cruelty within milk-producing farming before.
>In fact, I believe diary cows in New Zealand to be the most spoilt, best
>treated of all animals! To see these creatures wading lethargically through
>stomach high paddocks of clover, or lying in one spot sunning themselves in
>the early-morning sun, eating contentedly of every blade of grass within
>reach without having to move their big bodies, makes me happy. And I feel no
>quarms at their hardship for having to give up such large amounts of milk
>daily, indeed, they wake up the farmer at dawn and demand to be milked,
>their udders nearly bursting with the fresh calcium-rich load.
I am not sure of my facts here at all but isn't the fact that the cows
produce far too much milk a major part of the critique dairy production?
As someone involved in the dairy industry I thought you would have
been aware of these arguments.
Are you aware of the amount of extra hormones that cows are often pumped with
to keep them lactating at grossly unnatural rates?
This is standard practice and a lot of the extra oestrogen ends up in your
glass of full cream. No wonder the poor things get desperate for milking.
In saying this I am aware that added hormones can affect the developing fetus
that is my excuse for large amounts of milk consumption.
Soy products have always been hailed as the redemption for those wanting to
avoid
the extra hormones of artificially farmed milk. Unfortunately recent studies
here in NZ have found several soy based products to contain high levels
of oestrogen also and there have been calls to have these withdrawn from
the market.
Anyway enough from me - this is my first post here so forgive me for going
on a little.
I've been lurking for awhile and find the meat argument has really increased
the interest of the list even if it has brought out a little dissention
- nothing wrong with healthy debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Fitzsimons, Accounts Administration, PlaNet Canterbury,
78 Straven Road, Riccarton, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support: +64 (03) 3432633 Fax: +64 (03) 3431900
------------------------------------------------------------------
