On Sun, 7 Jan 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> based on the ongoing discussion about eating meat and other animal products,
> it seems to me that three types of arguments have been presented against
> eating meat
>
> the first says that eating meat is bad for the eater, physiologically and/or
> spiritually . . . meat by its nature contains substances that are bad for our
> physiological health . . . maintaining one's life by eating the flesh of other
> sentient beings (when alternatives are available) distorts one's view of one's
> humanity
>
> the second says that eating meat is bad for the animal . . . as an animal it
> had a "right" to live out a natural life without human interference
>
> the third argument says that eating meat is bad for the environment and for
> people involved in the production of meat, because of the practices used to
> produce that meat and the economic relations controlling the production of the
> meat
>
> it seems to me that the philosophies embodied in the first two arguments are
> sound, and provide strong bases for not eating meat . . . on the other hand,
> the third argument seems to me to rest on faulty praxis . . . i do not
> disagree at all with the claims that much meat is raised and processed using
> practices that are 1) harmful to the animals, 2) polluting of the environment,
> 3) dangerous to the health of farmers, farm workers and factory workers, and
> 4) unfair economically to those three groups . . . but it seems to me that the
> most effective response to that condition is not to give up eating meat, but
> rather to seek out sources of meat that have been produced in ways that are
> environmentally, economically and socially sustainable . . . one can do this
> by direct contracting with farmers through a CSA (Community Supported
> Agriculture) program, or by purchasing one's meat at stores (e.g., food
> co-ops) that investigate and warrant the sustainability of the production
> practices . . . one can also encourage and educate local restaurants and
> markets to investigate the production practices which underlie the meat they
> purchase . . . it seems to me that, if one is concerned about the
> sustainability of meat production, it is more effective to use one's
> purchases to reward those producers who are using sustainable practices, than
> it is to punish all producers by not eating meat
>
I think there is one very important point missing. The process where
cattle is feeded to be later killed for meat looses energy. It is not
just that the grain given to cattle could be given to hungry
people. The amount of grain given to one animal could feed more people
than the meat of that animal. So for example in China where people have
started to eat more and more meat because it is considered prestigious
there will sooner or later show up a catastrophe, which will influence
the food balance of the whole world. In our planet there is not enough
space for carnivorous humankind as that many as we are, but for
a nearly vegetarian one the food resources would be of a totally different
scale.
What I see amazing in this discussion is the insistence of meat as
something very desired and the vegetarians seen as masochists who for
reasons what ever resist that will to eat meat. Statements of "a real
hamburger" or "a good pizza" seem very odd to me. Maybe there is a
cultural difference in eating habits and emotional loads given to
different foodstuff. Still, I was as well raised to eat meat or fish at
every meal as is common here, but after being almost vegetarian for ten
years I don't even like the taste of meat. After I discovered that
cooked vegetarian food is much more than tasteless overcooked carrots and
potatoes I don't feel a need for anything else.
So, there are several very good reasons to question the meat preferring
tradition of our wealthy part of the world. Let's keep on doing it!
Hanna Kuusi
>
> craig k harris
> dept of sociology michigan state university east lansing michigan
> 48824-1111
> tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856
>
>
