Greg...
I have a few things to say, then I will address the issues you stated:
I agree with you, in part... I guess my idea that environmentalism
and vegetarianism are linked so closely stems from respect for the
planet, as well as myself: I choose not to eat other creatures because
of the suffering involved, because I do not need to eat them in order
to sustain life, and because I cannot live with a clear conscience
knowing I have made the choice to remove other creatures from this
planet for my own -pleasure- rather than survival.
But I am by no means perfect in this effort: I drive a car, I do not
compost waste materials, and I use computers, (just to name a few things).
For me, the line is drawn at the suffering that I -know- I can stop...
for others, the line may be drawn differently. I can understand that.
But what I cannot understand is taking milk from cows that is meant
for calves, thereby supporting the veal industry... buying veal...
electrocuting chickens... painfully over-filling the bellies of
ducks to make fois gras... cutting the limbs from pigs who are still
alive... hoisting cattle up by thier small ankles and then cutting
their throats... allowing animals to become so sick and deprived of
veterinary care that their eye sockets are eaten through by infection
or they have cancer in their limbs or they are unable to walk due to
disfigurement... searing the beaks from young chicks so they will not
"peck" at eachother... killing male chicks at birth because they are
"of no use"... and so on!!
G.GARRARD wrote:
>
> Dear Ms Sullivan,
> This is an interesting question. Actually, it's not hard to see how
> the two issues can be distinguished - for one thing, many indigenous
> peoples have held apparently 'biocentric' beliefs while happily
> consuming their 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The notion that eating
> animals is somehow connected with an intrinsically cruel or
> indifferent attitude toward them is really a modern misconception
> born of the historical disjunction between conditions of meat
> production and consumption.
Misconception?? I don't agree. Many vegetarians/vegans became such
because they DO understand the cruelty involved in -modern- meat
production. And I would much rather have a planet of people who have
chosen the vegan lifestyle due to a compassion for animals, the environ-
ment and people, than one of people who simply chose the status quo
because they were not concerned with such things. After all, how much
compassion is necesary in order to ignore suffering?
> Loving animals both on the hoof and on
> the plate would seem entirely comprehensible to people in other
> societies, and is a residual element in Euro-American ones. Moreover,
> many people (probably all) function happily in situations of
> 'cognitive dissonance', where various elements of praxis appear to
> conflict. Ideologues call this 'hypocrisy', but only because of a
> systematic simplification of the complex theoretical and practical
> issues involved.
> One important contradiction for veggie environmentalists is that
> political ecologists like to deploy forms of ecological reductionism
> for their worthy purposes - variations of the 'human animal' /
> Darwinian thesis - while veggies must stress moral agency (and
> therefore discontinuity, or 'human / animal' thesis) in the name of
> animal liberation. Of course, there are continuities too - the sheer
> environmental destructiveness of the meat industry is a major one -
> but you asked how people sustain what are for you contradictory positions.
> In sum: i. they may not be contradictory to everyone,
This is a given... but for many people it is simply a matter of not
knowing the issues. As such, they do not realize diet as a -choice-, but rather
are living the lifestyle they are accustomed to. This explains many
people not becoming vegetarian/vegan until later in life.
> ii. your own assumption that veggie and eco are essential kindred may be partly
> mistaken,
I don't necessarily agree. But for those eco's who are concerned with just a
portion the planet (the Chesapeake Bay or air pollution or cleaning up parks, etc.)
rather than the -entire- planet, I do agree with you. I may be adamant in my
thinking on this issue, but I cannot see how someone partaking in eating
animals is doing their best to help the planet. After all, eating animals is
a "luxury" that is not necessary in order to survive -- "survival" being a
common argument.
> iii. pretty near everyone holds a mass of such dissonant
> views - because life is really like that !
Agreed... but so many "views" are illegal, while others are not... and then
there are those that are actually supported by law, like the lack of control
on the way animals are raised/killed for consumption.
--
- Charlotte Sullivan
Executive Director
Protect Animal Life
"PEACE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL WHO LIVE"
