WOW, Stephen... very insightful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
'Couldn't have said it better myself.
--
- Charlotte Sullivan
Executive Director
Protect Animal Life
"PEACE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL WHO LIVE"
Stephen R. Figgins wrote:
>
> Hi Greg!
>
> Your posts in defense of the meat industry address primarily the
> humanity or inhumanity of raising animals for food and the treatment
> of such animals. While I share the concern of the original poster,
> that the meat industry is often cruel, that is not my main reason for
> giving up meat. I am more concerned about the environmental impact of
> the meat industry, which I consider to excessive. I believe it is
> impossible for our currently population to simultaneously live lightly
> upon the earth, and consume meat. It seems to me that if we are to
> survive as a species most of us will have to give up this practice.
>
> I think the eco-feminist connection in this case is the core point of
> ecofeminism, that our attitudes towards the environment and nature are
> basically the same as men's attitudes toward women. It is an attitude
> of domination and separation. Humanity is considered above the rest
> of nature, and as if it were separate from nature. We begin to see
> these domesticated animals as the raw materials for our food, as
> something inanimate, something less feeling than ourselves, something
> less worthy of life or freedom. This feeling then extends to animals
> and the rest of nature. We end up with everything being a Natural
> Resource, defined only by its immediate and largely financial benefit
> to humanity. In terms of value heirarchical thinking, it is humanity
> over nature.
>
> I think I am most swayed by the arguments of those who rightly point
> out that humans are by nature an omnivorous animal, capable and
> willing to eat just about anything to survive. While I don't believe
> we evolved as hunters as much as we did gatherers, our ability to hunt
> to supplement gathering is certainly to the benefit of our survival,
> and allows us to live in inhospitable places where there is little to
> gather. So eating meat is a natural thing for us. Okay, I can buy
> that. But maybe it is time we evolved a bit more. If eating meat is
> something we can do, it is also something we can choose not to do.
>
> Looking at the impact our meat eating habits have on nature we are
> faced with what is more important, our meat eating habit, or the whole
> of nature itself. Ah, now hear is where the ecofeminist connection
> comes in. If nature is seen as dismembered pieces that exist for our
> consumption, then we wonder, how much damage are we talking about? Is
> this damage that science can repair? How about in the future? How
> immediate is our danger? If nature is seen as a whole, including us,
> then we wonder about the damage done to our system, and how we can
> heal it.
>
> If you had some open wound on your body, that was relatively painless,
> but is beginning to fester and might at some point cause you the loss
> of a limb... would you keep picking the scab off? I mean, you can
> feel any pain, and your natural inclination is to pick at the wound.
> Or would you do what you can to fix it? If we are a part of the
> whole, then the damage we are causing, is damage we are causing
> ourselves. To what end? Is this really for our benefit?
>
> The eco-feminist viewpoint is a wholistic viewpoint. It is a
> viewpoint that heals our dismembered world, puts it back together. It
> is a viewpoint that can heal our separation from nature. It
> completely changes how we look at the world. Domination is a part of
> separation, the separation that cuts things in two and assigns one
> part greater value than the other.
>
> I think the facts are clear, that raising animals for food is more
> environmentally taxing than raising food for a vegetarian/vegan diet.
> I think it is clear that this has taken a toll on our environment, and
> negatively impacted our ecosystem. I think it is clear that the
> damage is getting worse. It is silly to argue otherwise. That
> raising animals for food could be less environmentally damaging than
> it currently is, is a moot point. The damage is still being done.
>
> Greg, it isn't just the homology between animal exploitation and
> sexism. It is a similarity in attitudes toward nature, and attitudes
> toward women. It is a part of the same value hierarchical thinking.
> I don't see this as an insult to feminism. It is rather, an insight
> into how we have come to see our world, and what affects those
> attitudes have on our society and environment.
>
> Men exploit women because they are other; because they can; because
> they think they are better; because it is economically beneficial to
> them; because they believe it to be natural; because they see the
> world as separated between the dominator and the dominated, and they
> do not want to be the dominated; because it was what society says they
> should do; because sex sells; because of even more things that I could
> continue to list. What all of these things have in common is value
> hierarchical thinking.
>
> Well, that is enough rambling for today.
>
> Stephen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
