Yes, yes to all of you who are mentioning the food chain. If humans would
realize that we're merely one thread of the food chain rather than trying to
rise to the top of it, I don't think that there would be guilt in eating meat.
We would do it simply because it is natural, and not to exploit other
animals. We would follow what our instincts for survival told us to
do - not buy greasy hot dogs at baseball games just because they're there. We
would understand that our diets were once living (or are seeds of what is
living) and that our killing of things does not make us better than anything
else. For all creatures are a part of this web.
People keep mentioning indiginous people who eat meat. Well, sometimes meat is
the only option (and not just for indiginous people, for others living in
climates that plant growth is nearly impossible) available, and meat eating is
merely seen as survival.
Stories "made up" to "justify" the killing are a part of the rich tapestry
that makes cultural diversity. I am not sure that these are created out of
guilt (perhaps 30,000 year ago they were, but even then, who knows) they are
merely stories which now show human relation to nature, humans AS nature in
fact.
I am curious though. How many of us arguing pro meat are spiritually inclined
and how many of us who are anti meat are not spiritually inclined?
I am not pro meat, but I can understand people CHOOSING to eat it (whether for
spiritual, cultural, personal, or habitat influenced reasons), and I
consider myself a spiritual person. This could be one of the reasons why even
some of us vegetarians are split on this issue.
Hmmmm.....?
Tj.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 09:32:37 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 09:32:37 1994
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.5]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA23657 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct
1994 09:32:34 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 3237; Thu, 06 Oct 94 11:34:19 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin NALAN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3232; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 11:34:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 11:31:56 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gadfly's Morals
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gadfly - your continued prodding for us to consider the philosophical aspect of
morals and ethics, and the construction of language ("wrong," "right," etc.)
means nothing when you state that *you* think anyone who doesn't agree with
"us" have values you consider wrong!! You have completely contradicted your-
self! Please explain.
Natalie Alane
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 09:37:35 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 09:37:34 1994
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.5]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA23833 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct
1994 09:37:33 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 3374; Thu, 06 Oct 94 11:39:18 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin NALAN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3742; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 11:39:18 -0400
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 11:35:39 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cultural Stories
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debate over stories being made up to reconcile guilty meat-eating feelings has
recently appeared on the list. Those of you who think that guilt is why dif-
ferent cultures have made up stories about the spirits, etc. of animals are
ignoring the obvious. Anytime any human being does not understand something,
we attempt to by various methods. For millions of years, that method has been
story-telling. Our modern method is by invoking "proven, scientific" explana-
tions. We all make up stories about everything, but it is not out of *guilt*!
It is simply a struggle to understand the complexity of the world around us.
IMHO,
Natalie Alane
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:14:44 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:14:43 1994
Received: from bock.ucs.ualberta.ca (bock.ucs.ualberta.ca [129.128.5.214]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id KAA24860 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:14:42 -0600
Received: from colossusip.geog.ualberta by bock.ucs.ualberta.ca with SMTP
(8.6.5/UA2.0.0.93Dec20) id KAA23722
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:16:47 -0600
Received: from COLOSSUS/MAILQUEUE by colossusip.geog.ualberta (Mercury 1.11);
Thu, 6 Oct 94 10:22:17 -0600
Received: from MAILQUEUE by COLOSSUS (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 6 Oct 94 10:21:46 -0600
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:21:37 MDT
Subject: Re: morality again
Priority: normal
X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The following sounds an awful lot like the Golden Rule, a ubiquitous
message from every world religion that has ever appeared in human
history. Maybe religion (in its purest form) isn't such a
questionable source of morality as some of us might believe?
> that is, moral agents [who else?]. The point is to begin with the
principles that one wants applied to oneself and then show how
much that commits one to.
Also, re: the response to my earlier remark about our ancestors
starving to death if eating meat was morally wrong: point taken. I
made a leap of logic that as a non-philosopher I am prone to do more
often than not.
I don't know that we are in a position to determine if what our
ancient (i.e., prehistoric) progenitors did was moral or not
especially since we don't have records of what their vision of
morality was. However, I was hoping for feedback on the overall
vision or position I was presenting, not just comments on specific
points made. I.e., in your humble and reasoned opinions, does that
view of creation have merit or not?
Anyone?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:22:35 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:22:30 1994
Received: from triton.unm.edu (triton.unm.edu [129.24.8.235]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id KAA25252 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct
1994 10:22:29 -0600
Received: by triton.unm.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
id m0qsvcS-0001FxC; Thu, 6 Oct 94 10:24 MDT
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: men on the list
To: MATT ROBBINS 404-347-2234 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
i know some of you are thinking "cmon cant we just talk about
ecofeminism..but if we cant get this stuff out in the open, its just a
bunch of jabberjawing.
> I can't recall
> what Brian may have said to trigger Ann's comments, but as was
> recently indicated, let people speak and if you don't agree,
> comment back.
i think thats exactly what i did. im not attempting to censor brian- i
dont have the power to do that in any way....i think i simply pointed out
a dynamic that is potentially dangerous to this list, hoping someone else
would notice it. a couple people wrote me personally supporting it but i
really feel like its been genarally swept under the table. i dont even
want him to leave the list. i think he has good ideas even if i dont
agree with some of them. i think i was doing HIM a favor by pointing it out.
> Also if you restrict us men from participating, then how do
> expect to lead us out of our "paternalism," "colonialism,"
> "sexism," "trophyism," and other states of (un)consciousness that
> come under the macho-focus (limited as it is!).
i think what you are
exhibiting here is defensiveness, because if you look back at my post to
him i never said a thing about restricting men from the list. youve
invented that yourself. ill tell you brians incessnt posting to
EVERYTHING said is not lending to leading men out of all these various
oppressive ways. so many of you seem to think if you talk the talk and
read and write as many feminist ideas as you can your leading yourselves
out of being patriarchal. i think those things are VITAL, but useless if
they arent accompanied by percetive understandings of gender dynamics
working PERSONALLY! (the personal is the political!). -anne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:31:04 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 10:31:03 1994
Received: from bock.ucs.ualberta.ca (bock.ucs.ualberta.ca [129.128.5.214]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id KAA25623 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:31:03 -0600
Received: from colossusip.geog.ualberta by bock.ucs.ualberta.ca with SMTP
(8.6.5/UA2.0.0.93Dec20) id KAA24414
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:33:07 -0600
Received: from COLOSSUS/MAILQUEUE by colossusip.geog.ualberta (Mercury 1.11);
Thu, 6 Oct 94 10:38:38 -0600
Received: from MAILQUEUE by COLOSSUS (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 6 Oct 94 10:38:30 -0600
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:38:21 MDT
Subject: Re: Animals and humans
Priority: normal
X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One more thing, (sorry to send your overloaded mailboxes two messages
today), in the thought-provoking style of Doug Henwood:
If humans continually think of ourselves as animals, how do we stop
ourselves from behaving like them?
And before I get flooded with responses like emulating the placid
docility of sheep or whatever, how many animals do you know that
invent qualities like love, mercy, compassion, generosity, humility,
etc? The spiritual or moral qualities that we see manifested in
nature are truly marvelous and the inspiration that humans receive
from such manifestations can impel us to improve our own behaviour.
But to use animals as a model for human behaviour is to deny those
capacities inherent within each human being to aspire to lofty
thoughts and ambitions, like educating the young, healing the sick,
providing food of the starving, fostering peace among the
contentious, etc.
Oops. So much for Doug's model of short and sweet.
