On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Noah R.Olenych wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Thea Deley wrote:
>
> > Actually, I believe it is quite natural for humans to eat animals.
> > It's part of the food chain ecological principle. However, I feel we
>
> I must agree with Thea in that it is truly natural for human to consume
> animal flesh. Yet we need not exploit it. As a vegetarian myself, I feel
> and everything else, so bear with me. I would like to hear what others
> out there feel about the place of humans in the whole of the ecosystem.
>
I would like to jump into this string before we get too far away from this
point. Yes, the idea that "it's natural" for humans to eat meat is often
used as a way of sanctioning the practice, or at least for terminating
further discussion regarding the morality of meat-eating.
It's also very important, I think, for those who are concerned about our
treatment of nonhuman animals to have a fundamental grasp of ecosystem
functioning, whether their main focus is on environmental issues and
"wild" animals (and plants) or on, say, factory farming and "livestock."
A look at our human place within an evolutionary scheme of things,
however, will show that our closest relatives, the other great apes, eat
very little meat--the gorillas and orangutans are almost wholly
vegetarian, and while chimpanzees do on occasion eat meat and even
sometimes "hunt" socially certain small to medium-sized vertebrates, the
actual percentage of animal material in their diets is very small,
probably less than 5%, with insects accounting for the bulk of this.
(See, e.g., Robert S. O. Harding and Geza Teleki, _Omnivorous Primates_,
for a collection of papers supporting the principle of evolutionary
continuity in there being some degree of omnivory in many primate groups,
while rejecting the "man the hunter" idea--the view that developing our
hunting skills and turning to a meat-based diet was *the* significant
step in "becoming human"-- that unfortunately
seems to be still widely prevalent within the popular imagination).
Some recent work offers a very plausible way to understand our present
predicament. It's been a short step, in terms of geologic time, since we
humans evolved from the common ancestors we share with the other great
apes. We still have a digestive tract designed for diets composed
predominantly of fibrous plant materials. Of course, during the course
of our evolution, when we were so fortunate as to come across some animal
material, it was highly prized as a concentrated source of protein and
energy, and it makes sense that we would have developed a taste for meat,
when available. It's only quite recently in our history that it has
become so readily available to certain groups of humans, however, and the
kinds of degenerative diseases now being experienced by the people of the
industrialized countries should be no surprise, consequences of a highly
"unnatural" diet for the large-bodied primates that we are (see, e.g.,
Katherine Milton, "Diet and Primate Evolution," _Scientific American_
August 1993).
Does this way of seeing our present dietary preferences have any moral
implications? I agree with those writing in the current string that we
humans, as moral agents, make decisions about our actions, and that moral
decision-making is not simply a matter of "reading off" nature's example
what we should do, a stance that supposedly leads to a life emulating, or
at least sanctioning, being "red in tooth and claw." (Darwin, by the
way, did not "read" such a view of morality "off" of nature--see his
discussion of "the moral sense" in _The Descent of Man_).
In this day of increasing moral concern about our treatment of nonhuman
animals, however, and about ecologically destructive practices such as
frequently surround large-scale livestock "production," it seems that a
look at food chains should lend further support to humans (re)adopting
increasingly vegetarian diets. We are *not* carnivores; we were designed
to eat on a much lower level within the ecological pyramid than, say, the
great cats, which are true carnivores. So, the next time someone tries
to put an end to a discussion of the morality of meat-eating with an
appeal to what's "natural," you can point that person toward some
enlightening reading material. And, isn't it nice to realize that, in
bringing our "moral sense" to bear upon this issue, humans need not be
"going against the grain" of nature at all?! (Perhaps the challenge of
"environmental ethics" is figuring out how to make it all converge.)
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 5 13:46:43 MST 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 15:52:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: views from nature
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 5 Feb 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
> > |It would seem that the first speaker (James?) is working out of an
> > |empiricist assumption that we can somehow perceive what is "out there"
> > |without importing our own cognitive construction of the world into the
> > |observation process. I would disagree with this and would argue that our
> > |process of "observation" is very much shaped by our expectations...
> >
> > and they may have some insight. However, I think quite a bit of
> > "knowledge" on some levels comes from direct experience. I would NEVER
> > suggest, however, that that "knowledge" is not laden with preconceived
> > notions on the part of the observer. That still does not dismiss the
> > value of direct experience, espeically in a person that recognizes the
> > "observer biases."
>
> I am talking about something which does not come under the heading of
> "observer biases" -- a notion which still seems to imply that if we could
> get past those biases, we could understand what *really* is "out there".
> There is no "direct experience" of the world. It is all mediated to some
> as yet unclear degree through our conceptual expectations...
>
> Jayne
>
>
I have just received my copy of _Reinventing Nature_, ed. by Michael
Soule and Gary Lease, review snippet on back by J. Baird Callicott noting
"The continued existence of Nature as we have known it is threatened by
soaring human overpopulation and overconsumption. A concerted response to
this impending catastrophe is thwarted by the fashionable new
deconstructive ecology and critical theory. The authors collected in this
volume . . . argue persuasively for the actuality of Nature . . ."
This string could be headed toward the issue of how to think about
"what *really* is 'out there.'" Is there "really" anything out there?
How can we know it, if there is an "it" to know, if all of our
experiences are so thoroughly mediated by our own concepts? And
how can we even talk about an "environmental crisis" if all we really know
about "nature" is our own construction?
I have some thoughts about this, but I'm not through the book yet (though
I really appreciated, so far, N. Katherine Hayles's "Searching for Common
Ground"--and also, another recent feminist view bearing somewhat upon
these issues, Lynda Birke's _Feminism, Animals and Science_, though less
concerned directly with environmental matters). I'd love to hear others'
views,
if any--particularly the ecologists'answers to such questions. Is
"empiricism" in doubt to the extent that we can ignore or challenge such
statements as, e.g., those concerning the structure of ecosystems
reflecting energy flows through food webs, or informing us of the current
rate of species loss? Are our concerns about "mediation" played out at
another level of concern, or do they enter into these sorts of questions?
Are our ("Western")
views of nature *just* social constructions, one or several "texts" among
many other sorts of human creations, to be attended to or not, on whim?
Any thoughts?
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 6 07:56:19 MST 1995
(PMDF V4.3-7 #7204) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon,
MR-Received: by mta WPB1; Relayed; Mon, 06 Feb 1995 09:58:28 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Mon, 06 Feb 1995 09:58:42 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Disclose-recipients: prohibited
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 14:52:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Everglades exotic vine removal by volunteers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting-date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 14:54:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
--Boundary (ID Y1ue2ABDjQn7temgfiuu3w)
--Boundary (ID Y1ue2ABDjQn7temgfiuu3w)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 23:36:00 EST
Subject: Calabrerra? Columbrerra? Columbrera? damn weeds!
Sender: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting-date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 00:08:00 EST
Importance: normal
A1-type: MAIL
Pulling Weeds at Everglades National Park.
It is the first week of February in South Florida. If ever there
is to be a time free from mosquitoes in the Everglades, this is
it. I think it is not too hot, not too wet, and not too buggy so
I commit to go to this thing called a "Sierra Club Work Outing."
Pull a few vines, enjoy the Everglades, go home. That is how I
envision it.
So when the Friday morning weather report said gale force winds,
rain and cold, I had some optimism that the work part would be
canceled, we'd drive down there, site-see and get back in time for
Tom Weis's (Clean Water Action) farewell party at Joette's house.
In reality, we of the exotic species removal volunteer crew, did
ultimately drink a toast to Tom with champagne, after we chopped,
pulled, dragged and carried off the strangling vine, at Flamingo
in Everglades National Park and before we collapsed into our
sleeping bags.
Since we were environmental volunteers, it tickled our palates
when the marina clerk explained that despite being a tourist
marina, the price of beer was the same as in town so that visitors
did not feel compelled to drive the forty miles out of the park
for a "beer run". When asked if this was to avoid splattered
tourists on the road, he replied, "Nope, deer." (There really are
no deer at Flamingo. It is too wet.)
The entire exotics removal program for Everglades National Park
rests upon the shoulders of one really nice park ranger named
Tony. The Calumbrerra vine was not the only exotic. Tony showed
us the Brazilian pepper (Florida Holly) plants he hoped to remove
before going to Park Ranger training courses February 21st. (This
guy needs help!. Any groups wanting to do environmental service
and having some reasonable chance of getting pesticide
certification should get in touch.)
We cut and we pulled and we crunched the brittle bones of dead
canes of this tree toppling vine. We tumbled over as we pulled on
stuck vines to have them suddenly release. We found neat things
like seed pods, and Ospreys nests and crocodiles or were they
alligators? We drank gator aid and passed around carrot sticks
and dip. We piled our vines and branches onto the hotel's lawn,
feeling assured that the lawn maintenance crew would more quickly
remove them from the grass than from under the stand of trees.
The sky grew dark. The wind blew so hard you thought you could
fly. Back at camp, the tent was toppled and dragged. The
neighbors tent suffered a snapped pole. Oh yes. This was perfect
Everglades weather. Within an hour, the sun shone. Clipping,
pulling dragging continued ... Mercy was granted at four. By 8:30
p.m. all weed pulling volunteers were asleep.
On Sunday, five women and one man remained to fight the vine at a
roadside bridge and keep the seeds from getting into the water to
further spread to uninvaded areas by water. The National Park
Service got a quick lesson in political correctness when one of
our members quickly modified the "Men Working" sign with some duct
tape to read "WoMen Working."
Food, fellowship and weed pulling. So it continued throughout the
weekend. On Sunday night one remembers. There is another life.
There is work, family, etc... and you are so grateful that for two
days, while you "pulled weeds" you forgot!
--Boundary (ID Y1ue2ABDjQn7temgfiuu3w)--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 6 09:14:33 MST 1995
From: Thea Deley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: global responsibility (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 09:21:17 -0700 (MST)
Forwarded message:
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 5 13:13:24 1995
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 13:06:03 -0700
> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950205135639.13374A-100000@pegasus>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: global responsibility
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Noah R.Olenych wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Thea Deley wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I believe it is quite natural for humans to eat animals.
> > > It's part of the food chain ecological principle. However, I feel we
> >
> > I must agree with Thea in that it is truly natural for human to consume
> > animal flesh. Yet we need not exploit it. As a vegetarian myself, I feel
>
> > and everything else, so bear with me. I would like to hear what others
> > out there feel about the place of humans in the whole of the ecosystem.
> >
>
> I would like to jump into this string before we get too far away from this
> point. Yes, the idea that "it's natural" for humans to eat meat is often
> used as a way of sanctioning the practice, or at least for terminating
> further discussion regarding the morality of meat-eating.
>
Purporting that Noah and I were trying "to put an end to a discussion
of the morality of meat-eating with an appeal to what's 'natural'"
leads me to believe that Ronnie hopped on a soap box without reading
the rest of our messages. (Be careful of this for we can't *DISCUSS*
if we're busy *PREACHING*!)
I believe humans are omnivores, which means we eat plants and animals.
When our species as a whole stopped living nomadically and settled
down, we stopped eating whatever was available via hunting and
gathering. We began cultivating crops and raising animals. (I'm
referring to Western society here.)
As this practice increased, so did our disconnectedness to the planet.
When our food supply was controlled by us, we stopped appreciating
those sources of sustenance. In our predominantly patriarchal and
Christian society, we became obsessed with our power and the idea we
had a *god-given* right to oppress those with less power than us.
This included animals.
Oppression is IMMORAL. This, for me, is where meat-eating becomes an
ethical issue.
Finally, there are cultures, such as the Innuit that eat only meat.
They live in a perpetual winter and depend on seal meat and blubber.
I do not condemn them.
> (Perhaps the challenge of
> "environmental ethics" is figuring out how to make it all converge.)
>
> Ronnie
>
Now that I agree with ! :-)
--Thea
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 6 09:29:22 MST 1995
From: Mark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: views from nature
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:34:42 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950205152146.13374B-100000@pegasus> from "Ronnie Hawkins"
at Feb 5, 95 01:49:30 pm
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 5 14:56:07 1995
Ronnie noted:
> This string could be headed toward the issue of how to think about
> "what *really* is 'out there.'" Is there "really" anything out there?
> How can we know it, if there is an "it" to know, if all of our
> experiences are so thoroughly mediated by our own concepts? And
> how can we even talk about an "environmental crisis" if all we really know
> about "nature" is our own construction?
It might be useful to remember that in ethics practice precedes
theory. The theoretical gordian knot here is a failure to figure out
how to get around the subject/object dichotomy without giving up our
capacity to reason. Hegel manages this. So does Murray Bookchin. So
do ecofeminist theories that account for social construction in our
definitions. So does Aristotle's use of arete (one of the reasons, I
think, we're seeing this surge of virtue theory...).
J.Baird, seems to me, is still stuck neck deep in inherent values and
rights and the ontology these presuppose (a human/nature dichotomy).
One way to explain your question though is to note that the idea of
nature is certainly partly our construction, but that isn't *all* it
is. Whether there's a nature or not, for the purposes of this list
anyways, is not really an issue. The issue is what we mean when we
say it and what our relation to it is.
Just thinking out loud.
hiho
--
mce peterson
department of philosophy
university of wisconsin centers yawp!
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 6 13:31:11 MST 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 14:31:06 -0600 (CST)
From: "Noah R.Olenych" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: global responsibility
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950205135639.13374A-100000@pegasus>
Ronnie,
Actually, I've been vegetarian for the last two years myself. I
wholeheartedly agree that the most healthy diet does not need to include
meat. As man has only been interacting on Earth for effectively an
eyeblink(25,000yrs.) in history, it may very well be that we have no idea
of just what exactly role we are to play. Maybe during our first few
thousand years, meat was essential for survival, as agriculture was not
a developed discipline. I could see it being possible that we have
evolved to a point where we are beyond the necessity for carnal
consumption. I'd be interested in feelings others have on that
idea.
As I'm sure you know, every
organism occupies a niche. To me, humans, with their "intellect", have
seen fit to rise above all other beings, displacing or eliminating those
that can no longer compete. You are quite probably correct in that the
most "natural", if I may use the word, station for humans is not one of a
carnivorous nature. One simple thought about about our teeth shows this.
As we are already at nearly double the carrying capacity of the planet,
it is rather evident that given current land (mis)use practices, we
cannot support populations on steak:) Were we to shift to subsisting
on a grain/vegetable-based diet, many times more people could be fed from
the same or less amount of land.
Ron, thanks for your good thoughts, though I'd appreciate a chance to fully
express my views before recieving a lecture on them :):):)
If anyone has any thoughts on the niche they think humans evolved to fill,
I'd be interested in the discussion.
Noah
