Hi Wim,
You wrote:
>>I do thrive on vegetarian food for 25 years now. (I confess I eat meat
maybe once a year when food isn't easily recognisable or properly
labelled as 'carnivores only'.)
My reason for renouncing meat is not that it would be immoral for me
to be instrumental in killing lower life forms, but that I experience
it is as immoral for me to be instrumental in starving human beings
who can't afford to buy staple foods because these become too
expensive when they (or alternative crops on the same fields) are used
as fodder for our beef. I don't feel it is necessary for me be
completely vegan. Humanity should eat LESS meat and animal products to
provide for all its members but need not stop altogether.
(By the way, I am the one that is cooking most in my family and doing
all the shopping. Respecting the choice of wife and children to be
carnivores, I have become more experienced than my wife in preparing
meat.)
Sam replies:
I agree that one of the strongest arguments in favour of not eating meat is
the point about inequity of resources. However, that is not an either/or
point, it is a question of degree (as indeed you acknowledge). Moreover, if
you are not vegan then chances are you have what might be called a
'standard' vegetarian diet, ie one that depends significantly upon dairy
products. It was actually considering the implications of that industry
which encouraged me to shift to my
"mostly-vegan-with-fish-and-occasional-fowl-and-even-more-occasional-red-mea
t" diet (!) I don't see dairy products as either healthy (all that
saturated fat and, if not organically sourced, hormones) or animal-friendly
(veal calves anyone?) and the industry is also subject to the criticism
about the allocation of scarce resources.
Moreover, having spent a significant amount of time going through the
literature (scientific and philosophical - the book that got me started on
vegetarianism was Tom Regan's Animal Rights, which I'd recommend to anyone
wanting to explore things) I realised that the science of human nutrition
was still in its comparative infancy. So many of the studies purporting to
show the benefits of vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets didn't stand up to a
rigorous scrutiny, and in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a
matter of personal judgement, based not just on contemporary philosophy and
science, but also anthropology and my own 'body wisdom'. Before I was veggie
I was never a great fish eater, but fish was actually the one thing that I
consistently missed, and, given that I have never been a great dairy
consumer, I concluded that I needed fish to thrive, not just survive. So
when you write: "that would induce Sam to alter his statement into "it is
not (IMHO) possible FOR ME to thrive" without having to become a vegetarian
again" I think that you are right. In particular I find that dairy products
muck up my mucal/nose/breathing system and foster allergic reactions. Not a
major thing, but significant I think.
I hope I've explained my point of view more clearly than before. It isn't an
argument for it being more moral to eat meat than vegetables, but really I
don't see that as the over-riding division. I would like to imagine that my
diet is still reasonably moral, it's just doesn't fall naturally into the
standard veggie/non-veggie division. (I also think that we pretty much have
a consensus between us relating to the MoQ - your comment "Humanity should
eat LESS meat and animal products to provide for all its members but need
not stop altogether." is pretty much my view as well)
BTW thank you for the care you take with your posts. I appreciate that.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
