Kia ora.

In the 1970's in New Zealand we ran as NAMBASSA gatherings huge Music and alternatives festivals which were attended by tens of thousands of energized young people. 1979 saw over 75,000 people attend one of these 3 day events. I attribute that there was no violence of any kinds at any of these rock- festivals to the fact that we did not have available for purchase any meat nor fast foods of any kind. The NAMBASSA Festival series were 100% vegetarian. What surprised me was that given most people who attended would have been meat eaters; no one complained that they had to survive for 2-5 days on wholesome organic foodstuff.

Many contributors have suggested that the ecological problems we face as a global community are primarily the cause of over population. While these assertions might have some merit, there won't be any natural correction to this burgeoning over population phenomenon without some kinds of global holocaust which no one wants to contemplate- nor should we have to. We have to learn how to manage our recourses and to change our views as to what we accept as normal survival practice within society. And in the interest of global survival, the mass production of meat will be one of those factors which will have to be re-evaluated, and replaced with foodstuff that can be mass produced without endangering the environment and future generations of humans living on earth.

www.nambassa.co.nz

http://www.nambassa.blogspot.com/

Peter Terry

kitty_tc,

We're talking at cross purposes, but I do agree with some of what you've written.

You initially wrote:

"If humans weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't have canine teeth."

I pointed out twice that human teeth are completely herbivorous, and that anatomically, we resemble the other primates (frugivores). We're designed to live predominately (if not entirely) upon plant foods.

One of my posts began:

"Competition for food has inevitably led to conflict and this struggle for survival has been a significant factor in the history of organized warfare. In this respect, meat-eating may be regarded as either the underlying cause of armed conflict or at least one of several factors contributing to the exacerbation of a pre-existing problem.

"The reason why meat, in particular, has created such problems is that the practice of raising livestock requires a much greater use of resources. The basic problem is simply that people are forced to compete with animals for food–a most precarious situation when food is in short supply."

And I backed up this statement with numerous examples.

You replied:

"...the food production industry has not feeding people as its goal, but making a profit...Greed is the problem, and shortsighted, outdated systems –NOT a lack of resources."

Canadian tennis champion Peter Burwash writes in his book, A Vegetarian Primer, that the human population has long since passed the point at which the entire human race can be fed on a meat-centered diet.

But there is some truth in what you're saying. Many of the examples I listed were of exploitation of Third World nations by multinational corporations. I agree with you that the food industry has profit as its ultimate goal, not charity.

I said as much when I responded to you:

"You're right: the goal of the food industry is profit, not charity. My point is that on a planet with finite resources and an exploding human population, raising animals for food is not only environmentally destructive, but a waste of resources which will only lead to armed conflict."

And I provided numerous examples to back up this argument.

You replied:

"...land is controlled by the elite and it's used to make a profit...The resources of the world aren't used to feed the poor AND THEY NEVER WILL BE SO LONG AS GLOBAL CAPITALISM REMAINS IN FORCE."

Raising animals for food IS a waste of resources which could easily lead to armed conflict. Even the CIA admits this point, which is one of the reasons I cited their 1974 memo.

I agree with you that unregulated capitalism is part of the problem. I don't think abolishing capitalism is the answer.

I'm not a Marxist or a Maoist; I'm a liberal Democrat. A pro-life Democrat.

Earlier, you wrote:

"And if these militant Luddites and vegans wanted to solve real problems, they'd work on changing our capitalist system and corrupt regulatory system that allows companies to quash or ignore progress in the name of almighty profit."

I don't think I'm being "Luddite." I think I'm being progressive. I'm not advocating a return to a mythical past, but recognition of the rights of an entire class of excluded beings, in the name of social and moral progress.

The fact that protection of all sentient species may not be a part of the present-day Judeo-Christian ethic does not make it invalid. Human slavery was once considered an acceptable part of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Harming or killing other animals for food, "sport," or clothing, or even owning other animals as property must become as unthinkable to us humans as owning other human beings as property, regardless of one's religion or belief in a god or gods.

The animal rights movement is NOT a "front" for a religious minority attempting to impose its "dietary laws" upon the rest of secular American society. Is the right-to-life movement, however, a "front" for Catholic, Fundamentalist, or "born-again" Christianity?

Persons using the secular arena to defend the unborn must not then turn to unprovable religious beliefs to deny animals their rights. In the secular, political arena, one's religious identity must be completely irrelevant.

In her essay "Life and Peace," for example, Juli Loesch describes her attendance at a Holly Near concert to benefit a local antinuclear group. She encounters literature tables for Native American folkways, Save the Whales, Ban the Bomb. Peace. Humanity. Abortion.

"Abortion?" she writes. "It was as if I'd been handed a flowered note that contained a death threat. My hands went cold. I went back to my seat, my heart clogged. The irony was that I'd come to oppose abortion as a direct result of my own antinuclear activism."

Loesch writes that when she spoke out against abortion at an antinuclear gathering, she:

"...tried to present a meticulous secular case against abortion. I marshalled all the scientific evidence...I followed it up with the most basic principle found in every human ethical system...do not do to others what you would not like done to you.

"This was rewarded by a brief silence, which was broken by a single question:

'Are you a Catholic?'

'Am I a Catholic? That has nothing to do with...'

'So you ARE a Catholic?'

'Yes, but...'

'Well, then. You're imposing your religious beliefs...'

"And, therefore, I suppose, I lose."

On the other hand, Juli Loesch has stated elsewhere:

"Each woman has the right (to contraception)...But once a woman has conceived, she can no longer choose whether or not to become a mother. Biologically, she is already a mother... the woman's rights are then limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being who also has rights."

Juli Loesch Wiley has thus, on numerous occasions, acknowledged both her Catholic identity, as well as her ability to think independently of Scripture, church doctrines, creeds and beliefs (e.g., the Catholic proscription of contraception) in the secular political arena. Perhaps in the future we'll see Catholics for Animal Rights.

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human 'dominion' over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

In his 1975 book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes:

"A liberation movement is a demand for an end to prejudice and discrimination based upon an arbitrary characteristic like race or sex. The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement. The immediate appeal of this movement, and its initial, if limited, success, made it a model for other oppressed groups. We soon became familiar with Gay Liberation and movements on behalf of American Indians and Spanish-speaking Americans. When a majority group —women— began their campaign some thought we had come to the end of the road."

Singer notes that "In comparison with other liberation movements, Animal Liberation has a lot of handicaps. First and most obvious is the fact that the exploited group cannot themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive (though they can and do protest to the best of their abilities individually).

"We have to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. You can appreciate how serious this handicap is by asking yourself how long blacks would have had to wait for equal rights if they had not been able to stand up for themselves and demand it. The less able a group is to stand up and organize against oppression, the more easily it is oppressed."

In Animal Liberation, Singer optimistically observes: "The environmental movement...has led people to think about our relations with other animals that seemed impossible only a decade ago. To date, environmentalists have been more concerned with wildlife and endangered species than with animals in general, but it is not too big a jump from the thought that it is wrong to treat whales as giant vessels filled with oil and blubber to the thought that it is wrong to treat pigs as machines for converting grains to flesh."

Singer admits that "'Animal Liberation' may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective." He notes that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today's feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation.

(Southern slaveholders may have used this line of reasoning in resisting abolition.)

We find an identical line of thought in contemporary American society when it comes to extending human rights to the unborn:

"Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

What if both practices (killing animals and killing unborn humans) are equally reprehensible? What if (like the movements in the 18th and 19th centuries to emancipate women and free the slaves) we are really talking about two very similar moral campaigns —animal rights and prenatal rights?

This is the 21st century. People used to mistakenly think humans were omnivores; they know now that, in reality, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), and possess a set of completely herbivorous teeth. People used to worry if one could be healthy on a vegetarian diet; they know now that it's healthier to be a vegetarian and that all kinds of delicious meatless alternatives are readily available.

Celebrities like Paul McCartney and musical groups like the B-52s promote vegetarianism at rock concerts. Other celebrities, like Sara Gilbert of "Roseanne" fame, wear "Meat Stinks" T-shirts on television. And science and technology now provide us with alternatives to animal research and testing.

In secular circles, the animal rights movement is taken more seriously than the right-to-life movement. In an article on animal rights entitled "Just Like Us?" appearing in the August 1988 issue of Harper's, bioethicist Art Caplan was willing to seriously discuss the rights of animals, but warned:

"...if you cheapen the currency of rights language, you've got to worry that rights may not be taken seriously. Soon you will have people arguing that trees have rights and that embryos have rights..."

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

The Ludidtism of the "let's go back to local farming!" position is astonishing. Nothing but misty-eyed nostalgia with not an ounce of practicality to it.

Vasumurti, you have continually failed to even attempt to address my points in any way whatsoever, and simply copy and past biased source after biased source while answering none of my questions.

You act like a fundamentalist who has been argued into a corner, has no answers, and decides to shout scripture in an "I can't hear you!" gesture to avoid the collapse of his faith system.

It's kinda sad. I suppose I have my answer as to whether you are interested in real solutions or just promoting an agenda.

Thank you Vasumurti, that was very nice of you to post. I like Dennis Kucinich and especially this statement.

The following is a statement from vegan presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio):

As a necessary component of the living world, we must extend compassion to one another and to every living thing. Our mission as human beings can truly be to elevate this world from a condition of suffering and cruelty to the planet's creatures, and towards a condition of compassion and inherent respect. Through elevating the cause of every creature, we elevate our own humanity.

We lift up the cause of humanity by reaching out and connecting with all things living. It is our sense of interconnection with all living things that brings us to respect the rights of animals; to understand that animals are not to be "lower than"; that animals should not have less of a claim to existence, less of a claim to the possibility of survival, less of a claim to dignity.

Every one of us knows a story of animal cruelty; every one of us knows how in one way or another official policies have sanctioned cruelty to animals. I am working to put compassion into action in our policies with respect to animals in this country and to have America set a higher standard, not only for this country, but for the world; to make sure that all of God's creatures, that all animals are given a chance to have dignity in our society and are given a chance to experience the appreciation they should have as living beings.

I would include advocacy of animal rights in the Department of Peace, which I have already proposed to Congress. This cabinet-level department would work with, and offer an alternative to, the Defense Department. There have been numerous studies that have suggested a link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. The Department of Peace would not only seek to resolve international conflicts with nonviolent means, but also seek to instill a peaceful paradigm into the hearts of all the people of the world, so that one day war will be an archaic relic of a time that has passed.

My farm policy favors independent and family-owned farms. I support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock, and numerous new incentives for farmers to convert to sustainable and organic farming and ranching techniques. The vision of the meat that we consume coming from happy and healthy free-range animals can become more of a reality, as opposed to the inhumane conditions that the often mutated chickens and cows and pigs are forced to sustain in our current system.

As a member of Congress, I have cosponsored every piece of major animal protection legislation. In addition, I hold the distinction of being the only vegan in Congress. I made this lifestyle change many years ago, because I consider all life on our Earth to be sacred. As a vegan, I choose not to eat any animals or animal products. I strive to live my life in accordance with my convictions, and any other choice of diet would defy my ideals and, in my judgment, be hypocritical.

- Dennis Kucinich 11/16/2006

Vasumurti

Ok, I get your point. Modern agriculture is not sustainable. My grandfather was a farmer, when he retired he ran a 4000 acre cattle ranch for his friend when he had a heart attack. I know a little bit about cattle.
I don't support conventional farming and could give you a few more reasons to add to your list. I also think dietary standards unless you have a severe nutritional need or medical condition are a waste of resources. I would rather have dinner with a vegan than eat by the dietary guidelines at most health facilities.

I think diet and nutrition evolved together with other aspects of our nature and that is what determines what and how we eat or should eat. We have errored by supporting convenience over quality and designer food instead of whole nutritious foods. Food is basic to all other needs and we have given power over these basic needs to corporations. Corporations own our homes, determine our work, teach our children, decide what they eat and they spend a lot of our money furthering thier own interests. Industrialized agriculture is just a symptom and I would enjoy what choices you still have because these are threatened along with the mass extinctions all over the world.

Treefrog,

Vegetarianism (and especially veganism) is not "brainstorming," but rather actual "problem solving" (as you put it) to the problems of environmental destruction and overpopulation. As I've stated before, raising animals for food is environmentally destructive.

Bruce Friedrich insists vegetarianism is the best way to help the environment, and that over the past 20 years, the argument has grown substantially. As far back as the 1980s, John Block, Secretary of Agriculture under Reagan (hardly an environmental radical) estimated some 60 percent of U.S. rangelands are overgrazed.

Keith Akers writes in A Vegetarian Sourcebook:

"Using grasslands for livestock agriculture creates great environmental problems, which greatly limit its usefulness. Grazing systems require ten times more land than feedlot agriculture, in which animals are simply given feed grown on cropland. Grazing systems have to be extensive in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of overgrazing--which renders a piece of land unsuitable for any purpose.

"Overgrazing and the consequent soil erosion are extremely serious problems worldwide. By the most conservative estimates, 60% of all U. S. rangelands are overgrazed, with billions of tons of soil lost each year. Overgrazing has also been the greatest cause of man-made deserts.

"Even if we grant grazing a role in a resource-efficient, ecologically stable agriculture, milk should be the end result, not beef. Milk provides over 50% of the protein and nearly four times the calories of beef, per unit of forage resources from grazing.

"'When only forage is available, then egg, broiler and pork production are eliminated and only milk, beef, and lamb production are viable systems,' state David and Marcia Pimentel, scientists and authors of Food, Energy and Society. 'Of these three, milk production is the most efficient.'

"An ecologically stable, resource-efficient system of grazing animals for human food could not be anything faintly resembling today's livestock agriculture. It would be a smaller, decentralized, less intensive system of animal husbandry devoted to milk production.

"The American way of life requires about 2 acres of cropland and 4.4 acres of grazing land per capita. What if we tried to 'raise' the entire world to our standard of living?

"(This) implies a land requirement of 8 billion acres of cropland and 17.5 billion acres of grazing land. Only 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grassland pasture presently exist in the world, less than half the land that would be needed.

"Much of the land considered potentially arable in South America has low-quality soils and is very difficult to get to. Moreover, any expansion would almost certainly be at the expense of the already rapidly depleting forest areas.

"The same is true of Africa, where nonforested areas are already experiencing severe competition between grazing and cultivation. In Asia, the Far East, the Near East and northern Africa, most of the potentially arable land is already under cultivation. So bringing additional land under cultivation is terribly difficult.

"The fact is, most of the easily available land has already been cultivated, and much of the uncultivated remainder could only be brought into cultivation by clearing forest areas, which should be protected. The best land is already taken; why would people cultivate the worst land first?

"Moreover, crop yields in the United States and other Western countries are much higher than in the Soviet Union, Asia and Africa. The "Green Revolution," high-yielding crop varieties, and advanced agricultural techniques require a great deal of supporting technology and natural resources which only an industrialized society can provide, or even afford: tractors, irrigation, fertilizers, etc.

"Suppose even these difficulties were overcome. Suppose all this additional land were brought into production, and the technology and fertilizers were provided to bring crop yields up to Western standards. Such an agricultural system would hardly survive more than a few years.

"Energy consumption would skyrocket, more than tripling in the less developed countries. Irrigated land presently comprises only 15% of the world's total cropland; but of the new land at least 50% would have to be irrigated. So the demand for water supplies, already overwhelming in much of the world, would increase dramatically.

"Nor can fish provide any help here. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week."

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet?

If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

Well gang, it's over my head now, guess it's time for me to seek professional help.

vasumurti:

You're really citing reports from 1974 that thought we were going to have global cooling??? Wow, just wow. Are you that desperate for supporting evidence? And you continue to cite biased vegetarian sources that simply do not account for the whole picture.

You have completely failed to respond to my arguments regarding cash crops or the ethanol industry, or the fact that surpluses have been and will be stockpiled or destroyed and production adjusted to maintain commodity prices, a practice that is a part of the agribusiness model even now.

In fact, you have so failed to address my points that I literally have nothing else to add except to ask you to reread my last post and think about those things more. Especially the following:

"You could wave a magic wand and eliminate meat production tomorrow, and you will have solved NOTHING. Global agribusiness would simply shift it's business model to something else that's marketable and consumes all the production they can generate at the best profit margin possible."

Until you address that, you remain in full tilt at windmills.

I agree a laundry list of bad things taken out of context is more like brainstorming rather than problem solving. Most animals are migratory, people use to be migratory as well. People live in un-natural environments, period. My neighbors use all sorts of chemicals and won't allow anything living on thier property. They chemically killed everything before they built thier house. There is also a homeowners association that dictates how everyone is suppose to live. Where I live it use to be all farms and now it is all shopping centers. Lets face it this is what is not only practiced it is mandatory. Nothing is allowed to finish a natural cycle of birth-life-death. I don't trust people that quote long lists of statistics and really have no understanding of the practices or solutions, that is not holistic. It is not just the number of people it is how people live and urbanization is so far from anything natural or holistic it isn't even funny.

kitty_tc,

I agree with you that global capitalism is part of the problem. This should have been clear from my previous posts, describing the food industry, multinationals, etc.

I don't think abolishing capitalism is the answer, but my most recent statement still stands:

On a planet with finite resources and an exploding human population, raising animals for food is not only environmentally destructive, but a waste of resources which will only lead to armed conflict.

According to Howard Lyman, former senior lobbyist for the National Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the biggest hog at the trough."

Meat-eating contributes to the fear in the world by putting us in a position in which there is not enough to go around. But that's not all. Meat-eaters ingest residues of the animal's biochemical response to the horrors of the slaughterhouse. Programmed to fight or flee when in danger for their lives, the animals react to the slaughterhouse in sheer terror. Powerful biochemical agents are secreted that pump through their bloodstreams and onto their flesh, energizing them to fight or flee for their lives.

Like screaming air rain sirens, these chemical agents produce instinctual panic. Today's slaughterhouses virtually guarantee that the animals will die in terror.

The Maoris would eat the flesh of a slaughtered enemy in order to possess the enemy's courage and strength. The people of the lower Nubia, likewise, would eat the fox, believing that by so doing, they would be possessed of his cunning.

In upper Egypt, the heart of the hoopoe bird was eaten in order to acquire the ability to become a clever scribe. The bird would be caught and its heart would be torn out and eaten while it was still alive.

On the other hand, certain Native American tribes would not eat the flesh of an animal who died in fear, because they did not want to take into themselves the terror of such an animal.

When we eat animals who have died violent deaths we literally eat their fear. We take in biochemical agents designed by nature to tell an animal that its life is in the gravest danger, and it must either fight or flee for its life. And then, in our wars and our daily lives, we give expression to the panic in which the animals we have eater died.

"Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. We live by the death of others. We are burial places! I have since an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they look upon the murder of man."

---Leonardo da Vinci

The Bible contains numerous examples of conflict situations that are directly attributable to the practice of raising livestock, including contested water rights, bitter competition for grazing areas, and friction between agriculturalists and nomadic herdsmen. The more settled agricultural communities deeply resented the intrusion of nomadic tribes with their large herds of cattle, sheep, and goats.

These animals were considered a menace. Aside from the threat to the crops themselves, large herds of livestock caused much damage to the general quality of the land as a result of overgrazing.

It was ostensibly for this reason that the Philistines, whose primary agricultural pursuits were corn and orchards, sought to discourage nomadic herdsmen from using their territory by filling in many of the wells in the surrounding area. One of the earliest accounts of strife among the herdsmen themselves is found in the story of Lot and Abram:

"And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." (Genesis 13:5-7)

Abram moved Westward to a region known as Canaan, while Lot journeyed to the east, finally settling in Sodom. Such peaceful agreements, however, were not always possible. There are several references in the Bible to clashes between the Israelites and Midianites. The Midianites were wealthy Bedouin traders who owned large numbers of livestock, as did the Israelites, who brought their herds with them when they left Egypt.

Livestock require vast areas of land for grazing. They also need water, which has never been abundant in that region of the world. The strain thus placed on the land's resources is mentioned in Judges 6:4: "And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth."

The depletion of resources created by the people arid livestock moving into this territory is described in Judges 6:5 by a singularly appropriate simile: "For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers."

Another passage informs us that after a particularly vicious battle with the Midianites the Israelites augmented their herds with the livestock of their slain captives. This included 675,000 sheep and more than 72,000 beeves.

A strikingly frank reference to the casual relationship between flesh eating and war, in terms of land use, is found in Deuteronomy 12:20: "When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, 'I will eat flesh,' because thy soul lusteth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after."

A similar straightforward reference to the relationship between flesh eating and war can be found in Plato's Republic. In a dialogue with Glaucon, Socrates extols the peace and happiness what come to people eating a vegetarian diet: "And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them."

Glaucon remains skeptical that people would be satisfied with such fare. He asserts that people will desire the "ordinary conveniences of life," including animal flesh. Socrates then proceeds to stock the once ideal state with swineherds, huntsmen, and "cattle in great number." The dialogue continues:

"...and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them?"

"Certainly."

"And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before? "

"Much greater."

"And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?"

"Quite true."

"Then a slice of our neighbor's land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?"

"That, Socrates, will be inevitable."

"And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?

"Most certainly," Glaucon replies.

Critics of Plato, reading the rest of the Republic, have complained that what Plato gives us is a militaristic or proto-fascist state, with censorship and a rigidly controlled economy. Plato would hardly disagree with these critics; what they have overlooked is that the state which he describes is not his idea--it is merely a consequence of Glaucon's requirements which Socrates himself disavows. Greed for meat, among other things, produced the character of the second state Plato describes.

The history of the European spice trade would seem to suggest that there is indeed a relationship between war and large-scale consumer demand for foods not required by what Plato refers to as "natural want." Spices were of vital importance to meat preparation before the process of mechanical refrigeration was developed in the 20th century, meat was usually preserved by the process of salting. Using various combinations of spices to offset the saltiness of meat, thus making it palatable, became a popular practice in medieval Europe.

The demand for spices was a significant factor in European colonial endeavors. Competition intensified, contributing to the exacerbation of serious disputes that already existed among various European nations. Efforts in the 17th and 18th centuries by the Dutch, Portuguese, English and French to expand their spice trade resulted in warfare, as well as the subjugation of native peoples by these imperialist powers.

We are presently confronted with a rather precarious situation in which a few select regions of the world are the principal suppliers of various commodities that are essential to the entire process of food production.

The Middle East region, for example, dominates the world petroleum market. Petroleum is needed to power farm machinery in addition to its use as a fertilizer base. Despite the relatively large amount of petroleum produced in the United States, this country is, nonetheless, highly dependent on Middle East oil.

U. S . Secretary of State Henry Kissinger commented in 1975 that military intervention "could not be ruled out" in the event of another Arab Oil embargo. His comment indicates the extent of American dependency on Arab oil and the desperate lengths the U. S. government will go to obtain it. The "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, concerning the use of tactics nuclear weapons in the Middle East by the United States and the Persian Gulf War of 1991 reiterate American dependence upon a highly unstable part of the globe.

Morocco is the leading producer of phosphate, an important element in fertilizer production. Within the period of a few years in the early 1970s, Morocco more than quadrupled its price for phosphate. The large world demand for phosphate prompted Morocco to invade the Spanish Sahara when the Spanish relinquished control of the region in 1975. A guerrilla force of Saharan nationals found themselves battling the Moroccan aggressors, whose sole interest in the region was its phosphate reserves.

The United States is fond of using its position as a major food exporter to manipulate the policies of foreign governments. The most striking example of this practice is the successful American "destabilization" effort in Chile in the early 1970s.

A project initiated by the American Central Intelligence Agency to create dissatisfaction among Chilean truckers resulted in widespread food shortages. The Allende regime was then rebuffed in its attempts to make a cash purchase of vitally needed U S wheat.

However, in less than a month after a successful Chilean coup that was abetted by the U S government, the new fascist regime was given a large shipment of American wheat on generous credit terms despite Chile's unstable economy.

A report prepared in August, 1974, by the American Central Intelligence Agency cites several ominous trends in weather conditions and population growth.

The authors of this report indicate there is substantial evidence to support the belief that food shortages will become more acute as the result of a major cooling trend. As a result, such a situation "could give the United States a measure of power it had never had before--possibly an economic and political dominance greater than that of the immediate post-World War II years." The study warns, however, that countries adversely affected by these weather changes may resort to desperate measures, including "nuclear blackmail" and "massive migration backed by force."

The report concludes that we have the potential to compensate for future large-scale famines that may be far worse than the present food crisis. It is duly noted that if the anticipated marked and persistent cooling trend occurs there would not be enough food to feed the world's population "unless the affluent nations make a quick and drastic cut in their consumption of grain-fed animals."

Vegetarian author Laurel Robertson writes that "The relationship between meat consumption and available grain is...more sensitive than we might think...In 1974, when the market for meat did fall, the grain that was so unexpectedly released actually did find its way to poorer countries."

Within the next two to four decades, if present trends continue, vast quantities of land will be lost to soil erosion; forests in most parts of the world will be greatly decimated or entirely gone; U.S. cropland reserves will be gone; the Ogallala Aquifer will be largely gone; and many parts of the Third World will be reduced to desert. We face a serious crisis. Our supplies of agricultural resources is dwindling just as the demand on them is increasing. The human race is on a major collision course with reality.

"And there are ideas of the future, of which some are already approaching realization and are obliging people to change their way of life and to struggle against the former ways: such ideas in our world as those of freeing the laborers, of giving equality to women, of ceasing to use flesh food, and so on."

---Leo Tolstoy

vasumurti:

Your information is listed in isolation of other facts such as the global trade system, subsidized US food exports destroying the agriculture markets in the third world, and the like. In your Costa Rica example alone, why do you think that the land and the food produced on it would go to the people if not used for the growing of export cattle? That land is controlled by the elite and it's used to make a profit. Eliminate the meat industry, and the owners of that land would sooner fence it off and let it rot than give it to the poor, or they'd use it for some other cash crop. In fact you may have fewer examples of third world export meat production to rail against in the near future, as the meat industry is being squeezed by the emerging ethanol industry which has higher potential profits. See a pattern here? The resources of the world aren't used to feed the poor AND THEY NEVER WILL BE SO LONG AS GLOBAL CAPITALISM REMAINS IN FORCE. Eliminating meat will only shift resources to a different profit endeavor. The poor will always fight for the scraps that remain.

In fact that's another potential pressure for the "animal free meat" technology I've mentioned, as I'm sure agribusiness would love to free up potential resources to shift to the higher-profit ethanol fuel market. If indeed that technology does take hold, it's pretty likely that that's exactly where those resources will go, because that's where the money is. And the poor will STILL starve.

Both the meat and soon the ethanol industries are useful to agribusiness BECAUSE they use a lot of resources. Modern mechanized farming techniques are so efficient that production capacity is huge, and the industry sees that as a PROBLEM. If supply is too abundant, commodity prices fall and profit margins vanish. When that situation threatens, the industry responds by stockpiling and/or destroying surpluses and cutting production levels to maintain prices. Oversupply is a PROBLEM to profit-driven agribusiness, and resource-intensive industries (read: customers) like meat and fuel production are the SOLUTION in their minds. They will NOT feed the poor and never will, because the global poor are not customers for their products and thus will NEVER be catered to. The poor are defined by their inability to pay and thus will not be sold to, period. Not ever.

You could wave a magic wand and eliminate meat production tomorrow, and you will have solved NOTHING. Global agribusiness would simply shift it's business model to something else that's marketable and consumes all the production they can generate at the best profit margin possible. The poor will remain frozen out of the FOR-PROFIT system, regardless.

You may even get your wish in some places, as there is a pressure in some purely export markets to shift from meat production to the more lucrative ethanol fuel business. Will that please you? Are you really looking for solutions to problems, or are you looking for scarlet letters to hang around the neck of something you already despise?

Resource overconsumption, environmental degradation, denial of resources to the needy, all the things you blame meat production for are simply symptoms of a much larger disease --that of the global capitalist system itself. You're seeking to soothe symptoms, but what's needed is a cure.

kitty_tc,

I agree with some of what you've written in your most recent post. You're right: the goal of the food industry is profit, not charity. My point is that on a planet with finite resources and an exploding human population, raising animals for food is not only environmentally destructive, but a waste of resources which will only lead to armed conflict.

You ask: "What do you sincerely think would change if all those 'extra resources' that go into meat production suddenly stopped? Do you really think they would be distributed to the poor and needy?"

Why not? Vegetarian author Laurel Robertson writes: "The relationship between meat consumption and available grain is ...more sensitive than we might think.. In 1974, when the market for meat did fall, the grain that was so unexpectedly released actually did find its way to poorer countries."

Some food for thought:

Hunger is really a social disease caused by the unjust, inefficient and wasteful control of food. In Costa Rica, beef production quadrupled between 1960 and 1980, but almost all this beef is exported to the United States, and what does stay int he country is eaten by a tiny minority. Though more and more Costa Rican land is being turned over to meat production, the population is not eating more meat for the change. The average family in Costa Rica eats less meat than the average American housecat.

In country after country the pattern is repeated. Livestock industries are consuming feed to such an extent that now almost all Third World nations must import grain. Seventy-five percent of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people. In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for the poor.

The same trend can be found in the Middle East and North Africa--increases in grain-fed livestock require more imported feed. Twenty years ago, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain. Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain. Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain. As a result, Egypt must now import eight million tons of grain every year.

Twenty-five years ago, Syria was a barley exporter. But in the intervening years, livestock has consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain. Now, despite a phenomenal 1,000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

Because of its reliance on livestock agriculture, Israel's economy depends heavily on groundwater use. You can't make the desert bloom through sheer hard work; it requires water. Today Israel is heavily dependent on water from the West Bank, and the Israeli press is full of talk of retaining the West Bank in order to protect water supplies from encroaching Arab wells. One analyst gloomily concludes that the water in the West Bank region--which the Israelis captured from the Arabs in the 1967 war--is "fast becoming the most ominous obstacle to any peaceful settlement in the region."

Any economy that relies on meat production is in serious trouble. Any social system which persists in putting an emphasis on meat production will be progressively weakened until it as destroyed or until its policies are changed. The amount of time which will pass before a serious social disaster sets in, of course, will vary from region to region. In the case of the United States, which still has abundant agriculture resources, there are probably many decades left. In the case of Africa, the disaster is there today.

Regardless of social system or ideology, any country that emphasizes meat production is going to make its food situation worse. In the richer nations, food may simply become somewhat more costly. If the livestock industry is subsidized by the government--as is the case in both the United States and the former Soviet Union--then other areas of the economy may suffer, as they are sacrificed go keep agriculture afloat. In the poorer nations, food may become unavailable to many and starvation may result.

In Ethiopia and Mozambique, we have two cases of very poor countries which have relied heavily on livestock agriculture with tragic results. In both countries, thousands have died and tens of thousands more are in danger of dying. In both countries, livestock agriculture has played a key role in crippling the ability of the food system to produce food.

Ecological disaster is not new in Africa. Northern Africa, once the granary of the Roman Empire, was reduced to a barren wasteland by the pastoral nomads which entered the area after the Empire's collapse. The march of the Sahara desert southward, preceded by large herds of livestock animals, has been observed for decades. Numerous independent observers have confirmed that soil erosion today is rampant in Africa. The destruction has been savage. Fifty years ago, 40% of Ethiopia was covered with trees, while only 2% to 4% is covered with trees today.

So the famine in Ethiopia during the 1980s should not have been a surprise. Many blamed the drought, the civil war, or governmental incompetence in pushing the country over the edge into starvation; and certainly these factors played a role. but we cannot ignore the ecological realities which are the underlying conditions responsible for Ethiopia's getting to the brink of disaster in the first place. Overgrazing by cattle has played a key role in Ethiopia's decline.

Incredibly, while the people are starving, Ethiopia today has a larger livestock population than any other country in Africa, though it is only ninth in total land area!

Similar problems have affected Mozambique. Here we have a country which recently liberated itself from colonialism. Yet Mozambique then proceeded to import beef from abroad to satisfy the demands of the urban elite for meat. Perhaps even worse, they are intensifying their production of corn--one of the most erosive of all plant foods--and feeding it to their cattle!

This is a recipe for disaster and a most depressing pattern throughout many third world countries. They throw out colonialism, but they keep or even intensify the colonial system of food production.

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also experiencing serious problems related to meat production. In Poland, prior to the worker's riots in 1979 over rising meat prices, the per capita meat consumption was nearly as high as it was in the United States. In 1979 the government allowed the price of meat to rise, and the workers expressed their intense dissatisfaction.

Meat consumption has placed a severe strain on the Polish economy; the Polish economy simply cannot sustain the level of meat consumption which approaches the "American" level. The former Soviet Union's well-publicized agricultural difficulties only arise because it tries to feed its citizens a Western-type diet high in meat and animal products. The former Soviet Union would not have the slightest difficulty in feeding itself from its own resources, but grain has to be imported for their cattle.

Most news reports on shortages and hunger in the former Soviet Union emphasize the lack of meat, which is really an unnecessary luxury and not a necessity. Meat consumption has severely aggravated the country's problems.

In 1991, Worldwatch noted: "Since 1950, meat consumption has tripled and feed consumption quadrupled. Use of grain for feed surpassed direct human consumption in 1964 and has been rising ever since. Soviet livestock now eat three times as much grain as Soviet Citizens. Grain imports have soared, going from near zero in 1970 to twenty-four million tons in 1990, and the USSR is now the world's second largest grain importer."

Development funds have irrigated the desert in Senegal so that multinational firms can grow eggplant and mangoes for air-freighting to Europe's best tables. In Haiti, the majority of peasants struggle for survival by trying to grow food on mountain slopes of a 45 degree incline or more. They say they are exiles from their birthright--some of the world's richest agricultural land. These lands now belong to a handful of elite; cattle are flown in by U.S. firms for grazing and re-exported to franchised hamburger restaurants.

And what about the United States? Half the water consumed in the U. S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement. In fact, U. S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population, creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U. S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a thousand-pound steer could float a destroyer. It takes twenty-five gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but twenty-five hundred gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

The burden of subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and eighty-five percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U. S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U. S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes three times as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

vasumurti:

You still seem to be missing the point. What makes you think that if the animal industry suddenly shut it's doors, then suddenly everyone would be fed? Honestly, this isn't the 1800's or even the early 20th century anymore. Production outstripped demand some time ago, but the starvation remains. Why? Because the food production industry has not feeding people as it's goal, but making a profit. Feeding people is merely a means to that end. You can't pay, you won't eat, period. And no one does anything about it.

What do you sincerely think would change if all those "extra resources" that go into meat production suddenly stopped? Do you really think they would be distributed to the poor and needy? Of course not. Those resources would be stockpiled or destroyed, and production levels adjusted to maintain commodity prices. Just like often happens now.

Greed is the problem, and shortsighted, outdated systems --NOT a lack of resources. Capitalism, and economy in general, is excellent at rationing limited resources, but it breaks down in the face of abundance. Artificial contractions in supply must be generated to keep the system functional, and those in charge don't care that those on the bottom get screwed. They're neither brave nor imaginative enough to figure out how to get theirs while also providing for everyone, so they go through contortions to keep their outdated, inadequate system going. And no one is able to effectively challenge them.

You're attacking the wrong end of the problem.

blessthebeasts:

It's ok, I just wanted you to understand how things can come across. Like evangelicals, too forceful a conversion attempt can have the opposite of the desired effect, it can make people feel threatened and browbeaten, and make them dig their heels in out of defensiveness. As a pagan, I've learned to tread very lightly when talking to christians about religion and bend over backwards to be reassuring rather than pressuring. It's something I recommend to you as well.

It's something PETA needs very much to learn, as the general perception of them tends to be an image of wild-eyed fanatics who would gladly kill humans in their zeal to protect animals, if only they could. They come across as zealots, strident and aggressive in their faith much like hardened christian fundamentalists, and it turns people off. This may not be the reality of the group, or maybe it is, but it's certainly how people percieve them. And as long as they have that public image, people will not listen to them.

Both of you, what is your opinion of the "animal free meat" technology I referenced? It's coming, it's only a matter of time. It's overwhelmingly likely that in under a decade we'll see large-scale availability, because the potential profit margin is so much better thanks to vastly reduced costs. Do you support it? Would you consider using the product, or would you merely not disapprove of others who do? I'm just curious, because I find the implications intriguing.

People really do need to listen to this wonderful man.
When I became a vegan about ten years ago it was for ethical reasons.
I have watched how farm animals are slaughtered including horses, the horsemeat is sent to other countries for food, it is against the law to eat horsemeat in America. We watched these horrific videos so we could explain to other people about the horror's of factory farming.
We have just closed down Cavel slaughterhouse for horses in Ill. The 2 in Texas were closed down about 5 months ago, So much for our American Icons.
These sites are everywhere, not just PETA.
But anyone that see's a problem with PETA is not seeing the big picture.
We have spoken with people that have worked at slaughterhouses, the one story that a worker from Iowa told us was how the "knockbox" or bolt worked, he said that many cattle are still alive when put on the belt and as workers are cutting off leg's and skinning these poor animals they are still alive and sometimes looking up at you as if asking why.
He still works there but he told us everything that happens.
A good book to read on Amazon is called slaughterhouse.
This book took me quite awhile to read.
It tells the story about cruelty and such greed about the Bush people and the USDA, they are very close, and this is very much a political issue.
I love living a cruelty free life, it does alot for the soul.

perceptionexperiment--What's your beef with PETA? (sorry about the pun) Is it their in-your-face tactics or the fact that they do endorse euthanizing some animals rather than keep them in inhumane conditions? I'm not defending all of their policies, but I believe they have educated alot of the mainstream population about the realities of animal production and consumption and the consequences. I believe they have the right motivation: to educate people, not force them to do or not do anything. And I believe we are past the "crazy hippie stigma" of being vegetarian or vegan. Most health and nutrition professionals acknowledge it is a healthy lifestyle. People that I meet from all walks of life express admiration for those who forgo using animal products whether for health, environmental or ethical reasons. Again, we are not about forcing our lifestyle on anyone or taking food out of your mouth!
People on this site often are frustrated about what to do to make positive changes to our society. Do we protest, boycott, make phone calls, send emails? I do all those things, but I often wonder if it's having any impact. Being a vegan is something I know we can do to benefit the environment and our health even if we don't care about the suffering of animals. It also sends a message to the Franken-food industry that we don't want their crap!
About eggs, the problem for vegans is not really the eggs you eat, but the male chickens which are inevitably disposed of because only one is needed to produce more eggs.
To kitty, I truly did not mean to threaten you in any way, please believe me. As I said, I have no desire to coerce anyone to do or not do anything. It is strictly a matter of sharing my beliefs. I'm sorry if you felt threatened

Yeah, maybe if we close our eyes and pray hard enough, everyone will stop wearing Nike's too.

A popular vegetarian bumper sticker here in the United States reads: "Vegetarianism is love in action."

The number of animals killed for food here in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds. So if we really want to end animal cruelty, vegetarianism and veganism would be a good place to start!

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights similarly says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
Merely by practicing restraint
We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil,
We do not have to contribute money,
We do not have to sit in jail or go to
meetings or demonstrations or
engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
of healing mortal wounds,
is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

Whoops forgot this important tid bit. How many of us keep our new year's resolutions? We will never save the planet if we expect the solution to come through giving up behaviors. While those of us who can should, we need to read stuff like Cradle to Cradle that talks about changing the way we go about doing things as the main approach rather than giving stuff up.

Wow.. getting a lot of discussion here.

I still stand by my claim that PETA does much more harm than good. Thanks to PETA it is now impossible to get people to seriously think about why I am a vegetarian. No one has addressed any of my reasoning for saying rational vegetarians should distance themselves from the group. Instead they just call those making good points "meat eaters". I only started eating local chicken again very occasionally because I was getting horrible abdominal pains
otherwise.

Also, the permaculture enthusiasts are right on. Just read about how chickens function on their farms and then tell me why you can't eat them when they are at the end of their lifespan or why eating their eggs hurts the environment. Let's listen to the farmers posting here. They, by nature, know better than we do.

I think people are misunderstanding something here. No one is saying it is dumb to be vegan, or you can't be vegan. We are just saying getting your food from local sources is MORE important than not eating animals for a wide variety of reasons. Joining a CSA is more important than not eating meat, etc. Once we realize this we will find it is easier to get people on the same page. Some of us will never stop eating meat, but they might join a CSA. If you can go without meat, than that's great, but vegetarianism, and especially veganism, just isn't for everyone.

Still, where has one person told us why we can't eat local, organic eggs? Someone tell me why this is bad...

I just think if the case for vegetarianism, eating less meat, etc. is ever going to move beyond the crazy hippie stigma we need to be more pragmatic about the way we talk about this. We can't just say "meat is murder" and expect people to take us seriously.

And I hope to God none of you PETA supporters have pets.

http://thirdeyemag.com/disneyland.htm

Competition for food has inevitably led to conflict and this struggle for survival has been a significant factor in the history of organized warfare. In this respect, meat-eating may be regarded as either the underlying cause of armed conflict or at least one of several factors contributing to the exacerbation of a pre-existing problem.

The reason why meat, in particular, has created such problems is that the practice of raising livestock requires a much greater use of resources. The basic problem is simply that people are forced to compete with animals for food--a most precarious situation when food is in short supply.

Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat. Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects. The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country. We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats. Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people--nearly double the entire human population of the planet. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes. That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein.-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive. He calls this "the protein swindle." Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries. One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock. Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet. It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before.

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition. On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger.

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed. Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an...evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

In the 1970s, the United Nations Secretary General said that the food consumption of the rich countries is the key cause of hunger around the world. The United Nations has recommended that the wealthy nations cut down on their meat consumption. According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources at present to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet at American middle class standards. The Institute for Food and Development Policy has shown that there is no country in the world in which the people cannot feed themselves from their own resources.

Moreover, there is no correlation between land density and hunger. China has twice as many people per cultivated acre as India, yet less of a hunger problem. Bangladesh has just one-half the people per cultivated acre that Taiwan has, yet Taiwan has no starvation, while Bangladesh has one of the highest rates in the world. The most densely populated countries in the world today are not India and Bangladesh, but Holland and Japan.

The food industry takes in over $150 billion every year--more than the auto, steel, or oil industries. This industry is dominated by a few, giant multinational corporations, who possess extensive political control. Multinationals are buying more land. A study of over 83 countries reveals that just over 3% of landholders control about 80 percent of the farmland.

The Worldwatch Institute has released a remarkable report entitled Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, which lists nation after nation where food deprivation has followed the switch from a grain-based diet to a meat-based one.

Most of the nations that now import grain from the United States were once self-sufficient in grain. The main reason they aren't is the rise in meat production and consumption. In Taiwan, for example, per capita consumption of meat and eggs increased 600 percent from 1950 to 1990. With this change, vastly increased amounts of grain have gone to livestock, raising the annual per capita grain use in the country from 375 pounds to 858 pounds. In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

In mainland China, the situation is similar. Increased meat consumption has meant less grain available to feed people. Since 1978, meat consumption has more than doubled, to twenty-four kilograms. The share of Chinese grain fed to livestock rose from 7 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1990.

Beginning over 300 years ago, the Western Colonialist powers established the plantation system in their subject lands. The plantation's sole purpose was to produce wealth for the colonizers - tobacco, rubber, cotton, tea, coffee, cocoa, etc.--all of which had little or no nutritional value. The name subsequently giver to them, "cash crops," is quite appropriate.

Cash crops became established in world trade, so that even after their emancipation from formal colonial control, Third World countries were "economically hooked" on these crops as their only means of survival. Coffee, for example, the second most valuable commodity in world trade, is the economic lifeblood of fourteen developing countries. Coffee symbolizes millions of acres of agricultural land in a hungry world.

In Central America, Where over 70% of the children are hungry, 50% of the land is used for "cash crops" (such as lilies). While multinational corporations use the best land to grow their cash crops (coffee, tea, tobacco, exotic foods), the natives are forced to use slopes and eroded land on which it is difficult to grow food.

Since 1960, the number of landless people in Central America has multiplied fourfold. American aid goes to prop up Latin America's livestock industry. According to economist Bruce Rich: "No other single commodity in developing countries has ever received such extraordinary outside support."

Nor does this support benefit the impoverished. Over half Of Latin America's beef production is exported, and the rest is too expensive for any but the wealthy to purchase. From 1960 to 1980 beef exports from El Salvador increases over sixfold.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of small farmers lost their livelihood and were pushed off their land. Today, 72 percent of all Salvadoran infants are underfed.

In Brazil, major portions of the Amazon tropical rain forests have been destroyed so that wealthy multinational corporations can produce beef for the wealthy. Corporations such as Volkswagen, Nestle, Mitsubishi, Liquigas, King Ranch, and Swift-Eckrich have bulldozed and burned literally hundreds of millions of acres, replacing the world's oldest and richest ecosystems, home to two million or more species of plant and animal life with a single crop--pasture grass for cattle.

And here, the beef produced has not gone to feed hungry Brazilians; it has been primarily exported to Western Europe, the Middle East, and North America. In 1987, the United States imported three hundred million pounds of meat from countries in Central and South America.

With the help of international lending institutions, Brazil has mounted an enormous effort to increase agricultural production, but this has been primarily meat-oriented production and for export. Twenty-five years ago, soybeans were almost nonexistent or Brazil. Today, this crop is the nation's number one export--but almost all of it goes to feed Japanese and European livestock. Twenty five years ago, one third of the Brazilian population suffered from malnutrition. Today, the figure has risen to two thirds.

Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Brazil huge cattle ranches take up some of the most fertile soil in the whole country, yet 60 percent of Brazilians are malnourished. Oxfam estimates that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats! The livestock are exported of course, to satisfy the developed nations' craving for cheap hamburgers.

Only thirty years ago, sorghum was almost unknown in Mexico. But by 1980, it covered literally twice the acreage of wheat. Sorghum isn't grown for humans. It is fed to livestock. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed only 6 percent of Mexico's grain. Today, the figure is over 50 percent. This is a trend throughout the Third World. Copying the United States' meat-oriented diet, these poor countries devote increasing percentages of their resources to meat production.

In Mexico, land that was once used for growing corn for Mexicans is now used for the production of fancy vegetables for U.S. citizens; the profit is 20 times greater. Hundreds of thousands of former farmers have found themselves landless. Unable to compete with the large landowners, they first lease their land to make at least some money from it; the next step is to work for the big firms; finally, they find themselves migrant workers, roaming in search of work so their families can survive. Such conditions have led to repeated waves of rebellion.

Throughout Latin America, land availability is a prominent social issue. Revolutionaries as well as reform-minded moderates have made land reform a major issue. Yet in many Latin American countries, forests are being leveled in order to create pastures for cattle grazing land. In a region where land availability is a central social issue, existing land is being gobbled up by livestock agriculture. The resulting social tensions have resulted in civil wars, repression and violence.

In 1975, Columbia's best soil was used to produce 18 million dollars of flowers. Carnations brought 80 times greater profit than did the former crop, wheat. Our food security is not being threatened by the prolific, hungry masses, but by elites that profit by the concentration and internationalization of control of food resources. In Guatemala, 75 percent of the children under five years of age are undernourished. Yet, every year Guatemala exports 40 million pounds of meat to the United States. It borders on the criminal!

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around. But as Frances Moore Lappe' and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.

Oops, sorry COCO, you are correct. There is another book, titled Johnathon Segal Chicken, a spoof on the original. You're a smart chick coco.

Peace Czar:

You typed: "I forgot, you're a ragin' cajun. That explains everything. Get over yourself."

Those were your exact words. How else am I to interpret that, except as an insult? I'm proud to be a "ragin' cajun", and I would not normally consider it a slur in most contexts, but your sentence here seems anything but flattering. I could be misinterpreting you, but I'm not sure how. Please explain?

blessthebeasts:

Why, if you are against violence, would you even bring up it's specter by referring to my having to fight to the death for my choices? I understand that you are non-violent, but I wish you'd consider how threatening what you said sounds. Perhaps you didn't mean it as an aggressive statement, but it certainly felt that way to me.

Please note that even in my admittedly harsh rebuttal of your post, I said that I respect your right to make your own choices and that I would even help you defend your rights should you ask my help. It would be very nice on a progressive site to see that kind of tolerance and solidarity recriprocated.

Don't go, ___ this is fun.

I regret having checked the thread one more time.

Hey, Kitty:

Since when is ragin cajun a slur anyway? It's an affectionate nickname for political mastermind, James Carville, and as a big X-Men fan once upon a time, it's a nickname of my favorite mutant, Gambit.

I won't apologize for that because it wasn't a slur and for you to perceive it as such is petty beyond words. Go ahead and call me a pasty Brit or a German kraut. I'll cry for days. Stop twisting everyone's words and lighten up. Your reactionary nature is revolting for a website of such open discourse.

I am DONE.

You know, I'm not certain that being a veegie prohibits one from violence. I once lived at a Seventh Day Adventist school for eight months.

The principal caught his daughter and I in my dormroom bed one Saturday evening and he became very violent. Thank goodness the sun had set and it wasn't the Sabbath. I told him I was just checking out the wildlife for my biology class finals, I was writing a paper on saving the trees. It saved us both and it wasn't a lie. If he'd caught is at the local White Castle eating hamburgers, he may have killed us both. Anyway, I finished ninth grade in a public school and didn't have oto eat phoney burgers or stuffed eggplant anymmore. Dang, __ she was a sweetheart too, forget her name now, been a lot of em ya know.

KITTY TC. Don't take it personal, I fear some veggies have a chemical imbalance or vitamin defeciency and they don't all think straight.
Lots of good info here though, there's two sides to a coin. Gotta run, time for milking the DZOs.

Nothing wrong with beans and rice! Honestly, though, all you meat-lovers: no one is trying to "cram anything down your throats"! We just want to share the good health and good karma that comes with a vegan lifestyle. As KemPatrick says, we're going to need it.

Please kitty--don't be paranoid. As a vegan I am naturally opposed to violence for God's sake.

Peace Czar:

Look above you and below you on this thread for exactly what I'm talking about. One says I am a "regressive" and lumps me in with dominionist christians, and the other says I'm one step above a murderer by dint of, ironically enough, christian scripture. You yourself made a slur against my race. All because of what I select from a restaurant menu or buy at a grocery store.

When preaching failed, out came the guilt trips and the condemnation. Typical fundamentalist pattern there. What's next, threats? Oh yeah, blessthebeasts already spoke of my "cold, dead hands" and my lack of rights. Why even bring that up unless the intention, or at least the wish, would be to take my rights away even over my "cold, dead" body?

And you wonder why people refer to your movement as fanatical.

I've enjoyed this thread thoroughly as well, but have other pressing matters to shift my focus towards. I'd especially like to thank Vasumurti for the incredibly wealth of knowledge from a historical, religious, ethical, evolutionary--heck basically every, perspective on plant-based diets. I plan to read further on your website.

This fall I plan to tackle two heavy books with regards to the morality of animal agriculture, for which I'm still emotionally preparing myself:

Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully

and

Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of the Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson

...but I'm also looking forward to the Veganomicon, the latest vegan cooking tome from Isa Chandra Moskowitz of the Post Punk Kitchen. Making veganism hip and fun for a younger generation, which is vital indeed.

I close with my favorite vegetarian quote from Albert Einstein:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

The cause of human rights and the cause of animal rights are intertwined. Those looking for root causes, try capitalism.

I am a vegetarian and I would encourage any "progressives" to give it a look. I spent a couple years reducing my consumption, and made a change to vegetarianism early this year, something I never thought I would or could do.

Are their arrogant vegetarians? sure. There are arrogant meat eaters too. Should that drive you towards being vegetarian? Nah. Just your own research and personal feelings on the issue. Give it a chance.

HI COCO. I believe it was "Johnathan Livingston Seagull", which is a swell story. Another great animal story I'm sure you would enjoy is "Watership Down".

When we go on that land/ sea cruise with Paul, Kathyodat, Rebel, Siouxrose and some others, I'll have those books for you.

Hope everyone calms down today, lots of important things to look forwward to. A war with Iran, the depression, global warming and dying oceans. We should all have a lot of fun in the next year or so. After reading all of the comments, I'm cutting way back on my consumption of animal products. Of course when our depression hits, it will be mostly beans and rice for a long long time, ___ along with some locusts and pure honey.

"Agriculture... is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1787.

This has been one of the most adversarial and confrontational threads I've encountered since reading CD on a regular basis. I take heart with many on their perspective, and their desire to convert one another to their particular line of thinking. Unfortunately, I see many biases and cultural leanings that make this improbable at this time. Veganism and vegetarianism are commendable, admirable, and in the long-term, probably the only way world-kind will survive. Beyond the obvious economic reasons, ethically there is no alternative. As we seek and reach for greater enlightenment, we'll eliminate the senseless killing and use of animals to sustain our own myopic and cultural-centric viewpoints.

We're all on the same journey. It's just that some start-out, and others arrive, sooner than others.

Coco, you're very welcome. I'm glad "The Meatrix" had some value for you. I agree -- I wish it were "required" viewing in school, as The Omnivore's Dilemma was at the College of Holy Cross for incoming freshmen this current school year.

Peace to all...

JEFFERSON'S GUARDIAN

thankyou for the 'meatrix'. i really enjoyed it. i can't bear to watch the real videos. they make me tremble and shake uncontrollably. and then i can't sleep for days. this should be shown in schools. but of course it won't be........but i'm going to send the site to as many people as possible. i read a book a long time ago entitled 'johnathan segal chicken'. it was so funny and poignant. i wish i could find it again. keep up the good work everyone fighting for animal and human rights.

kitty_tc writes:

"Honestly, hearing judeochristian justifications for refusing to kill animals is absolutely hilarious when you factor in that they haven't gotten the don't kill humans thing down yet."

That's because the fate of animals and the fate of man are interconnected (Ecclesiastes 3:19). War, like abortion, is the karmic reaction for killing animals.

"Who loves this terrible thing called war?" asked Isadora Duncan. "Probably the meat-eaters, having killed, feel the need to kill...The butcher with his bloody apron incites bloodshed, murder. Why not? From cutting the throat of a young calf to cutting the throats of our brothers and sisters is but a step. While we ourselves are living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions on the earth?"

U Nu, the former Prime Minister of Burma, made a similar observation: "World peace, or any other kind of peace, depends greatly on the attitude of the mind. Vegetarianism can bring about the right mental attitude for peace...it holds forth a better way of life, which if practiced universally, can lead to a better, more just, and more peaceful community of nations."

According to author John Robbins, "The way we treat animals is indicative of the way we treat our fellow humans. One Soviet study, published in Ogonyok, found that over 87 percent of a group of violent criminals had, as children, burned, hanged, or stabbed domestic animals. In our own country, a major study by Dr. Stephen Kellert of Yale University found that children who abuse animals have a much higher likelihood of becoming violent criminals."

A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) reported that children convicted of animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, and four times more likely to be involved in acts against property.

English metaphysician John Locke attacked cruelty to animals in his "Thoughts on Education," which dealt with the issue of raising children to be virtuous and humane:

"This tendency to cruelty should be watched in them," wrote Locke, "and, if they incline to any such cruelty, they should be taught the contrary usage. For the custom of tormenting and killing of beasts will, by degrees, harden their hearts even towards men. And, they who delight in the suffering and destruction of inferior creatures, will not be apt to be very compassionate or benign to those of their own kind. Children should from the beginning be brought up in an abhorrence of killing or tormenting any living creature."

Cardinal John Heenan similarly observed: "Animals... have very positive rights because they are God's creatures...Only the perverted are guilty of deliberate cruelty to animals, or indeed, to children."

kitty_tc:

It's obvious that there's no winning with you, so I'm not going to try. You can read anything you want into what I read. I can see my "pious" message fit that's how I want to read it; you can read anything you want into anything out there.

What if someone says that they're waiting until marriage. That might be antiquated to some of us, but am I going to mock them for being a prude and self-righteous? On a good day, hopefully not. Some monk tells you that he/she believe all life is sacred and won't eat another living being. Do you mock them and call them holier-than-thou, or accept maybe they have dedicated themselves to this?

I tell you I believe it's unnecessarily cruel and impractical to kill/eat animals when a plant-based diet is more than sufficient. Suddenly I'm some pious fuck who must think I'm better than you.

Did you read anything I wrote in an objective matter, or from anyone for that matter? I am sincere when I say it's more positive that you don't eat red meat. But it's also a quantitative FACT that dairy and meat industries are intertwined.

If you can't take what we say, process it and possibly learn from it, that's your own problem. You have got some growing up to do; otherwise you'd have the maturity to discuss what we say instead of spit it back out at us. My respect for you is ever-dwindling... not because you eat meat, but because you can't discuss any of this with a shred of maturity. How much wrath is coming for me interpreting that you've got some serious inadequacy issues? And I don't mean penis-size, though you can go all Freudian on me if you want.

I forgot, you're a ragin' cajun. That explains everything. Get over yourself.

The argument that vegetarians care more about animals than people is bogus. It's just a matter of degree; if killing animals is OK with you, you are a lot closer to being OK with killing humans than is a vegetarian. You've already cleared a barrier that vegetarians won't cross. And it's hard not to notice that those who support meat eating are mostly "God gave us dominion over the world" Christians who support guns and wars and hate gays and peace activists. "Give me a break" says patnval. Take a look at your world view, patnval, and give me a break. "We, as animals, are built that way." Obviously you are misinformed and didn't even bother to read the posts that annihilate that position. Typical Republican - mind made up and permanently set. Progressives who advocate a meat diet are not progressives - your proper title is regressive, and you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

I am a lifelong, unapologetic omnivore. I just finished reading "The Omnivores Dilema". It did nothing to make me want to stop eating meat. It DID make me take a long hard look at meat production. It DID make me aware of the dire need to become a localvore. Since finishing the book I have embarked on a localvore diet.
Yep, finding local, grass fed, free range meat is difficult. And expensive. But worth it. In terms of quality and taste the difference is huge. And far less damaging than shopping at whole foods for "organic" produce shipped from chile. The meat is far more expensive than the crap you buy at the supermarket and because of that, meat has become more scarce in my diet.
I feel that becoming a localvore is far more effective than becoming a vegan. I wonder if vegans are honest with themselves as to the cost of their diet when you factor in transportation costs. Also, take a look at some of the "Organic" factory farms out there producing these veggies. They are as bad as the ones producing industrial meat.
It is the reliance on a single crop...corn...that is producing so many of the problems with our health, environment and economy..not the eating of meat.
Finally, I wish PETA were as concerned about human slaughter as they are with animal slaughter. I love the PETA folks wearing their non- leather shoes made in sweat shops overseas while they whine about the poor cows. Give me a break.
P.S. Humans have been eating meat for their entire history. We, as animals, are built that way. To insist that we stop eating meat is as cruel as insisting that cows and chickens eat corn. But I guess becoming vegan is one way to deny your animal nature. Just because we can choose to eat vegan doesn't mean we should. Just because we can fatten animals on corn and animal by products doesn't mean we should.

vasumurti:

Honestly, hearing judeochristian justifications for refusing to kill animals is absolutely hilarious when you factor in that they haven't gotten the don't kill humans thing down yet.

Peace Czar:

Can you really not see it? You don't see the guilt tripping and moralistic preaching and holier-than-thou condescending message? "It's good that you eat less meat, but I'm a vegan rarr! I was a lowly vegetarian for years, until I found this path and man are you an animal hating slimeball for not following it! Only MY WAY is pure and just, you should feel GUILTY if you aren't as pious as I am, hah hah! How does it feel to be a puppy-kicking kitten-drowning sinner, you heathen scum? Oh oh oh, this is where I get to brag about what I ate today, so I can measure my vegan-cred penis against your blood-drenched slaughtering one, guess who'll win, oh ho ho! You had butter with your veggies? And what's that? You eat CHEEEEEEESE? HAH! Deduct 12 inches! I WIN!!!!!!!!!!11!1one!eleventy-one!"

Really, it gets old.

Kem Patrick wrote:

"But I do seem to recall that Jesus went fishing with his guys on more than one occasion, so I don't believe he was real set against eating fish."

The gospel accounts of Jesus and fish are alluded to by Reverend Linzey, who finds two justifications for a Christian case for vegetarianism:

"The first is that killing is a morally significant matter. While justifiable in principle, it can only be practically justified where there is real need for human nourishment. Christian vegetarians do not have to claim that it is always and absolutely wrong to kill in order to eat. It could well be that there were, and are, some situations in which meat-eating was and is essential in order to survive.

"Geographical considerations alone make it difficult to envisiage life in Palestine at the time of Christ without some primitive fishing industry. But the crucial point is that where we are free to do otherwise the killing of Spirit-filled individuals requires moral justification. It may be justifiable, but only when human nourishment clearly requires it, and even then it remains an inevitable consequence of sin.

"The second point," Linzey explains, "is that misappropriation occurs when humans do not recognize that the life of an animal belongs to God, not to them. Here it seems to me that Christian vegetarianism is well-founded. For while it may have been possible in the past to rear animals with personal care and consideration for their well-being and to dispatch them with the humble and scrupulous recognition that their life should only be taken in times of necessity, such conditions are abnormal today."

Can you imagine 18th century Christians telling secular abolitionists, "We don't need to free our slaves. That's 'good works.' We don't have to 'work' for our salvation. Abolition is 'so much garbage', it's SO funny, all we have to do is accept Jesus...We called on Jesus three times...we don't have to free our slaves..." ?

None of the arguments Christians make with regards to animals and the status quo would make any sense if this were 300 years ago, and we were discussing the abolition of human slavery instead of animal slavery.

A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world's population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world's income and own less than one-hundredth of the world's property.

The impact of the women's movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God."

The words of Scripture... perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul... on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission.

"I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

PETA takes the position that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for "entertainment." I agree with this position. I don't know if any kind of livestock agriculture is environmentally sustainable, but it does go against the philosophy of animal rights to use animals in any way, shape, or form. So I'm afraid I can't answer your question as to whether the steps you're taking would make you a half-decent environmentalist.

I do think it's admirable, however, that you're not killing any of your herd, but taking their flesh only after they've died of natural causes. This is compassionate stewardship.

In a 1991 article entitled "Hunting: What Scripture Says," Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church observes:

"There are four hunters mentioned in the Bible: three in Genesis and one in Revelation. The first hunter is named Nimrod in Genesis 10:8-9. He is the son of Cush and founder of the Babylonian Empire, the empire that opposes God throughout Scripture and is destroyed in the Book of Revelation. In Micah 5:6, God's enemies are said to dwell in the land of Nimrod. Many highly reputable evangelical scholars such as Barnhouse, Pink and Scofield regard Nimrod as a prototype of the anti-Christ.

"The second hunter is Ishmael, Abraham's 'son of the flesh' by the handmaiden, Hagar. His birth is covered in Genesis 16 and his occupation in 21:20. Ishmael's unfavorable standing in Scripture is amplified by Paul in Galatians 4:22-31.

"The third hunter, Esau, is also mentioned in the New Testament. His occupation is contrasted with his brother (Jacob) in Genesis 25:27. In Hebrews 12:16 he is equated with a 'profane person' (KJV). He is a model of a person without faith in God. Again, Paul elucidates upon this model unfavorably in Romans 9:8-13, ending with the paraphrase of Malachi 1:2-3: 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.'

"The fourth hunter is found in Revelation 6:2, the rider of the white horse with the hunting bow. Scholars have also identified him as the so-called anti-Christ. Taken as a group, then, hunters fare poorly in the Bible. Two model God's adversary and two model the person who lives his life without God.

"In Scripture," notes Dunkerly, "the contrast of the hunter is the shepherd, the man who gently tends his animals and knows them fully. The shepherds of the Bible are Abel, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David. Beginning in the 23rd Psalm, Jesus is identified as 'the Good Shepherd.'

"As for hunting itself, both the Psalms and Proverbs frequently identify it with the hunter of souls, Satan. His devices are often called 'traps' and 'snares,' his victims 'prey.' Thus, in examining a biblical stance on the issue of hunting, we see the context is always negative, always dark in contrast to light...premeditated killing, death, harm, destruction. All of these are ramifications of the Fall. When Christ returns, all of these things will be ended...

"Of all people," Dunkerly concludes, "Christians should not be the destroyers. We should be the healers and reconcilers. We must show NOW how it will be THEN in the Peaceable Kingdom of Isaiah 11:6 where 'the wolf shall lie down with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them.' We can begin now within our homes and churches by teaching our children respect and love for all of God's creation..."

Golly VASUNURTI I was joking when I wrote that question, never dreampt we'd be offered such a great sermon on the subject. I don't blame Jesus for not blessing the dead fish. Who would want to eat a cold fish that had been lying in a basket all day anyway? They likely still had their heads and dead staring eyes too. But I do seem to recall that Jesus went fishing with his guys on more than one occsion, so I don't believe he was real set against eating fish.

Anyway, this evening I made meatless spaghetti and had peanut buttered Italian bread with it. It was very tasty and I didn't miss the sausage or hamburger and won't worry about dying from E-coli either. I must confess, I did salt it well with fresh cracked pepper and Parmason cheese. Also had a couple of 12 oz glasses of inexpensive Zinfandel wine mixed with cherry 7-up. It's as good as any expensive champaign. Our Irish terrier Kelly ate the Italian sausage.

We have a little spread here out west and I'm thinking of raising a few Dzos and sell off the Angus herd. We'll use their hair to weave blankets and understand their milk makes a very exotic cheese. I'll allow them to graze on the wild grasses, won't slaughter any of them and won't eat them until they get old and fall over dead. Does that help to make me at least a half assed enviromentalist?

RMouse:

Now THAT's some smarm! If not, I'd be very jaded indeed.

Kem Patrick asks: "Do veggies disbelieve the word of God?"

I view it with some skepticism. I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has often been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15). What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is not unlike that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Some of the worst crimes in history have also been committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name."

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).

Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue. Liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy. Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.

I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country (the United States) without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

Animal rights is a secular trend, but one which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion. To argue, as some Christians do, that animal rights and vegetarianism are solely "Jewish" concerns, is kind of like saying, "It's only wrong to own a slave if you're a Quaker." No. Suffering and injustice concern us all. Animal rights and vegetarianism are moral absolutes. They apply to everyone: including atheists and agnostics.

When I gave a talk on religion and animals at a potluck for the San Francisco Vegetarian Society back in February 2001, I told the audience that I deliberately chose to focus on the Western religious traditions, because for too long the stereotype of "religious vegetarians" is that they are all followers of Eastern religions, believing you might be reincarnated as a cow in your next life if you're not careful. (This drew a chuckle from the audience.) I wanted to show that the Western religions also support the vegetarian way of life.

The vegetarian interpretation of the Cain and Abel story can be found in Hebrews 11:4, which states that by faith Abel brought forth a superior sacrifice than that of Cain. The real message of the Cain and Abel story is not that God is pleased by burnt offerings, but that the faith of the worshipper is more important than the object of sacrifice. God accepted burnt offerings long before the concession to kill animals and eat their flesh was given (Genesis 9:3), because one of the offerings was given in faith, whereas the other was not.

This was the position I took in discussion with a couple of Christians on the subject in 1992, and they were pleased that I wasn't trying to rewrite Scripture.

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain: "Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."

According to the Torah (Genesis 6:9), Noah is honored as a "tzaddik," or a righteous man. Commentators say this is because he provided charity ("tzedakah") for so many animals on the ark. The high level of awareness and concern given to the care and feeding of the animals aboard the ark reflects the traditional Jewish value of "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim." This moral principle--officially set down as law in the Bible and elaborated upon in the Talmud, the medieval commentaries and the Responsa literature--permeates the many legends that grew up around the leading figures in the Torah and in Jewish history.

Kindness to animals was so valued by the Jewish tradition, it was also considered an important measure of a person's piety, compassion and righteousness. From this value emerged the stories about how shepherds such as Moses and David were elevated to national leadership because of their compassion for their lambs. There are also many "maysehs", or moralistic folktales within Judaism about sages who rescued or fed stray cows and hungry chickens, watered thirsty horses and freed caged birds.

In the Talmud (Eruvin 100b), Rabbi Yochanon teaches, "Even if we had not been given the Torah, we still would have learned modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster. Thus, the animals should be honored."

According to the Talmud (Shabbat 77b), the entire creation is to be respected: "Thou thinkest that flies, fleas, mosquitos are superfluous, but they have their purpose in creation as a means of a final outcome...Of all that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He did not create a single thing without purpose."

The Talmud (Avodah Zorah 18b) also forbids association with hunters. The Talmud (Gittin 62a) further teaches that one should not own a domestic or wild animal or even a bird if he cannot properly care for it. Although there is no general rule forbidding animal cruelty, so many commandments call for humane treatment, the talmudic rabbis explicitly declared compassion for animals to be biblical law (Shabbat 128b).

Regarding Christianity: there are all kinds of fictitious "gospels" floating around, like the Aquarian Gospel, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Essene Gospel of Peace, etc. Some of these "gospels" depict Jesus as a vegetarian, others say he taught reincarnation (I believe reincarnation IS compatible with Christianity--on an abstract, theological level), or that Jesus traveled to India, etc.

Mainline churches aren't about to take these "gospels" seriously--and with good reason. The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, for example, was received by mediums in seances in 19th century England! Swedish New Testament scholar Per Beskow wrote a book entitled Strange Tales About Jesus, which effectively debunks these "gospels." He's now retired and living in Spain.

I sent Per Beskow a copy of my own book, They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, and he agreed with me that I have NOT written a "strange tale." However, he didn't think I provided enough compelling historical data or evidence to demand that Christians be vegan. He admitted, though, that his field of expertise is historical, not theological.

When I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, I made it a point to stick to orthodoxy: Scripture, theology, church history, secular history, the teachings of the early church fathers, the lives of the saints and religious reformers, current trends in animal liberation theology, etc.

For example:

"Both Mark and Matthew describe the Baptist as eating 'locusts and wild honey' (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6)," writes Joseph A. Grassi in his 1975 work, Underground Christians in the Earliest Church. "This is the typical diet of a vegetarian who took seriously the injunction in Genesis that God had originally created the plants of the earth as man's food, and had only reluctantly permitted him later to kill animals for meat. (Genesis 1:29, 9:3) Jesus' first disciples came from John the Baptist (John 1:35-51; Acts 1:21-22). Jesus was influenced enough by John to be baptized by him."

According to contemporary Christian teacher Abbot George Burke, "...there is a very interesting distinction made between the bread and the fish in the Gospels of Saints Matthew (14:19), Mark (6:41) and John (6:11). When writing of the feeding of the five thousand, all three Evangelists are careful to note that Jesus first took the bread, blessed it, divided it and gave it for distribution. But the fish He simply gave for distribution! He gave no blessing to the eating of fish because it was not given by God to man for food. Moreover, since it was already dead He did not kill anything--He just made more of it."

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to biblical commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals (Luke 13:10-16, 14:1-5). Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep, and recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock. (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God at the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Filipo Neri, St. Columba, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:

"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:

"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging---to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food ("factory farming"), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:

"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?" he asked. "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention."

Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:

"The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way."

Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians. Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.

"Every year," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so...The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches...

"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world--however the churches may actually behave."

Yes, Kitty, we are soooooooo smug and self-righteous. I'm hurting our case with that, I suppose. Anyway...

What do you mean it's not about personal choices? With veganism, many of us have taken our food consumption ethics/habits/whatever to a logical end point. I could eat even more local veggies and install a passive solar greenhouse, but that's beyond my means. And if you know something has less impact and more benefits (as you will attest with your choice to reduce consumption of meat), why wouldn't you advocate it to people you know? "Hey, consider fair trade chocolate, it doesn't trade like child slavery. Hey, buy don't buy imported out-of-season produce, etc etc."

Just because many of us have already embraced veganism doesn't mean we're being smarmy about it. Considering how progressive this site is, it's nice to exchange viewpoints and validate them with like-minded folk. Better than the regular world where people think you're queer or alien for not eating meat. In summary, and speaking for myself, just because I know and have read a great deal about the benefits of a plant-based diet does not make me smarmy. Change and information does not happen passively. Just look at our national awareness on any vital issue.

You said it yourself, you're a contrarian. So I am. But I recognized the benefits of meat-free living and rolled with it. No one is FORCING you to cut meat. That's a personal choice, so go enjoy whatever internal debate you're having and please don't project on us. Again, I'm glad you agree to the benefits of reduced meat consumption.

You've cut meat, particularly red meat? That's good to hear. But you should know that dairy is intertwined with red meat. You can't have milk without more dairy cows and beef/veal calves being born. That's a key reason why I went vegan in April after 5+ years as a vegetarian. In essence, any animal product is connected with the slaughter industry, so my perspective is more all or nothing now. Vegetarianism is preferable, but still perpetuates the meat industry.

I am a progressive, fighting for social justice. There's nothing I wont do to advance this cause...except give up my meat diet. Taste is far far more important than any progressive values.

Me and the lady of the house, whom allows me to sleep in her bed, both have silver gray hair. The license plate on our F-150 reads, ~~ "2 Q-TIPS" ~~

Golly, you guys and gals are getting a little rough here. What we need is a tail gate party. Try a deep fried San Francisco dog on a butter toasted bun, with natural peanut butter, Miracle Whip mayo and relish. It is delicious and fits the culinary requirements of both veggies and meat eaters.

Hey LAURA, you make me feel sort of bad, I always thought of myself as an enviromentalist, I wrote a term paper on water pollution in seventh grade, got an A and it was published in our high school newspaper. I also believe Jacques Costeau was perhaps the most important person on Earth in this century. If we'd listened to him, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now with our dying oceans and atmosphere. He'd eat steak and eggs for breakfast and gave us a delightful recipe for stir fried sting ray.

However I hear where you are coming from, I'd never thought about how much land, water and oil was required to produce a ribeye steak or a Wot-A-Booger. I did read Bridgewaters story, titled "The Day They Killed The Pigs". That is a sad tale and I've never liked pork or pickeled pig's feet since. I also hate to see how poultry are raised and treated, it ain't right. I don't know what happened to the Emu craze, seems as if they would be a good replacement for beef and their hide like skin makes great boots, and of course some here mentioned 'bison'. Bison are a much more natural food product than beef and their fur is as nice as a beavers, even in the 1930s, many vehicles had a couple of bison or buffalo robes in the back seats for winter warmth; they were as good as any wool blanket and smell better when damp. Some major problems with bison are, they are a bit bull headed and difficult to herd, if they decide they're gonna take off, they'll take off and will go all day, wherever they please. Just think about roping and hog-tying a bison, or giving one a cupfull of silage and then sitting down on a stool to milk it. Oh my, what fun. No milk, no cheese. More people are killed by bison in Yellowstone National Park, than all other animals combined. However, a bison steak is unbeatable, ___ lots better than poprpoise or whale.

Sorry about the whale remark, I had it in Japan a couple of times and didn't know it was whale meat, thought it was Kobe beef.

vasumurti:

Of COURSE they don't kill animals for food on Next Generation Star Trek, they replicate everything! They still eat "meat", they just assemble it from raw materials on a molecular level. Do you even understand your own argument? They don't eat "vegetables" either, again, all their food is manufactured on the spot from raw materials by a specially modified device based on transporter technology called a replicator.

And while we aren't near the point of replicator technology, there is upcoming technology that may eliminate the killing of animals from the processing of meat. Basically, the concept is growing meat tissue in what amounts to industrial sized petri dishes, with a nutrient solution the only feed required. The technology is there to actually make the meat, and it is both edible and nutritious, but currently the problem is in making it taste right. Naturally grown meat has a lot of factors that influence it's finished flavor, and getting the artificially grown meat to mimic those factors is currently the biggest obstacle to viability. At present, the product doesn't taste bad, just very very bland, but they're working on that problem now. Once they get the process down pat, only the necessary investment to overcome the economics of scale will prevent it from overtaking current factory farm processes. Ironically, the reasons why the industry wants this are many of the same valid reasons listed in the article and the anti-meat crusader posts. Feed isn't free, nor is storing and raising animals for long periods of time, nor is processing whole animals to get the usable portions or disposing of the waste products. Moving to "animal-free meat" would vastly increase output and reduce costs to an overwhelming degree, and be a huge economic boon to the industry. The environmental and ethical concerns are secondary at best to industry, but those benefits will be felt in spades. I for one am very much behind this technology and look forward to it's implementation. A more progressive government would be forcing stricter environmental and waste management restrictions on the meat industry, making the cost of factory farming higher still, and subsidize both the R&D and implementation of the new technology to expedite the changeover.

Peace Czar:

I wouldn't grow any cattle, except for a dairy cow, because I don't eat red meat. I'd have chickens, lots of rice, and fish because I loooooves me some sushi. Today for lunch I had a burrito made with refried beans, brown rice, cheese, and salsa, and it was yummy. Since when was this about our personal choices? My beef with your whole side's argument is that it's not about personal choices or about advising what's better, it's about forcing dogma down people's throats and feeling smug and self-righteous about it. You'll note my arguments were against "militant vegetarians" (and in particular vegans) and the agenda of preachy evangelistic and forceful methods to bend people to your way of life. My advice is if you don't want to be compared to fundamentalists, stop bloody well acting like them.

blessthebeasts:

A perfect example of what I was just talking about. The Bill of Rights you speak of reserves all power not specifically granted the government to the people themselves. Beyond that, I need no document to have my personal rights, nor do I need permission to protect them. And you're right, the only way you will take away my personal choices will be to pry them from my cold, dead hands and you'd better be goddamned ready to fight for it. I don't like guns, but I've got two sharp swords right on the wall next to me ready and waiting for whoever wants to break into my house and force their will onto me by violence. That's not a threat, it's just a fact. I don't come into your home and force my beliefs or my ideals onto you, and I will not accept anyone doing it to me, either. You understand that? I respect your rights, I expect you to respect mine in return. In fact, I demand it. On the other hand, I'll defend your rights from anyone trying to take them from you, either, if you ask my help. It's what I believe is right.

I'm also stubborn, it's a cajun thing. Maybe if you talked to me and convinced me you have some good ideas, I just might listen. In fact, I already have on this subject as I just mentioned to Peace Czar, above. I by my own choice have cut red meat entirely and sharply reduced my meat consumption in my daily life, because I have agreed it's a smart thing to do. But try to force me? Forget it. I'll take that sword off my wall and cut a chunk off a live cow and eat it raw in front of you just to spite you, and puke it back onto you afterwards. Because I don't like pushy, uppity people in my face trying to dictate my business. I don't like it when the christian fundies or the social conservatives or whoever the hell else tries it either, and you're not going to recieve any better or nicer of a response.

In other words, try to dial back the smarm just a little bit, you'll see better results. More flies with honey than vinegar, and all.

Laura:

I like tofu quite a bit, actually. But you're wrong in thinking everything is all or nothing.

Kem:

All beings love life, all beings tremble at punishment.
Therefore, do not slaughter, do not kill.
---The Buddha

Jesus, apparently, was no Buddha. However, in his defense, some scholars say he fed the multitudes with two loaves of fishbread and that the King James mis-translation of the word for fishbread was deliberate to promote the disrespect of animal life.

You can't be a meat-eating environmentalist, the two just don't go together. Meat not only poisons our bodies, it poisons the planet. I drive a Toyota Prius, I am vegan, and my license plate reads "TRY TOFU". I wholeheartedly support PETA and Bruce Friedrich.

kitty's arguments remind me of the NRA slogan: "you won't take my gun (meat) from me unless you pry it from my cold, dead hands." I'm paraphrasing but I don't recall that eating meat is included in the Bill of Rights.

kitty_tc:

You sound like a fanboy looking for a fight. Veganism, vegetarianism, or even reduction in meat consumption isn't some religion that anyone's trying to foist onto you. From the standpoint of most readers and what the article itself say, it is primarily a utilitarian, resource-driven choice.

Although, there are invariably ethical aspects as well. Ethics and morals can exist inside or outside of religion, your pick. I choose to live as peacefully as I am able, hence veganism. Although growing up Lutheran means I have inextricably absorbed some of those values as well.

If using religion to express more harmonious, sustainable forms of living to different groups of people, then great. Evangelicals are actually tuning in to global warming because they believe God wants "good stewards of the Earth". What's the harm in that? What's the harm in mercy and compassion to fellow living creatures if it comes from a religious context?

Let's pretend you were isolated to a half acre to live out your life. How many head of cattle are you going to balance on there with your vegetable plot? Don't be so greedy, petty, and hyperdefensive. Look at the bigger context and stop detracting from intelligent discourse.

To everyone else, for lunch today I shredded up a few small potatoes, a red onion, some cabbage, a carrot and a red pepper. Saute that with some oil and black pepper. All those fruits of the Earth straight to me, or I'd have to feed ten fold that to an animal to get a diminishing return on food supply. And no unnecessary killing.

KEM: I can't keep up with your stream of consciousness, but let it flow.

My teeth are plastic, got em from Evelyn the day she fell out of the attic window and died. Her final words were, "Yes Kem, you can have my damn teeth, ___ you cheap asshole". They fit too and wouldn't you know it, she'd been eating a homemade chocolate chip cookie. Yum-yum. I can assure you, they work fine for soft cookies, but are lousy for eating a deep fried hot dog, or a Philly cheeze steak sandwich,___ but I can gum em Okay, so we really don't need teeth. Guess what I'm saying is, the tooty argument is sort of a moot issue. Polar bears for example are omnivorious and they have some great big teeth, no comparrison to ours, ___ except perhaps for vampires.

Jesus served fish and bread chips to the multitudes, _____ he drank home made wine too. Then in the Bible, God said all of the clean creatures were for food, even told us what types of meat we should and should not eat. No unclean animals, no unclean fish, no manta rays, horsies or hogs, a long list of no-nos. Able was a herdsman and his bad brother Cain was a curs-ed spud farmer. Do veggies disbelieve the word of God? Maybe my muskrat and snake idea isn't so hot? But don't think God mentioned grasshoppers.

kitty_tc,

I, too, am a Star Trek fan, and remember the scene where Kirk orders a chicken sandwich in "The Trouble with Tribbles." Gene Roddenberry made the character of Spock (and all Vulcans) vegetarian. I wasn't misquoting Star Trek. In The Next Generation, Riker specifically tells some visiting aliens that humans no longer kill animals for food.

At any rate, I said Gene Roddenberry DEPICTED (not "predicted") a vegetarian future.

As for "biased" medical data , YOU'RE the one who stated (incorrectly, too, I might add): "If humans weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't have canine teeth."

Human teeth are completely herbivorous. I'll repeat some of my previous statements in this regard:

John Robbins, in his Pulitzer Prize nominated, Diet for a New America (1987), writes that the populations consuming the largest amounts of animal products--the Eskimos, Laplanders, Greenlanders and Russian Kurgi tribes--also have life expectancies averaging about 30 years.

Nor can such a short lifespan be attributed to harsh climate. The Russian Caucasians and Yucatan Indians, for example, live mostly on vegetarian foods and have life expectancies of 90 to 100 years.

The populations with the longest lifespans include the Vilacambans of Ecuador, the Abhikasians of the former USSR, and the Hunzas of Pakistan. The most remarkable feature of all these people is that they live almost entirely on plant foods. The Hunzas, for example, eat a diet that is 98.5 percent plant food.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongue, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans imbibe liquids through a suction process. Human urine and saliva are alkaline, and human saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

Humans are classified as primates and are thus frugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called "canine teeth" are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called "canine teeth" can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content.

Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphate of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."

One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:

"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford him every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the others, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking."

Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read:

"...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions."

More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

Finally, even if humans really are omnivores and not frugivores as some claim (and this claim is subject to dispute: I would refer these people to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, www.pcrm.org, which advocates a vegan diet, an end to vivisection, etc., for the latest on whether humans are frugivorous or omnivorous), my friend Mareechi Duvvuuri (another Hindu-American!) who once studied sports medicine, pointed out that the diet of natural omnivores is mostly (up to 85 percent) plant food.

KEM:

I'm fairly certain you're joking, but snake is actually some damned good eating. I'll pass on the bugs and rats though.

I'm certain Kellog would love to see us all ban meat products, have you all noticed the price of a box of chemical filled cereal lately.

Is it alright to eat roasted grasshoppers, how about muskrats or snakes? The're all plentiful, or could easily be raised in a backyard pen and it wouldn't use up any petrolium or fresh water to collect and prepare them for a veggie stir-fry feast.

Stop raising cattle, poultry and hogs and have a nice stir-fry meal of onions, soy beans, bell peppers, jimica, celery, sliced carrots and garlic, mixed with some large locusts, snake or rat meat, served on a bed of curried rice and peas. The confirmed vegetarians could pick out the meat and use that to feed to their pet poodles. That should insure all were satisfied and our global warming problem would be solved.

:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)

just trying to lighten the mood a bit,

Dave

To Peace Czar and vasumurti: thanks for your informative posts. To quote the infamous George Tenet, veganism is a slam dunk!

vasumurti:

Misquoting Star Trek at a geek is a surefire way to get yourself in trouble fast. Captain Kirk himself, in the famous "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode, ordered a "chicken sandwich" that never arrived because it was instead consumed by tribbles in the transit tubes prior to arrival. This was prior to replication technology that was available in the Next Generation time period, at the time mini-turbolifts were used to transport short order meals from a functioning mess. This is also prior to the refitted Enterprise of the movie era which replaced the turbolift system with transporter technology, but still relied on a mess kitchen. By contrast, the Next Generation ships used replicators, which used no plant or animal products of any kind but instead assembled raw organic materials from massive storage vats into any kind of foodstuffs programmed into it's system, building it on a molecular level. A reading of any of the Star Trek Technical Manuals will provide a sample menu available in any of the three eras, both human and alien selections, and meat-based dishes are available in each time period. So don't give me this "Gene Roddenberry predicted a vegetarian future in Star Trek" bullshit, because that is patently false. You sir, are hereby pwned and made of lose, in geek vernacular.

I'm not even going to bother with all the biased milveg scripture you've quoted, except to laugh uproariously at your citation of Kellogg as a source. The man was a quack and a pervert whose great contribution to society amounted to giving us Tony the Tiger on Saturday mornings. Watch the excellent and funny Matthew Broderick film "The Road to Wellville" for a dead-on satirical portrait of what kind of nutjob Kellogg was, and the delicious irony of how he died. So much for his perfect live forever diet, huh?

Somewhere out there I believe there's an episode of "Penn and Teller's Bullshit!" with your name all over it, and I suggest you watch it. In the meantime, hawk your religion to someone else. Like everyone else who knocks at my door with the good news of how to live forever in perfect bliss if I just give up my individuality and sign my soul away and adopt their dogma, you will be told to kindly fuck off.

Kernel wrote: It is ridiculous to believe the habit of eating meat can be changed to any great degree.

If we don't, nature will.

You state it's a religious issue, and a matter of choice. I guess this means you refute the environmental factual arguments made in the article -- none of which were particularly religious? If so, then you and kitty_tc are arguing with the air, perhaps simply to see yourself in print.

I can't add much to vasumurti's excellent rebuttal, so I'll keep it short: we are in overshoot, living off non-renewable resources. It is not "religion," it is survival of the species that indicates that, if not veganism, we should all vastly reduce the amount of meat consumed. This is not really debatable in scientific circles, although the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world are working hard to obfuscate the problem so their corporate masters will continue to heap riches on them.

To continue to eat meat "for the economy" is a pretty fatuous argument. Where will the meat industry be as petroleum continues to decline, as it has since 2005? There is growing consensus that the availability of petroleum, now essentially flat, will soon begin falling at 3% to 5% annually -- this means we'll be getting by on half as much in as little as 14 years! This is not because some government decree, it's because that's all we'll be able to produce.

(And if you don't know why this is important, consider that it takes about 100 calories of petroleum to produce EACH calorie of meat.)

celebrity wrote: VOTE DENNIS KUCINICH–VEGETARIAN!!! (and humanitarian)

If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

(Sorry, couldn't resist... :-)

The sadist part of all is that all that factory farmed meat, so loving devoured by the masses, tastes like crap! ANd they don't notice just contine to demand their meat!
I don't eat much meat any more becasue it s doesn't taste like it used to, and I can tell the difference! I DON"T notice a difference in farmed salmon vs wild salmon.
I have a specific problem........ due to eroneous medical experimentation, I had my tonsils zapped with radiation in 1941. 41 years later I had to have my thyroid removed as a result. 11 years later, the synthetic medication didn't work as well........after 6 non productive years of zombying along, I DID some research and requested the Dr. to switch me to armour thyroid tablets..YES PIG THYROID! made into pills. That worked, I regained the cutting edge of my brain function. The geniuses at the pharmaeceutical firms decided that TS 2, wasn't important, so they excluded it from the synthetic pills!
Eating soy: blocks the body's use of thyroid substitutes............WHat now?????
Also I think it's time to give up these ridiculous; traditional food fights, & gross overeating contests! We shouldn't be teaching our kids it's OK to waste tomatos, eggs, pumpkins what ever to throw at each other!
I grew green beans in a window box in my house last winter! Tomato plants ARE perenniels. This year I plan to focus on more production!

kitty_tc infers animal activists are like Luddites; against technology and progress. This may be true of some of the back to nature types within the vegetarian movement, but nearly all animal activists are secular progressives and see animal rights as social progress: in the same context as women's rights and civil rights.

Animal activists look to science and technology to create nonviolent alternatives like pleather (artificial leather), synthetic fabrics, etc. so that humans needn't wear the skins or furs of animals.

And science and technology now provide us with alternatives to animal research and testing. These include: cell cultures; organ cultures; radioimmunoassay; quantum pharmacology; clinical and epidemiological surveys; gas chromotography and mass spectrometry; mathematical computer or mechanical models; the use of human placenta; and the study of human volunteers.

If anything, the biomedical industry is being "Luddite": remaining an obstacle to social progress, by not recognizing the rights of animals and abolishing all animal research and testing.

In 1988, the Los Angeles Times reported on medical data gathered by Nazi scientists experimenting on concentration camp prisoners. Such data might now save human lives, but it was obtained through unethical means.

At a rally in San Francisco, CA protesting animal experimentation, former Alameda County Supervisor John George pointed out that black Americans were the first laboratory animals in America.

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

kitty_tc mentions "electric vehicles." Gene Roddenberry depicted a vegetarian future in Star Trek: The Next Generation. We live in an era of exploding population and environmental devastation; a vegetarian future is as real a possibility as alternative fuels or electric vehicles.

kitty_tc writes: "If humans weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't have canine teeth."

This statement assumes humans are a naturally carnivorous or omnivorous species--an assumption that must first be questioned.

My scientific training is in Physics and Applied Mathematics (the square root of 69 is 8 something!). I admit I only hold Bachelor's degrees from UC San Diego.

Here is what my research on the subject tells me:

John Robbins, in his Pulitzer Prize nominated, Diet for a New America (1987), writes that the populations consuming the highest levels of animal products--the Eskimos, Laplanders, Greenlanders and Russian Kurgi tribes--also have life expectancies averaging about 30 years.

Nor can such a short lifespan be attributed to harsh climate. The Russian Caucasians and Yucatan Indians, for example, live mostly on vegetarian foods and have life expectancies of 90 to 100 years.

The populations with the longest lifespans include the Vilacambans of Ecuador, the Abhikasians of the former USSR, and the Hunzas of Pakistan. The most remarkable feature of all these people is that they live almost entirely on plant foods. The Hunzas, for example, eat a diet that is 98.5 percent plant food.

Terrestrial vertebrates are classified as either carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, or frugivores.

Human beings differ completely from the naturally carnivorous species such as wolves or tigers. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract--thrice the length of their bodies--to rapidly consume and excrete decaying flesh. Their urine is highly acidic and they possess hydrochloric stomach acid strong enough to dissolve muscle tissues and bones.

Because they are night hunters who sleep during the day, carnivores don't sweat. They perspire through their tongue. Their jaws can only move up and down and their teeth are long and pointed, in order to cut through tendons and bones.

The carnivores are quadrupeds with keen eyesight and sense of smell. They possess not only the necessary speed to overtake their prey but also have sharp retractable claws which enable them to pull their victims to the ground and hold them fast.

The anatomy of natural omnivores, such as the bear or raccoon, is almost identical to that of the carnivores, except they possess a set of molars to chew the plant foods that they eat.

Herbivorous creatures such as sheep and cattle have a digestive tract 30 times the length of their bodies; they have several stomachs, which allows them to break down cellulose--something humans are unable to do. This is why we can't graze or live on grass. The urine and saliva of the herbivores are alkaline, and their saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occasionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongue, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans imbibe liquids through a suction process. Human urine and saliva are alkaline, and human saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

Humans are classified as primates and are thus fugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called "canine teeth" are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called "canine teeth" can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content.

Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphate of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."

Dr. F. A. Pouchet, wrote: "It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal and above all else his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:

"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford him every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the others, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking."

The poet Shelley, in his essay, "A Vindication of a Natural Diet", wrote:

"Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing...It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite loathing and disgust...

"Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, unless man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons. The orang-outang is the most anthropomorphic (man-like) of the ape tribe, all of whom are strictly frugivorous.

"There is no other species of animals which live on different foods in which this analogy exists...The structure of the human frame then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet in every essential particular."

Professor William Lawrence wrote:

"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine; but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals.

"Thus we find, whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell wrote:

"It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen wrote:

"The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernel of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the garden."

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "Comparative anatomy and structure of modern man indicate fresh fruit and vegetables as the main food of man."

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:

"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of destruction and is less qualified for hunting than is a horse or a buffalo.

"When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped him for hunting."

According to Dr. Kellogg,

"The statement that man is omnivorous is made without an atom of scientific support...As a matter of fact, man is not naturally omnivorous, but belongs, as long ago pointed out by Cuvier, to the frugivorous class of animals along with the chimpanzee and other anthropoids.

"The hog is a truly omnivorous animal. Although he thrives best upon a diet of grass or clover, tender shoots, seeds, and succulent roots, he will eat animal flesh, raw or cooked, with avidity when hungry, and he does not hesitate to regale himself upon carrion, after his taste has been cultivated in this direction.

"Man is not omnivorous. He cannot subsist upon grass or raw grain. Taking his food from the hand of Nature, without the aid of cookery, he must confine his dietary to fruits, nuts, soft grains, tender shoots, and succulent roots...

"It is true he can acquire an appetite for meat, especially when cooked, but practically all animals can do the same. Hunters sometimes teach their horses to eat broiled venison and cows have been taught to eat fish with avidity. Du Chaillu found in the Island of Magero...that sheep and goats were fed daily on fish both raw and cooked."

Dr. Kellogg insists, however, that "cookery is no part of Nature's biologic scheme, and hence the fact that man is able to eat and digest cooked meat is no more evidence that he is carnivorous or omnivorous that the fact that he can eat and digest cooked corn is evidence that he is to be classified with graminivourous animals, like the horse, which are eaters of raw grains.

"The bill of fare which wise Nature provides for man in forest and meadow, orchard and garden, a rich and varied menu, comprises more than 600 edible fruits, 100 cereals, 200 nuts, and 300 vegetables--roots, stems, buds, leaves and flowers.... Fruits and nuts, many vegetables--young shoots, succulent roots, and fresh green leaves....are furnished by Nature ready for man's use."

Dr. Kellogg further notes that "the human liver is incapable of converting uric acid into urea," and this is "an unanswerable argument against the use of flesh foods as part of the dietary of man. Uric acid is a highly active tissue poison...The livers of dogs, lions, and other carnivorous animals detoxicate uric acid by converting it into urea, a substance which is much less toxic, and which is much more easily eliminated by the kidneys.

"Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were not the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There is nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in meats or flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable products."

Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read:

"...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions."

More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

Finally, even if humans really are omnivores as some claim (and this claim is subject to dispute: I would refer these people to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, www.pcrm.org, which advocates a vegan diet, an end to vivisection, etc., for the latest on whether humans are frugivorous or omnivorous), my friend Mareechi Duvvuuri (another Hindu-American!) who once studied sports medicine, pointed out that the diet of natural omnivores is mostly (up to 85 percent) plant food.

One other thing on the issue of interconnectedness in our society:

Where do you think a large part of all the sickness and disease comes from? When you breed and raise animals to their absolute limits for profit and yield (and sometimes beyond their limits, thus "downer" animals... but they have a purpose too--they become pet food), what type of health benefits do you expect? When you pump animals full of antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, and petroleum (figuratively and literally), "provide" torturous living conditions, that's sustinence? That's health?

Gandhi, a devout vegetarian, briefly experimented with eating meat, so that he could gain the "power" of his British oppressors. But it did not last. Ironically, that is inverted now. If you want "power" and health, one of the smartest you can do is abstain from (nearly all) meat production.

Gandhi also said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

To that end, we have failed like no society ever before.

Well, since it's Common Dreams, at least the dissent is of a civil and intelligent level. With some very good points, too. Though there are always some numbnuts in the mix, too. My contributions:

Paul from Texas:
"Fossil fuels are the culprit, not eating meat."

Laughable. I outrightly mock your reductionary logic. I've read that 30% of US oil is used for livestock production. That goes from petrochemicals in the feed (which then must be transported) to transporting the processed animals themselves. The meat industry IS fossil fuel. And methane, let's not forget, which is 7x or so more volatile in the atmosphere than CO2. It lasts a shorter while, but the short-term effects on global warming (in this make-it-or-break-it 10 year period ahead) would be very marked. Oil <-> feed <-> animals <-> overgrazed/polluted land <-> scarcity of resources <-> war. And repeat. INTERCONNECTED.

greenman:
"There are misleading elements in the article as well, the most glaring is that what we don't eat of animals gets wasted, nothing gets wasted. What can't be used for other things besides human food ultimately gets ground up for fertilizer."

Fertilizer, like feeding animals back to each other? Like the cause for Mad Cow disease? Like mixing blood and guts with other "high-nutrient feeds"? Seen how the robots fed humans back to each other in The Matrix? Think that's fiction? How about that when male chicks are born, they're either tossed into a dumpster or ground up with a woodchipper, because it's not cost effective to raise roosters for meat? Or how male calves are immediately caged up for veal, or on one occasion I read, shot in the head upon birth? That's not because of sadistic glee from the farmers. It's because they CANNOT afford to raise the animals and they treat them like an aborted fetus, so long as the mother keeps producing milk. Or how 50% of water pollution is attributed to animal livestock, but their industries have bought exemption from our clean water laws? And the fertilizer that's coming out of these processed carcasses. I wouldn't walk through a meadow of daisies that was fertilized with them. Antibiotics, GMO's, pesticides, and systematic cruelty reeks of anyone from these systems.

So you want to talk about sustainable, humane practices?

tpaduano:
"Meat is not harmful to the environment. People who buy conventional food are. Go visit a small, organic, sustainable farm. Come visit mine. You'll see the difference."

I do not doubt the positive, beneficial practices of your farm, but how many people are you providing for? How many people could be fed if EVERYONE consumed humane, free-pastured meat?

That's the ultimate irony is calling any form of meat consumption "sustainable". As swd noted, it CANNOT provide for the masses, and hence becomes "Elite Meat". If I lived in the rural mountains of Vermont, as I aspire to, perhaps I'd have some chickens and face the ethical conundrum of slaughtering one on occasion for sustinence. I don't, and neither do the vast majority of Americans. People delude themselves into thinking meat is some type of primal sustinence, when as practiced in our modern society it's ironically the worst form of gluttony imaginable. Conventional animal agriculture truly does cannibalize the planet's resources.

Let's pretend society catches up with us and wants to practice our standards of sustainable ethics. "Oh, everyone wants a free-range burger now?" Sorry, we can't sustain "sustainable meat". Also, whoever says they "didn't feel healthy" as vegetarian/vegan, probably didn't practice a well-informed, well-balanced diet, or they felt psychologically inadequate (and hence weak) for not eating meat.

Recognize the logic and don't be such reactionary contrarians. Veganism is an ideal, but also a model representation. Everyone eating local sustainable grains and veggies would still feed more than those eating local, sustainable meat.

Invert the food pyramid, feed everyone and love your fellow animals! Dennis Kucinich, a vegan and visionary, knows that everyone is interconnected. Just like some of the most compassionate visionaries before him (Gandhi, MLK Jr., Cesar Chavez), it's more than just a food choice. It's how you interact and regard the world around you. If you can live less and harmoniously without killing, what's stopping you?

Anyone who has not read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel should do so. One of his main theses is that Eurasian cultures prospered (while others languished)because Eurasians had access to and domesticated animals that did NOT compete for human food sources.

This suggests to me that the environmental impacts of meat eating could be mitigated fairly easily, if policymakers were inclined to do so. But that would not resolve the moral/ethical question of killing animals for consumption; a debate that will no doubt last longer than the abortion debate.

For the sake of clarity, I think it's important to keep the two issues separate.

Very interesting discussion.

I have been a Vegan for 30 years. I am 66 years old and have no physiological ailments and can hike, bike or kayak longer distances than most people half my age.

Our anatomy is designed to live predominantly from the Plant Kingdom where there is no Cholesterol and only delicious succulent food.

Plant food is not a substitute for animal products, flesh food is the substitute. All vitamins, minerals and proteins must first come from the plant world.

Eating dead animals sautéed, deep-fried, barbecued or whatever does not hide the fact that you are still eating artery clogging saturated fat from a dead animal.
You can deep-fry cardboard and make it taste good. But it will eventually come back to damage your body in so many ways.

It is very easy to live on an ethical diet that is agreeable with your body, and quite effortless to become addicted to tasty delicious mouth-watering food from the Plant Kingdom.

This transformation from a meat oriented American diet to a veggie lifestyle is not only good for the environment, our planet and our bodies but it is also good for the health of the animals we kill as well.

Unfortunately from all the negative comments posted here it appears that people are fearful that PETA or some other do good organization is going to take the meat right off their plate and this frightens people and makes them snarl. Its like trying to take a bone away from a pit bull. Not going to happen in my lifetime that's for sure.

The person who wrote:
Fossil fuels are the culprit, not eating meat.

appears to have not read the article. :-)

The people who call vegetarianism a religion... Well I'm a Christian, and to me, that means trying to be as kind as possible and to walk as gently on the earth as possible. So my faith does cause me to be a vegan...

There's a lot of defensiveness from the meat-eaters. Alas.

Another good source that explains how cruelly the corporate factory farm produces meat, view the animated www.themeatrix.com . This should resonate especially well with Generation Y.

It's unfortunate how corporatism and the mass-media have, to this day, still hoodwinked the American public into believing that cattle is raised in family-farm settings, munching on the grasses designed for their rumen digestive systems, living a happy and pristine existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality it's a tragedy beyond description.

Already mentioned in this thread is The Omnivores Dilemma. I recommend that all read it. It explains, quite poignantly, where our "food" comes from. You'll be amazed how corn-based, in all aspects of our lives, we've become.

Kernel:

You nailed it. Militant vegetarianism (and in particular veganism and raw-foods purism and the like) are a form of secular religion, with all the self-righteous moralism and preaching that goes along with it. The same stench of holier-than-thou piety and condemnation, and the same faith-based twisting of facts and willful ignorance of countering evidence.

This seems to go hand in hand with a similarly religious Ludidtism that, beyond simply wishing to seek sustainable practices or avoid environmental abuses and destruction, instead seems intent on dragging humankind kicking and screaming back to the pre-industrial age.

Both are faith-based, agenda-driven crusades to force the rest of the world to convert to their ideology. And though they know their quest to force their morals down everyone else's throats is doomed to fail, they are content to sit snug in the knowledge that they're superior to the heathen masses.

If humans weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't have canine teeth.

And if these militant Luddites and vegans wanted to solve real problems, they'd work on changing our capialist system and corrupt regulatory system that allows companies to quash or ignore progress in the name of almighty profit. Sustainable energy? Electric vehicles? And end to harmful chemicals, or the use of fossil fuels? Efficient buildings, smart urban planning, an end to sprawl? All achivable, but for the lack of political will and power to challenge the almighty dollar.

But nah, let's tilt at windmills instead.

Eating dead animals??? Oh would you all rather eat live animals?What a bunch of baloney(pun intended). You people that want to eat only vegetables certainly have that right but stop and think, do you like it when someone tries to force their religion on you, instead of just leaving it in their homes and churches? They end up hurting their own cause. It is ridiculous to believe the habit of eating meat can be changed to any great degree. The livestock industry is an enormous part of our economy and it would take many generations to make an appreciable change, even if desired. How about we all get along without electricity so there would be no need for coal-fired power plants? Also lets all ride bicycles and junk those monstrous SUVs that no one needs. How about we start drinking tap water again which is just as good as the exotic stuff and save a few billion plastic bottles from being produced and thrown around to pollute the countryside? Apparently not eating meat must not be conducive to great thinking.

RMouse wrote:

"Those here who defend meat-eating are just like the Democratic Party. PATHETIC!"

The majority of politicians and political activists working with the animal rights movement are, in fact, liberal Democrats.

In her 1993 book, Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, Kathleen Marquardt, founder of Putting People First (an anti-animal rights group) tries to discredit the animal rights movement by depicting animal rights activists as "terrorists," repeating the old myth that Hitler was a "vegetarian," etc.:

"The real agenda of this movement," claims Marquardt, "is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die."

Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just 'cruel' animal research." Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.

According to Marquardt, "The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city."

Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism.

"Every year," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so."

It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

According to Marquardt, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt mentions Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.

Marquardt admits, however, that "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt states further that "Although he's not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy's radio show, he and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum," concludes Marquardt, "the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

It is interesting to see how many of the fierce promoters of veganism as one of the remedies for ills of globalization buy, without even blinking the story promoted by the big food business and big pharma how animal fats are bad for us and all that cholesterol BS. Did you ever ask where did this wisdom come from? How did it start? Who has benefited from it? Did you ever have any questions about possible links between our health problems and lack of proper fats and fat soluble vitamins in our diets?

I bet you now think that I really went crazy but just check it out. How this revelation that animal fats and cholesterol are killing us started? Why this idea has been so strongly promoted and by whom? It is convenient for vegans to believe in it as it fits their position but what if that is not true?

Please, notice that I am not attacking vegans or vegeterians as I understand your intentions. I didn't eat meat either for many years. But in what we want to believe is one thing and what may be facts is another story.

For those who have any doubts whether animal fats and meat are or are not healthy, check out the Weston Price Foundation. http://www.westonaprice.org/index.html
At the bottom of ideas presented there are studies of a number of indingenous cultures conducted by Dr. Price. These studies are precious since they were done at the beginning of this century when such cultures were still present. Now, there is practically no chance to do such studies. You may be surprised but this may be one of the most important books of your life.
http://www.radiantlifecatalog.com/prod.cfm/ct/9/pid/1002

Another great recent book that covers most of the health aspects of eating foods from other than official orthodoxy is Real Food by Nina Planck. Check it out at Amazon. Or, the book The Heart Revolution by Kilmer McCully about the cholesterol story. Again, if you don't trust the rulers of this world on some aspects of our lives, doesn't it make sense to distrust them on others?

I must repeat that pointing that meats can be healthy to us doesn't mean advocating sensless overconsumption of industrial meats. This comment is not about repeating previous arguments but just addressing the issue of connection between consumption of animal foods and our health.

It should not be a surprise to any opponnents of globalization and corporatism that truth may be opposite to anything presented by them as facts. Give it a chance, keep the minds open.

I agree that meat-eating is an addiction. That's why so many otherwise intelligent people continue to passionately defend their right to kill living, breathing, feeling creatures (or have someone else do it for them) simply for pleasure, since it's certainly not necessary for survival anymore. Like any other addiction, you can kick it!
P.S. Maybe eating bison is better for the environment, but not for the bison.

Good arguments for vegetarianism. But the state of the world doesn't have a one shot cure. There is also organic meat for those of us who won't give it up, dire overpopulation-related resource depletion and pollution problems that must be addressed by humane methods instead of by violent ones, economic, sexual and racial inequalities, species extinctions from habitat loss by human encroachment, energy problems to resolve, global warming and more if we are to escape our present psychotic state of affairs. The Greens are the only ones concentrating on these issues.

Advocate:

KEM knows you don't have to kill a beaver to eat one.

Fossil fuels are the culprit, not eating meat.

Wow, I'm a vegan and have been for a long time. I think Friedrich's essay is fantastic--the best thing I've ever seen on the environmental argument for veganism, in fact.

And I really don't like the strange attacks from the meat-eaters on this list (though I love that Friedrich predicted them in his piece--that's cute).

But I really wish the vegans and vegetarians would not respond in kind. Eating meat is a sort of addiction; it's something people have done for their entire lives. It doesn't help to belittle meat-eaters and/or call them pathetic.

It does help to reply to the arguments, as gently as possible, and to answer questions honestly. I really like the person who said that if you MUST eat meat, eat Bison. She doesn't want them to eat meat, but if someone is absolutely going to eat meat, bison is the one to consume.

That makes sense to me, too--bison, and grass-fed beef are probably the two meats that are least bad for animals and the environment.

Yes. That is all very good and true: that meat-production for food is "one of the … most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.". Plus that "the environmental argument against growing crops to be fed to animals — so that humans can eat the animals — has grown substantially."

But what about humans growing humans "so that humans ... eat the animals" and consume much else?

The ongoing and rising human population-explosion - doubling no. of humans from 3.3 bn to 6.6 bn in the last 40 years only - is also behind the problems with meat-eating.

All environ-mental (hyphen intended) problems are interconnected and must be addressed together.

A main problem with our human reactions to the effects of our selves - be it pollution, climate-crashing, exploitative self-destruction (war & poverty) etc. - is how we concern our selves with only one or the other problem at the time. Rather than striving for sustainable proportions between all conduct and consumption.

Such an approach in a pattern of sustainable proportions quickly reveals that we're simply growing to many of us.

A deliberate downscaling of this production of humans - e.g. one child per couple globally - is the only way to avoid our surrounding Biosphere's natural laws of proportion downscaling us, and a lot more brutally.

We've grown to noticably be interactive co-creators of the Biosphere we grow forth from (and into). We can't get away from the so far cumbersome challenges of including our selves in the equations we see mirrored back at us in the Environment.

What we can do, is to live with that awareness of our interactivities with the Biospere and feel into the immense joy that awareness provides. That is to know and feel the joy of being alive directly, with every breath we take. Rather than that we fall victim to the outdated belief that pleasure comes from the outside. That is what so easily happens when our own production of meaning and pleasure is reflected on to our outsides, our surroundings, and we then can see and sense pleasure there.

Believing meat-eating provides more pleasure, efficient energy or whatever, is only one of those pleasures reflected back at us from our outside.

Pleasure is a skill that is learned. Experience of pleasure can be adjusted to any sustainably available conditions – and that is what we humans now most need to learn. After all, the greatest pleasure we humans can have – orgasm – takes nothing more than our selves to produce.

All other pleasures - of food, clothes & shelter etc. – follow (in strength) from that "peak experience", and are surprisingly adjustable.

The changes we need to make to sustainable forms of pleasure are easy to take, once we realize how needless our dependence on conventional forms of living and pleasure really are.

Enjoy.

Ole Ullern

Those here who defend meat eating are just like the Democratic Party. PATHETIC!

obmaj wrote:

"As has been pointed out, the vast majority of the population will never become vegan, but there is a very good possibility that they can be convinced to cut back substantially on their meat and dairy consumption. This could make a huge impact on health, environment and animal deaths."

This is actually the basis of the "Enough" campaign, which aims at getting people to reduce (if not eliminate entirely) their consumption of animal products. This campaign actually has the support of organized religion.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The realization that meat is an unnecessary luxury, resulting in inequities in the world food supply has prompted religious leaders in different Christian denominations to call on their members to abstain from meat on certain days of the week. Paul Moore, Jr., the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of New York, made such an appeal in a November, 1974 pastoral letter calling for the observance of "meatless Wednesdays."

A similar appeal had previously been issued by Cardinal Cooke, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York. The Reverend Eugene Carson Blake, former head of the World Council of Churches and founder of Bread for the World, has encouraged everyone in his anti-hunger organization to abstain from eating meat on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

"Is this not the fast I have chosen? To loosen the chains of wickedness, to undo the bonds of oppression, and to let the oppressed go free? Is it not to share thy bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless? Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own."

---Isaiah 58:6-8

"Honourable men may disagree honourably about some details of human treatment of the non-human," wrote Stephen Clark in his 1977 book, The Moral Status of Animals, "but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early church."

According to Clark, eating animal flesh is "gluttony," and "Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists."

"Clark's conclusion has real force and its power has yet to be sufficiently appreciated by fellow Christians," says the Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals.

"Far from seeing the possibility of widespread vegetarianism as a threat to Old Testament norms, Christians should rather welcome the fact that the Spirit is enabling us to make decisions so that we may more properly conform to the original Genesis picture of living in peace with creation."

Father Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, author, and founder of the Riverdale Center of Religious Research in New York, wrote in 1987 that "Vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being, and spiritual integrity."

In a speech before the World Council of Churches in September 1988, Dr. Tom Regan concluded:

"...the whole fabric of Christian agape is woven from the threads of sacrificial acts. To abstain...from eating animals, therefore, although it is not the end-all, can be the begin-all of our conscientious effort to journey back to (or toward) Eden, can be one way (among others) to re-establish or create that relationship to the earth which, if Genesis 1 is to be trusted, was part of God's original hopes for and plans in creation.

It is the integrity of this creation we seek to understand and aspire to honor. In the choice of our food, I believe, we see...a small but not unimportant part of both the challenge and the promise of Christianity and animal rights."

In biology, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of proteins forming from the random interaction of amino acids--the building blocks of Life. They found the odds were one out of ten to the 40,000th power. Given these extreme odds, it's hard to imagine the self-organization of matter without the deliberate intervention of some kind of higher power or intelligence.

All life is thus precious and sacred. Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Francis Crick has admitted, "the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Organized religion is just beginning to understand that the "sanctity of life" includes other species.

In a 1989 article entitled, "Re-examining the Christian Scriptures," Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church concludes, "...the Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord', who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way." Dunkerly teaches Bible studies at his home Church and is actively involved in animal rescue projects.

In 1992, members of Los Angeles' First Unitarian Church agreed to serve vegetarian meals at the church's weekly Sunday lunch. Their decision was made as a protest against animal cruelty and the environmental damage caused by the livestock industry.

The Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) made this observation on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

An excellent post VASUMTURI, 6:41pm.

Since 1900, more than 1,000 specie of sea birds have been eradicated by man. In 5,000bc, the Sahara desert was totally forrested. Man burned off the trees to make land for grazing livestock. Presently man is in the process of making alomost all of the planet a Sahara desert and killing the oceans in the process. That is not an exaggeration.

There are no simple solutions to the problem, all of the world's governments MUST stop sensless fighting and work together, if we hope to save our planet. The beef, pork and poultry industries are only a fractional part of the big picture, an imoprtant part, but it is not reasonable to expect all humans are going to stop eating beef, pork or chicken. On the contrary, the vegatarians are in the vast minority.

In addition to education of this important subject to our next generations, all governments must work together to put an end to burning coal to make electricity, oil to run our vehicles and stop spending our wealth for waging wars and purchasing weapons. If we had spent the money we've already wasted on just the current conflict in Iraq to develope clean energy, by the year 2014 we could have shut down every coal fired and nuclear plant in the world. In addition, we wouldn't be hated by over 90% of mankind. Think I'll stop here,___ I could write a book. And for heavens sake, protect the beavers.

The permaculturalists are right, world wide people living sustainbaly require the use of animmals and animal products. I grow a significant proportion of my own food on less than a 16th of an acre in a city. If the local council would allow me to keep chickens I could convert a large proportion of my waste to food in the form of eggs and meat, as well as reducing my need to buy fertalisers such as manure and blood and bone.

The problems we face are due to over consumtion and the massive population that refuses to support itself but relies on distant production and transportation to survive. If all these people became vegans we would require an even larger transport fleet to bring the food to maket as much larger volumes of vegtables must be consumed to keep a person alive. Grow your own food, if this means you need to grow some animals to effectively utalise your resources do it. There are many environments that cannot support crop production on a large scale but effectivly support livestock: savanas for a start. People living in these environments have always needed meat to suppliment their diet. A world of vegan consumers is a world without large annimals.

KEM PATRICK said:
"I do hope this is not a new trend of eating beavers"

Uh, dude, the bumper sticker "Save a Tree - Eat a Beaver" isn't about eating rodents. Get someone a bit more worldly to explain it to you.

Actually, eating beavers is not a new trend but one that goes back more than a couple thousand years, and a recent study has revealed it has become very popular among teenagers.

4. greenman said:
"I just have to have some meat sometimes or become unhealthy."

Bullfeathers. Allow me to suggest you select a hospital noted for the kind of food "you just have to have" for your future cardiac surgeries. Google vegetarians and you'll find many athletes and bright successful people who are long-time vegetarians and vegans. "Just have to have" is a phrase of addiction, not need.

greenman said:
"There are misleading elements in the article as well, the most glaring is that what we don't eat of animals gets wasted, nothing gets wasted."

Really? That has been said of First Nation peoples prior to being conquered by Euros, but can't be said by any of the meat-eaters I know. Try looking in household and restaurant garbage, or the left-overs at any big picnic, you'll find plenty of waste. Is using animals for glue, dog & cat food not wasting food animals? These true carnivores can get along just fine without the meat, just as we omnivores can.

Another attack on the writer whose article contains factual references from authorities. People who do that are going to bring the level of Common Dreams down to the level of those many political rant sites and bury the few who have something useful to offer.

Bobus said:
"vegan activism put all these people who want to build these food "lifeboats" in a bad light and turns away the urban population from them."

Activism against anything people are accustomed to, have been lead to believe is good ("meat is essential to health), told that there is no harm (animals graze on lands unsuited to tillage), or told is their "right" ("no commie-pinko, bunny-loving, tree-hugger is going to tell ME what to eat"), or simply can't give up anything they reeeeeeeeeeally like ("beef, it's what's for dinner and I ain't eating no damn rabbit food) even food which will make them obese, diabetic, or clog their hearts and kill them, will turn away from anyone who tries to change their minds - will not only turn away, but will turn against any such activists.

Bobus said:
"Articles like this one and people who write them do really harm."

Yeah, sure just like articles about the US invading other countries for profit or ideology do harm, just like articles about the evils of predatory capitalism, or deficit spending, or that many people suffer in systems where medical care is profit-driven, cause harm.

Bobus said:
"The real issue is...." "may divert attention from real issues"

Hello, there are many "real issues": population, city planning, public transportation, fossil fuel use, economic systems, democratic governments immune from being ruled by wealth and class, governments who send their militaries to other lands driven to kill for profit and many, many more "real issues." Bobus you've put down the article in this issue as something less than a real issue without presenting any better solution, or any solution. Bruce Friedrich presented reasons to make change and how to effect change for the better. All you've done is tear someone down, "well intended or not." And that is a real issue, also.

Bobus said:
"The problem is not with eating or not eating meat."

Bobus, the only reason I can think of that you defending manure-producers is because you are one. Certainly your attack here is a prime example.

Bruce hit it on the head when he said that people were looking for loopholes. Many are following the advice of authors like Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) who eloquently denounce corporate agriculture and urge people to eat more local food produced on smaller, "sustainable" farms. Locally grown foods are, indeed, a very important issue. But often absent from this conversation is the simple fact that eating locally produced animal products is not a solution for the masses. Small farms use much more land per animal than do factory farms and feedlots. Given current consumption levels, a switch to this type of farming would mean that only a small percentage of Americans could continue to eat meat unless everyone drastically curtailed their intake. We simply don't have the required fertile acreage to accommodate this type of animal agriculture. "Elite meat" will always be for the wealthy. What is everyone else supposed to eat? Must only the poor become vegetarians, or should we as a society recognize the need for a paradigm shift towards efficient plant-based diets?

Why I am a vegan:

Slaughterhouses are perhaps the most violent places on the planet. Animals are routinely sent kicking and screaming through the skinning and dismemberment process, every one bleeding and dying exactly like they would if they were human beings.

Farms today treat animals like so many boxes in a warehouse, chopping off beaks and tails and genitals with no painkillers at all, inflicting third degree burns (branding), ripping out teeth, and hunks of flesh.

Animals transported to slaughter routinely die from the heat or the cold, or freeze to the sides of the transport trucks or to the bottom in their own excrement. Dairy cows and egg laying hens endure the same living nightmare as their brethren who are raised for their flesh, except that their time on the "farm" is longer. They are still shipped to the slaughterhouse and killed, at a fraction of their natural life span.

There is simply no excuse for anyone who considers herself or himself to be an ethical human being, let alone an "animal lover," to be supporting these kinds of practices, all of which are routine and universal throughout the industries which turn animals into eggs and meat and dairy products.

If I can't watch it happening, I want no part of it. I enjoy watching fields tilled and love picking apples and tomatoes and carrots and other vegetarian products. If slaughterhouses had glass walls, as Paul McCartney is so fond of saying, we would all be vegetarians.

Every time I sit down to eat, I make a decision about who I am in the world: Do I want to add to the level of violence, misery, and bloodshed in the world? Or, do I want to make a compassionate and merciful choice?

There is so much violence in the world, from war torn regions of Africa and Europe, to our own inner cities. Most of this violence is difficult to understand, let alone influence.

Veganism is one area where each and every one of us can make a difference, every time we sit down to eat. I find it empowering that I can make an option for peace and compassion every time I eat, simply by not encouraging violence and misery against animals.

Visit www.Meat.org to see how meat is made.