Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Quitting Meat: A Process Of Change
Mark Twain said that quitting smoking is among the easiest things one can do; he did it all the time. I would add vegetarianism to the list of easy things. In high school I became a vegetarian more times than I can now remember, most often as an effort to claim some identity in a world of people whose identities seemed to come effortlessly. I wanted a slogan to distinguish my mom's Volvo's bumper, a bake sale cause to fill the self-conscious half hour of school break, an occasion to get closer to the breasts of activist women. (And of course I did also think it was wrong to harm animals and destroy the environment.) Which isn't to say that I refrained from eating meat. Only that I refrained in public. Privately, the pendulum swung. Many dinners of those years began with my father asking, "Any dietary restrictions I need to know about tonight?"
I first became a vegetarian when I was nine, in response to an argument made by a radical babysitter. My great change---which lasted a couple of weeks---was based on the very simple instinct that it's wrong to kill animals for food. I imagine most children have some version of this instinct at some point, and while it says nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness of meat, the overcoming of it can, itself, leave a mark. Parental explanations almost always come in the form of half-truths, glossings over, or worse---"Animals live long, happy lives in the sun, and when they one day die, they share their meat with us." Kids are even better at recognizing such bullshit than adults, even if, because they need a stable world, they don't pursue it. Whether or not something is learned about food, something is learned.
My most recent shift to vegetarianism was inspired by the birth of my first child. Facing the prospect of making food choices on his behalf---and of having to come up with explanations that he would also digest---I took the questions posed by meat seriously. Instinct no longer felt like enough. And neither did information. I wanted to have a full engagement with the subject. I wanted to see it for myself, not because there isn't ample access to relevant photographs and videos, but because I was not the photographer. (Observation is easy, implication is honest.) This full engagement -- which resulted in my book, Eating Animals -- required me to visit factory farms in the middle of the night, dissect the emotional ingredients of meals from my childhood, and probe those instincts of right and wrong that two decades earlier made me change. The answers to some questions became very clear very quickly. Some remain cloudy.
Will this vegetarianism be the last one? It's impossible to say, of course, but with my filled-out picture of not only contemporary animal agriculture, but my own understanding of fatherhood, it feels impossible to imagine a time when I would bring such food---which is virtually always unhealthy, destructive and cruel---into our home. Our home could not be our home in the same way, given what I now know.
But perhaps there's more to it. Perhaps it took all of that previous inconsistency, all of that pendulum swinging, to bring me to this place. Perhaps "failing" was not failing but approaching, one awkward step at a time, what I always wanted.
The question, I've come to think, is not what inspires one to change, but what inspires one to remain changed. It's easy and common to learn something---through an argument or fact, image or experience---and feel compelled to make different choices. But for how long? Change is inspiring, but only rarely durable. Part of this difficulty is found exactly where you'd expect to find it: most change isn't easy. Making different choices at restaurants and supermarkets is, for most people, harder than it might seem. What's the big deal? Order something else. The big deal is we've been eating these products since we were kids, and we digested them with stories. We got over our colds with chicken soup. We celebrated the Fourth of July with grilled burgers and hot dogs. We ate our grandmother's brisket. These things matter. As do our cravings. As does convenience.
But I wonder if more of the difficulty doesn't come from the ways that we talk and think about change. When it comes to meat, change is almost always cast as an absolute. You are a vegetarian or you are not. It's a strange formulation, and it's distracting. (Those who profit from animal suffering and environmental destruction want us to think in dichotomies, rather than practical realities.) Imagine someone asking you, "Are you an environmentalist or not?" For most of us, caring about the environment isn't an on-off switch, but a set of daily choices that we try to respond to as best we can. I buy energy-efficient products, and turn off lights when leaving a room, and recycle and so on. But I also fly on airplanes. Does my occasional flying completely undermine my identity as someone who cares and tries? Should I, faced with my inability to live consistently, make no efforts to live better?
Obviously not. We don't live our lives on the inside flaps of philosophy textbooks. We live in the world. And in the world, everyone is a hypocrite. In the world, change is not a switch but a process. Being serious about changing requires a certain amount of forgiveness. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't draw lines in the sand, or that we should be quick to accept all of our own apologies. But if animal welfare matters to us, if the air and water matter, if swine flu and E. Coli matter, if global warming matters, if biodiversity matters, if rural communities matter, if our ability to tell honest stories to ourselves and our children matters... then we shouldn't be distracted, intimidated or misled by someone else's idea of purity. We should begin at the beginning, and begin now.
91 Comments so far
Show AllMr Foer, I couldn't agree more. I always wanted to be a vegetarian from the age of six but in my parents home and at boarding school it wasn't permitted. When I finished school at 18 I became a vegetarian but still ate seafood and dairy. Then several years later I had dietary restrictions from a kidney ailment and in those days there were'nt the analogues available that there are now. My doctors persuaded me that I had to go back to eating meat and I fell for their nonsense.
This went on for some years, but it couldn't last. I hated eating meat and went back to vegetarianism. But it still took some years before I dropped seafood. While detesting meat I loved things like bouillabaise, moules mariniere and paella. Until one day at the side of a lake I saw a dying fish abandoned with a hook through the side of it's face. It didn't take long to connect that with what was on my plate. Battery hens and cows connected to machines were the last thing needed to take me off eggs and dairy.
What you are doing for your child is wonderful. He will never have to struggle as so many of us have; he will know from the beginning what a compassionate lifestyle (not to mention a healthy one) is all about. His classmates may ask questions, they may even tease him, but he'll have your example to carry him through.
As the world becomes more densely populated, meat consumption will be reduced by economic factors.
It is the Industrial Food cartel that is to blame, not eating meat in istelf. Eating organic, range fed meat, grass fed beef is not harmful to the environment. In fact sustainable poly-culture agriculture is good for the environment.
Homo Sapiens evolved for millennia eating meat, domestic grains did not become widely planted until a few thousand years ago. In evolutionary terms, we are not built to be vegetarians.
Becoming a vegetarian aint gonna save the world. The population of the earth is growing exponentially and is not sustainable.
And another thing, is the author and his blind ethnocentric values suggesting that native cultures become vegetarian? Native Americans become vegetarians? They had survived for millennia on a sustainable agriculture and hunting. Who is this cat to tell them their culture is wrong?
The author is misguided and barking up the wrong tree.
I was thinking along the same. I have seen so many "go vegetarian" articles similar to this one and rarely do they talk about the fact that up until 50 years ago, agriculture was laborious but quality food production was the norm. I may have become a vegetarian these past few years and rarely eat meat but I still respect the meat eaters for one very good reason. We are all the victims of Big Agri and just saying "go vegetarian" will not change that fact. The meat that people used to eat 50 years ago did not come from corn-fed animals but from pasture raised animals roaming free and eating freely without being force-fed and then given too many anti-biotics to suppress the side effects of force-feeding them processed GMO corn feed. That good kind of meat would make people less hungry for more and actually prove to be healthy meat. This is the dirty secret that doesn't get told. What's more, most vegan foods rely heavily on fossil fuels to process them.
As for population numbers, I don't that it is as much a factor as is the quality of our food being given to us.
Thanks JB,
I hear you, the unbelievable amounts of petroleum based fertilizers used to boost crop yields, largely because top soils have been destroyed, is hugely damaging to say the least. Cows did not evolve to eat corn and humans did not evolve to be vegetarians, we are designed to be omnivorous.
Reminds me of watching PBS:
"This PBS program was made possible by:
Archer Daniels Midland
Exxon-Mobil
Monsanto
and by gullible viewers like you
Thank you"
The population growth rate is accelerating and that in itself if un-sustainable. It is not directly related, however industrial Ag and GM food advocates are justifying their disastrous activities by claiming to feed the world's growing population.
Monsanto and ADM are not only subsidized by Washington but they are actually defended by the UN of all things ! I know I'll probably sound like a conservative for saying this but either the UN butt out and stop "defending" those Big Agri giants or the US should withdraw from the UN. Washington should also let them fail for both animal cruelty and profiteering.
I see your point clearly; you do not sound conservative. The UN was set up to be dominated by the 5 permanent members of the UNSC: the USA, France, UK, Soviet-Union (Russia) and China. The UN is used as a tool when convenient for powerful interests and abused when not convenient.
There is the good kind of meat.
There are animals that are raised in more humane conditions, that aren't injected full of antibiotics and growth hormones, that don't play in their own shit.
Are you eating that meat from those animals? Do most meat eaters that meat?
Why not?
"There are animals that are raised in more humane conditions, that aren't injected full of antibiotics and growth hormones, that don't play in their own shit."
That was the kind of meat I was referring to.
I wished most meat eaters had access to that kind of meat. It would put a sock in the mouths of those bashing the meat eaters. I'm mainly vegetarian and on the rare occasion that I do eat meat anymore, it's the pasture raised type but I do respect meat eaters and hope that more of them get the good kind. It is possible but only when Big Agri is reined in and the disappearing small farms come back and decentralize once again.
That is the kind of meat I eat at home. I buy bacon from pastured pigs at the farmer's market, along with free-range eggs, and I think soon I'll be getting hot Italian sausage to go with my pasta.
Eating out at restaurants is another matter though. I am willing to bed there is no restaurant that offers pastured meat that's considered affordable. Time to start trying vegetarian courses at restaurants :-)
"Most vegan foods rely heavily on fossil fuels to process them." Not true! Most "vegan foods" are natural, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes. There are also vegan "convenience foods" that are marketed to people wanting to transition to veganism, but who are accustomed to the traditional American diet. It's up to the individual to decide which choices to make, but I'm confident that the average vegan diet is much healthier and more environmentally friendly than the average carnivore's.
By the way, the article was more focused on the humanitarian side of vegetarianism than the issues of Big Agriculture.
blessthebeasts, my apologies on accidentally being too broad on vegans. I was referring to the processed products labeled vegan. I didn't include the whole foods. I too have shifted to being vegetarian over the last few years but I still have a heart for the meat eaters out there and just wished they would eat the right kind of meat, pasture raised, so that their bodies won't ask for more.
With the Thanksgiving holiday approaching, I'm trying to decide whether I should try to find a free-range turkey to cook for myself, since I won't be able to make it down to see my family until Christmas. I'm also interested in trying a Tofurkey meal, even though it is by definition pretty heavily processed. But that might be what I decide on, since I do not have the skills to prepare, stuff, and roast a turkey.
Hey, zmann--I've had Tofurkey at friends' homes. It's pretty good if you really want that old-time Thanksgiving meal. I usually make stuffed squash, acorn or butternut, with lots of nuts and seeds and veggies in the stuffing. Then we have mashed potatoes, mushroom gravy and cranberries on the side and it's a healthy, delicious, eco-friendly feast!
I agree, although I wish they wouldn't eat meat at all!
The author isn't only arguing that meat eating is harmful to the environment. He is arguing that eating meat is cruel to the animals themselves.
"And another thing, is the author and his blind ethnocentric values suggesting that native cultures become vegetarian? Native Americans become vegetarians? They had survived for millennia on a sustainable agriculture and hunting. Who is this cat to tell them their culture is wrong?"
Who is anyone to tell anyone else's culture that that person's culture is wrong, then? In that case, no one should tell someone from a "different" "culture" anything, otherwise doing so would be "ethnocentric".
Not quite that simple, read my posts below and address the issues. I know it is an emotional issue, but please.
None of your posts address the cruelty issue that the author raises.
Let me spell it out more explicitly for you then, if you have studied Anthropology, you would realize that Homo Sapiens Sapiens have evolved for a few million years as omnivores, not vegetarians. Animals were killed in the process, wheter we like it or not. Animals need not suffer pain if killed properly. (By the way pain is a part of life for humans as well)
Your implicit assumption is that killing animals causes un-necessary pain and suffering on the part of the animals, however that is not true.
As I said before, please read it again, it is Industrial Food Inc. (documentary by the same name, have you seen it?) that is the primary culprit and not eating meat or killing animals itself. It is the factory farm system that inflicts suffering and pain on animals. Folks should avoid industrial meat of all types, for these and other important reasons.
Humans, especially in the West, have created an un-natural urban environment for ourselves and are almost completely detached from the natural world. For example, do you live in a rural area? Do you depend on the seasons for your livelihood? Are you dependant on the land for your food? Or do you go to Whole Foods and buy organic tofu?, just as an example. My point is that most people have no clue when we talk of raising food
If you would like to change your lifestyle that is fine with me. Please realize the issue is not as simple as one might think.
"Animals were killed in the process, wheter we like it or not. Animals need not suffer pain if killed properly. (By the way pain is a part of life for humans as well)"
Yes, pain is part of life. So, since pain is part of life any attempt to minimise pain should be discarded? Any attempt to think about ethics and morality is pointless? Is that your argument?
"FREE MARKET UBER ALLES", "There is no such thing as society", "Winner takes all, the losers can go rot", "Survival of the fittest". Poor people without health care? Pain is part of life. Too bad.
"As I said before, please read it again, it is Industrial Food Inc. (documentary by the same name, have you seen it?) that is the primary culprit and not eating meat or killing animals itself. It is the factory farm system that inflicts suffering and pain on animals. Folks should avoid industrial meat of all types, for these and other important reasons."
Certainly they should. But they aren't. The alternatives to factory farmed meat exist. Yet, most people don't care.
No, it isn't necessarily eating meat itself that causes the suffering. It is the callous attitude of many people who eat factory farmed meat, the refusal to examine and think about the ethics of their diet. The callous justifications and excuses.
Most people don't care, and you can change that?
"Homo Sapiens Sapiens (sic) have evolved for a few million years as omnivores,not vegetarians." So what? Humans also evolved as war-making, raping barbarians who exploit the weakest among us. Is that any reason to remain that way?
"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be wars."
Leo Tolstoy
Nice try with the false analogy, you can do better than that.
You obviously know noting about nutrition or Anthropology, or are you simply working from a gut reaction and have no use for scientific study? We can just burn the books and sell off the universities then.
The issue is more complex than you realize so don't fall victim to knee-jerk easy assumptions.
You are obviously addicted to meat-eating and will use any excuse to justify it, including referencing Native American cultures. Are you a Native American, living a subsistence lifestyle? I didn't think so.
You are not a human being then?
You are so right life is black and white: Omnivores bad evil. Vegetarians good, planet-savers .
Thanks for your complex analysis. What is my punishment for blasphemy?
Good point, blessthebeasts.
Saying that something has "always" been done that way, does not make it right or even, sustainable.
It is a cop out for those struggling to justify their actions.
Thank you for your wisdom.
"It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done". -- Harriet Beecher Stowe
duh yeah, that's the ticket: black and white simplicity: meat bad, veggies good. Omnivores are evil regressive planet destroyers and animal torturers. Vegetarians are planet saving, conscientious, animal defenders. It is that simple.
Facts Schmacts who needs em?
Thanks very much professor for your complex analysis I can throw away my Michael Pollan books now, as well as all my Anthropology books. Should I burn them?
If that's all you get out of them, perhaps you should discard them?
The "we've always done it that way" argument is a very conservative one. It's essentially a claim that no improvement is possible, that any change will be for the worse, and that "what was good enough for our forefathers should be good enough for us".
The experimental psychologist Edward Thorndike was a *very* smart man, one of the Greats in psychology. Yet the conclusions he drew from his experiments with cats are embarrassing today for what they reveal about then-mainstream psychology's cringing physics envy and reductionist thinking. There he was, *looking* at cats teaching themselves how to escape from his experimental cages and all he could see were "meat machines" acting mechanistically.
Yet at that same time, Wolfgang Köhler was sitting on the island of Tenerife off the coast of Africa watching apes put together bits of sticks to create tools to accomplish goals. *He* wasn't watching "meat machines", he was watching intelligence at work and he knew it. Why could he see it but Thorndike couldn't?
Behaviorism -aka 'scientific psychology'- dominated psychology departments for 60 years. People who didn't genuflect at that altar and worship at that church had a hard time finding work. The Behaviorists built up this increasingly fantastic and speculative edifice of untestable assertions, but nobody dared laugh at it because of the power its priesthood had. B.F.Skinner was the Pope, and regularly pontificated the most awful nonsense, but nobody dared laugh.
Then a young psycholinguist by the name of Chomsky came on the scene.
Behaviorism was very serviceable to the elites. Just as 'scientific' ideas such as "dysaethesia aethiopica" served slaveowners, so did the 'scientific' idea that humans, especially the poor, are, like non-humans, nothing but "meat machines".
The parallel is exact between the stories the elites tell themselves to justify their treatment of us, and the stories we tell ourselves to justify our treatment of non-humans. If the elites are wrong about us, what makes us right about the non-humans?
You obviously either did not read my posts carefully, you misunderstand my point or are setting up a straw man. Please re-read all my posts on this carefully. If not don't bother to respond
It's possible that I did misunderstand your point amid all the heated sarcasm. If so, I missed it on re-reading, too.
But I did read carefully, and I'm not doing any straw men. So perhaps you could try making your point in a small number of simple sentences?
I eat meat, although not too often. I don't know whether it's okay to eat meat or not. What I do know is this: Every time I eat meat I feel guilty because something inside me says it is wrong to cause pain to animals. That's there is, there has to be another, better way...
My personal view is that it is ethically acceptable to eat meat, if one personally raised that animal, cared for it, gave it a good life, with good living, enough place to play, good food etc.
For that, and other reasons, I don't eat meat.
"It is the Industrial Food cartel that is to blame, not eating meat in istelf."
The cartel's agenda is certainly indefensible, but your second claim is almost completely useless because the simple fact is that "eating meat" is resulting in some 25% of unnecessary anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which is slated to rise in (absolute terms) perhaps 200% in the next ten years making efforts to lower emissions to sustainable levels impossible, and so some 30% of species face extinction. If you want to use generalizations such as "eating meat" then you'll have to face the general consequences, ehh?
"Eating organic, range fed meat, grass fed beef is not harmful to the environment. In fact sustainable poly-culture agriculture is good for the environment."
It depends on the volume of that consumption, and the amount of disturbance to wildlife habitat and other disturbances. Organic beef for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 days/year for 10 billion people is not going to work.
"In evolutionary terms, we are not built to be vegetarians."
Sure looks like our teeth are made for grinding plant food and our digestive tracts are made to digest plant food. Carnivores have sharp teeth and very short digestive tracts. It's also obvious by direct inspection that wild plant foods are incredibly abundant in most areas. Homo Sapien has been an opportunist like all other species, eating what's easiest to acquire. As the women of today work the fields while the men sit around and drink in town, I'll bet all across our evolution the men came home from their ego-driven hunts to feed on the wild grains, fruits, nuts, roots and leaves harvested by the women.
"Becoming a vegetarian aint gonna save the world. The population of the earth is growing exponentially and is not sustainable."
Such statements are useless regarding the question of individual responsibility toward societal and global problems. Try reviewing Kant's Categorical Imperative for guidance on ethical policy for individuals.
"Who is this cat to tell them their culture is wrong?"
Culture is a secondary issue. Preservation of the planet's miraculous legacy trumps culture. This is the primary lesson to be learned as, for example, the monstrous USan society/culture slowly hits the skids. You don't learn so fast?
"The author is misguided and barking up the wrong tree."
Maybe you're being sarcastic?
We shall disagree then, read some Michael Pollan. Again, these claims are based on factory farm data, not polyculture or sustainable agriculture. Read also my other posts and Jennifer B's for more info.
We ought to learn from Native American culture, not dismiss it patronizingly and cast if off as secondary issue. Tell the tribal elders their culture is secondary. You will be dismissed as another blind ethnocentric European, with the audacity to purport how to save the planet. The height of hypocrisy. If we had followed their example in the first place we would not be in this mess.
So please don't bring Immanuel Kant into this, we live in a Lockean world bordering on Hobbesian. And that is only part of the Western experienced. We don't even know half the story, at leas I do no pretend to. Do you?
I am afraid you, and many others (including myself a few years ago) have fallen into a trap of easy assumptions.
I recommend for starters reading "the Omnivores Dilemma"
No sarcasm on this topic.
You can dismiss me as some sort of anti-environemental Green party socialist, however the issue is much more complex than you or I realize. All I ask is to approach the topic with an open mind
I will readily agree that overpopulation is the main problem here -- we have seriously exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet for rapacious humans. HOWEVER, now that we are all here, pretending that we can feed all the humans in the world -- especially at the rate Americans consume meat -- on "organic, range fed meat" is completely disingenuous. There simply is not enough prairie pastureland left for that solution, and rainforests are ever-more-rapidly being destroyed to supply our insatiable appetite for hamburgers.
If you're worried about all that grain (with all the petroleum-product inputs), 70% of grain grown in the industrial world goes to feed livestock, and 80% of agricultural land in the US goes to raising livestock and growing the grain to feed them.
A couple of researchers from the World Bank (not exactly a hotbed of radical vegetarianism) recently calculated that livestock production accounts for just over HALF of ALL greenhouse gas emissions in the world (well over the outdated FAO estimate, which left a lot of things uncounted). Anyone who still feels they can eat meat with a good conscience would be well advised to read their report (available as a free PDF file at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294).
Jonathon__Animals eat other animals, as that is what is called the food chain. What do you propose to do about that, make a law prohibiting them from surviving? Humans just happen to be at the top of the chain unless they get in the road of a bear or shark. It is foolish to try to change the laws of nature even though sometimes they do not suit us. What would you propose we do with millions of cattle, sheep, hogs etc. that would be wandering around the country if we could not use them for food? There is cruelty involved in hooking a fish, so do we stop fishing also? Most of our farm animals are well treated while they are alive, with the exception of a few well publicized examples.
Anyone who purports to believe that "most of our farm animals are well treated while they are alive" is either seriously kidding himself, immensely gullible to industry propaganda, or just plain avoiding reality (perhaps because it's threatening to think too deeply about what he eats).
It would be lovely if all the animals raised for food could live out their lives peacefully grazing on rolling pastureland, and if we could feed all the meat eaters in this country on organic, humanely-raised Niman Ranch beef -- but the vast majority (if not all) of the meat in your local supermarket came from feedlots. If you don't know what a feedlot looks like, take a drive up Highway 5 in California's Central Valley sometime, then come back and tell me those cattle are "well treated"! According to the USDA (hardly a hotbed of vegetarianism), 10% of animals raised for food never even reach the slaughterhouse, but die of stress, injury or disease. The huge majority of farm animals in this country live in crates barely larger than their own bodies, or crowded in huge poultry houses covered in feces. The idea that these animals are "well treated" comes directly from agribusiness propaganda. Face the facts about what you are eating, folks!
Now children first contemplate the question of our place in the food chain, given our conscious/ethical capacity, at an early age, because children are relatively free to pursue philosophy, before they discover the chains/shackles around their wrists/ankles as they "come of age". Check with the young philosophers. They will tell you that we are a species that can choose our diets based on conscious awareness of the ethics and consequences of our actions. The children are quite capable of adjusting practice to philosophy, and recognize the gift of our conscious/ethical capacity.
When William Penn asked George Fox for advice on how to reconcile his increasing commitment to Quakerism with the expectation that he, as a "gentleman", carry a sword, Fox said "Friend William, carry thy sword as long as thou canst".
I've always thought that an absolutely *stunning* example of good psychology.
It simultaneously acknowledges good intentions and accepts that someone whose commitment isn't complete will unwittingly sabotage themselves, but that once their commitment has reached 'critical mass', everything changes, and what was impossible becomes easy: when William can no longer tolerate carrying the sword, he'll stop. And if he never reaches that point, trying to shame him into stopping will do nothing but make him miserable.
In an addict, that change is called 'hitting bottom'. It also appears in witchcraft, in Zen Buddhism, and probably a hundred other places. Funnily enough, it isn't (or wasn't when I was in grad school) taught in psychology.
When our hearts are pure (i.e. we're not conflicted) we truly do have amazing strength. It's the conflicts that disable us.
I've used that insight several times for personal change, the first time being when I stopped smoking. Like other people, I was hooked and unable to stop. But then the Surgeon General's report came out, and I read it, and being trained in science I had to accept its conclusions. A few weeks later it had 'sunk in' enough that I knew it was a life-or-death choice and so I was able to decide to quit. And I quit. I had a tiny relapse a year later, and I remained physically addicted for easily fifteen years after quitting, but I never went back: having no conflicts about my decision made me powerful.
In general, if we can't do something, it's because it's not important enough no matter how important we *tell* ourselves it is, or how much we try to guilt-trip ourselves about it. If it's truly important, it'll happen 'by magic', and if it's not, it won't.
I became a veg when I accepted that high-order non-humans are more like us than not. They have intelligence, strong emotions, self-awareness, language, and personalities. When we exploit them for food, we're putting our convenience ahead of their lives, just as the ruling class puts their convenience ahead of our lives. Once I realised that, I had to stop. And did.
A beautiful post. Thank you for sharing . . . especially from a fellow vegetarian.
Thanks, 7S.
I've always found it truly saddening to see how many highly intellgent, good-hearted people still can't bear to make the connection between the way we kill non-humans and their children for food and the way the ruling class kills us and our children for money. Truly, as Sinclair said, it's hard to get even the smartest person to understand something that conflicts with their perceived self-interest.
Indeed. That connection is so very important.
Russian author Leo Tolstoy (a vegetarian) said "As long as we have slaughterhouses, we will have battlefields."
Vegetarianism = Zen Buddhism, Quakerism and witchcraft!
You got that right.
If you can't do something, don't try to pick a fight with me about it. I'm not the one standing in your way.
Lovely Mairead! How true. When one is ready, change happens. Our whole world is transitioning....big changes are coming. We begin with our own personal self....and the world follows.
I'll give up my omnivore lifestyle when my vegetarian daughter quits feeding meat to her cats.
Cats are obligative carnivores. Humans are not.
And 200 million children (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/11-5) are malnourished, mostly because they don't have enough protein in their diet. Neither they or their mothers chose their diet, but scratch out what they can. Our omnivore ability to survive in a world of extremes is what enabled us (humans) to reach our current state.
If you want the perfect answer to saving our planet, prohibit all sex. Individually we don't have to have it--just like meat. But if all chose not in one century the earth will saved.
So, you're saying that YOU are malnourished, and scratching out what you can?
"I'll give up my omnivore lifestyle when my vegetarian daughter quits feeding meat to her cats."
"Humans are not???"
Tell that to a friend whose doctor told her she would starve to death if she tried to nurse her child on a vegetarian diet. She's allergic to soy and gluten. She now buys turkeys and pork from us!