eat meat

[Guest guest]

Zenbob said:

">My compassion is such that I will not fret away my hours in self induced

>angst over my dietary choices whilst the humans suffer. ...Once I fall

>into the trap of doing only what I believe is in my own spiritual self

>interests, I fear I will be a doomed, trapped, and desperate >creature,"

 

dear zenbob,

 

a question for you: if *you* were the one who had to keep animals trapped

from birth in overcrowded, unnatural confinements, in desperate conditions,

doomed to be slaughtered, and if *you* were the one who had to somehow kill

the living, thinking, feeling animal, to provide yourself with a mouthful of

flesh, would you still choose to eat meat?

 

 

matt lillie

[Guest guest]

Matt Lillie wrote:

> a question for you: if *you* were the one who had to keep animals trapped

> from birth in overcrowded, unnatural confinements, in desperate conditions,

> doomed to be slaughtered, and if *you* were the one who had to somehow kill

> the living, thinking, feeling animal, to provide yourself with a mouthful of

> flesh, would you still choose to eat meat?

 

I'll answer that.

 

If I made my living raising & slaughtering animals,

I'd most likely eat them too...

 

Jesus ate fish.

Who on this list proclaims to be more 'spiritual' than say, a 'Jesus'?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/99 3:40:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,

everythingisgreen writes:

 

<< a question for you: if *you* were the one who had to keep animals trapped

from birth in overcrowded, unnatural confinements, in desperate conditions,

doomed to be slaughtered, and if *you* were the one who had to somehow kill

the living, thinking, feeling animal, to provide yourself with a mouthful of

flesh, would you still choose to eat meat?

>>

 

Dear Matt:

 

I think the conditions expressed are one of the barriers to a faithful reply.

Since I raise animals for my own consumption, but have plentiful pasture,

lovely grazing conditions and compassionate means of rendering them suitable

for conversion into food, I can answer that in my particular case, "Yes." If

I were forced to raise meat animals in the manner that you describe, then I

certainly would be forced into saying no, because then my personal experience

and revulsion would bar me from being able to do so. However, Matt, there

are many thousands of people who do not shrink from this work and who are

content to eat meat. That is their level of civilization, but I would not

argue that they "cannot" engage in this behavior, even though I could not,

and I am sure, you would not.

 

I would be hesitant to launch missiles at other countries, but I pay taxes

and know that these monies are used to pay members of the armed forces to do

exactly that. Every moral question comes down to personal ethics...and when

we attempt to "force" others to believe as we do, rather than merely

explaining our beliefs and allowing them to choose, then we commit a very

serious moral offense, too. Right choices should be the right of every free

person to choose, based on their conscience and good logical thought. As

soon as we attempt to abridge or restrict these rights, we are then guilty of

a form of moral tyranny.

 

I realize that one could easily counter-argue that this is the basis behind

most laws that make murder or violent assault crimes. But, I do not believe

that dietary choices rise to this level, even though a good argument can be

made for the analog of murder or killing...in this case, the killing of

blameless creatures.

 

As I have written previously, the future is a funny place. Meat, per se, may

be obsolete in the near future. It certainly is impractical, (Beef or hogs

at any rate) from a feed conversion basis, and usable pasture land is fast

disappearing...so that large scale ranching of animals that require vast

amounts of grain to "fatten" is in the end a doomed enterprise...given world

demand for food. I believe that genetically altered trees and plants will be

producing most of the worlds "meat or meat like" protein sources within

thirty years or so.

 

Of course, Matt, we also have not touched on the subject of leather

furniture, purses, shoes, belts, etc., as well as the tallow products derived

from animals that are used in a vast variety of products we take for granted.

Be honest...(I know this is a trick or tricky question) have you never

admired the leather seats of a fine automobile...or sat on high quality

leather furniture and felt completely at ease? Maybe you are very sensitized

to this issue and feel an emotional component that most people do not. I can

respect and appreciate this. But, I must admit, I love a fine leather chair

or car seat, and even knowing that some Cow or Steer gave it's life so that I

could be comfortable does not really fill me with vast grief. I have lived

with cattle. I know them from a personal basis. I have had individuals take

exception to my gestures or comments (much as many readers, understandably

do) and seek to end my life by pinning me to a tree with their horns...which

are rather wickedly sharp. A 900 pound or greater steer can pack quite a lot

of force when upset or "flighty." Since cattle have never seemed

particularly concerned with my welfare, or even in preventing my demise, my

own sense of compassion toward their "eventual" outcome has been tempered.

Nothing will alter your philosophy of life quicker than a direct

confrontation with reality and a life/death struggle where a split second

change in reflex or movement would mean your death.

 

This adds to one's respect for the other creature...and careful regard, but

it does little to increase a sense of fond devotion or "yes, better it be me

than him, poor bovine creature."

 

This reminds me of the story of the pacifist friend of mine with whom I

shared many an interesting discussion with about Ahimsa and Buddhist

doctrines. He was a dedicated animal rights advocate, and I had loaned him

pet Chinchillas in order to allow him to protest the fur industry. I shared

his anger over the unnecessary waste and cruelty of this practice. However,

we disagreed over practical examples of survival and nature. I held that,

given a risk to one's own self, a human naturally would protect itself, it's

loved ones, if attacked in the wild. This does not condone hunting or

terrorizing wild animals, and I always suggest people be prepared before

going into wild areas and respect the creatures that live there. Still,

accidents happen. My friend argued, persuasively that under no circumstance

would he harm a creature, because of Ahimsa, etc. I smiled and said that

this was to be admired, but that I doubted his resolve.

 

A few months later, he went on a nature excursion sponsored by the Sierra

Club, became curious about the area of a fallen log that seemed to have a few

bones scattered in the general area, and upon reaching down to inspect a

bone, had his arm grabbed violently by the jaws of a badger. Badgers are

very dedicated and do not like giving up, once they have grasped something.

They also can inflict terrible damage and have jaws that are incredibly

strong for their modest size. My friend began screaming for help, then in a

panic (I believe somewhat justified) realizing that the other members of the

group were too far off to be of help very quickly, he picked up a tree branch

and beat the badger to death, upon which it finally let go of his arm. When

the concerned members of the group reached him, he was still beating the long

dead badger with the branch, almost heedless of the loss of blood, flowing

down his injured arm.

 

"Ahimsa, hmm?" I responded. Most of us do not know what we will ultimately

do when faced with real life (life or death) situations. It is the same

about bravery or cowardice. Many a "hero" has turned weak when faced with

real threats, and many an average person has done the extraordinary when

faced with sudden peril. (Actually, I believe it is the ordinary and quiet

person who most often acts most heroically).

 

So, I do not wish to be disagreeable in my discussion...merely philosophic

and realistic. I agree with you that under ideal circumstances, we should

not kill living creatures, given viable alternatives. But, that is the crux

of the problem, and this is an issue that only peripherally impacts the basis

of spirituality...compared to other moral and ethical dilemmas that we all

face.

 

Some societies would starve today, were it not for their meat diets. It will

take time and reasonable efforts to find alternatives that are both

nutritious, economically advantageous and practical to implement for all

societies. I am quiet serious in my support for such programs...and merely

because I will eat meat in moderation as part of my needed diet, does not

mean that I would not be an enthusiastic supporter of viable alternatives.

For me, despite my long efforts to find such alternatives, I cannot say that

many meet the goals I have described. Perhaps this will change soon. Then,

you and I, Matt, will be able to sit at the same table for dinner and not

offend one another. LOL

 

 

Blessings,

 

Zenbob