Re: reply...Heidi/MEAT EATING

[Guest guest]

reply...Heidi...more accurate

Vegetarians and PETA folks are " not " divorced from reality. First, vegetarians

have chosen a diet that works for them and the added benefit to the world is

that these vegetarians " do not " place high demands on our environment to consume

animal products - animal products take enormous energy to bring to the market

for human consumption. I welcome " more " not less vegetarians in this world.

Second, PETA is for the human treatment of animals - again, this is something I

certainly welcome more of in this cruel inhumane world of ours. I totally back

what PETA stands for and we need " more " people not less to join PETA.

You wrote: " So, I think the current rise in vegetarianism is an offshoot of our

rather " rich " life in this country. " My reply: When a country is developed and

" rich " , they desire meats, and lots of them! You could not be more wrong, ok.

==================

,

I am a meat eater for whom food is more of a medicine than a whim. Having had

thyroid problems and carbohydrate (especially dairy and grain) intolerance for

most of my life, I find that eating animal flesh is grounding, balancing, and

nourishing. I feel fortunate that in my area, there are a number of sources for

relatively inexpensive grass-fed, organically raised beef, lamb and other meats.

However, the grass-fed animals do cost more. A sizeable portion of my income

goes toward food. On the flip side, meat " substitutes " and fancy vegetarian

dishes can cost a lot too.

Regarding raising animals for food: There is a huge difference between the

energy expenditure involved in factory farmed animals, and raising free range

animals on pasture in an ecologically balanced way. Where I live, some of the

land is too rocky to farm. But goats and lambs allow farmers to earn a living

and feed people too. Not all meat raising is inefficient.

Also, some of the most beneficial changes in the treatment of animals bred for

consumption have been made by people who understand the relationship of animals

to the greater ecology of the planet. The many farmers in my area who raise

grass-fed animals strive to be kind to the animals and give them a good quality

of life before the animals are slaughtered for food. I have seen first-hand how

the animals are treated and I know that factory farmed animals would never be

treated with this kind of care or compassion.

Whenever I eat meat (or plants), I try to remember to thank the life form for

nourishing me. To me, it is a gift to be able to eat foods that sustain me and

help me grow. I regret that something has to be killed in order for me to

sustain myself, but that is the way things work right now. I feel that having a

respectful attitude goes a long way toward healing any injustices I may have

(inadvertently or wittingly) caused.

A few thoughts regarding PETA: I acknowledge the tremendous amount of publicity

they have generated about the needless suffering of animals. Perhaps many (if

not most) of PETA's members are able to survive on high-carbohydrate diets and

don't need to eat meat in order to function. And another thing: I would prefer

that PETA not exploit women (nearly nude models in suggestive poses) in their

desire to shame people not to exploit animals.

Just a few thoughts today...

Nenah

[Guest guest]

> From: richard s

> Vegetarians and PETA folks are " not " divorced from reality.

No, they just twist it a little. Sometimes divorces are preferable to

an abusive relationship.

> First,

> vegetarians have chosen a diet that works for them and the added benefit to

> the world is that these vegetarians " do not " place high demands on our

> environment to consume animal products - animal products take enormous

> energy to bring to the market for human consumption.

It really depends on the farming model. Straight vegetarian farming

could put a greater strain on the environment than an ideal mixed farm

model, because soil conditioning is more effective, natural, and

easier on the environment with animals.

This argument seems to me somewhat like saying wildlife are a strain

on our natural resources so it would be better to reduce the wildlife

population. It's natural for the enviornment to be used and

replenished. Yes, the one-way extraction of industrial farming

(animal-based or not) is depletive, but this isn't due to animals per

se. It's the farming model as a whole.

> I welcome " more " not less vegetarians in this world.

My personal experience with vegetarianism is not a good one and I

wouldn't wish it on anyone. I don't personally object to anyone being

vegetarian if it works for them and they maintain good health on it,

but I don't appreciate people distorting research to make false claims

the way, say, T. Colin does in _The China Study_.

> Second, PETA is for the >human treatment of animals - again, this is

something I certainly welcome more of >in this cruel

> inhumane world of ours. I totally back what PETA stands for and we need

> " more " people not less to join PETA.

PETA has associations with groups considered domestic terrorists by

the Department of Justice. Sure, I'm for the ethical and humane

treatment of animals, but PETA? Give me a break.

> You wrote: " So, I think the current rise in vegetarianism is an offshoot of

> our rather " rich " life in this country. " My reply: When a country is

> developed and " rich " , they desire meats, and lots of them! You could not be

> more wrong, ok.

Really.

First, vegetarianism has nothing to do with quantity of meat.

Vegetarianism is a qualitative distiction, not quantitative. A person

who eats meat once a week or once a month is not a vegetarian.

Second, I think you are conflating desire with fulfillment. I hope

you mean to say that people have more access to meats with riches,

which really isn't true, but a more plausible statement. Even when

animal foods are rare, that doesn't mean they aren't prized.

Third, when a society becomes more affluent, the desire of the people

within it for non-material goods increases. This is quite

self-evident from a cursory look at the development of ideology over

history. Environmentalism is more popular, for example, in developed

countries than it is in developing countries. Ideologies like animal

rights are more likely to develop among people with the leisure of

being in college than people whose next concern is how they're going

to eat.

Fourth, I suggest you read Weston Price's _Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration_. It's apparent that you haven't, and this group is

based around his work. I think it would help put into perspective the

type of esteem in which non-modernized groups relying on primitive

agriculture, pastoralism, or hunting and gathering held animal

products.

I wouldn't call cattle-herding tribal groups like the Masai " rich. "

But they certainly eat a lot of meat!

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> I wouldn't call cattle-herding tribal groups like the Masai " rich. "

> But they certainly eat a lot of meat!

>

> Chris

, if i might just add to what chris said...

the Masai subsist on meat, milk and blood...that's it. that's IT.

they are VERY healthy.

laura