Re: your question to the list, below. I'd still eat meat. If I could
hunt and get meat that way, it'd be my first preference.
I learned not too long ago that a bison farm in Wisconsin (where I get
meat) still uses old methods to raise and slaughter their animals. It's
organic, all grass-fed and they surprise the animal at the moment of
slaughter (which is done by hand in an instant). I believe the owner
when she says that they treat the animals with respect and dignity like
our ancestors did, getting to know them as they grow up. A local
chicken farm operates the same way and delivers chickens and eggs to our
farmer's market each week. Agreed that large-scale operations do things
very differently though.
The thing about the fatty acids is that omega 3 and 6, at least, need to
be nearly in balance - almost 1:1, 1:2 or as close as feasible for
optimal health. This is easily achieved in wild caught fish or
grass-fed meat animals (or free-range fowl). Taking the omega-3 pills
is only needed if you eat farmed fish or non grass-fed animals (usually
fed a non-natural diet of grains, etc., which raises the omega 6 levels
considerably).
-=mark=-
Mike Horlick wrote:
> Hello Todd,
>
> There may be pain,suffering and there is death. If you relate this happening to
> a human being you would say any one of these would surely be unpleasant to
> say the least.
>
> It's interesting on how people can get all worked up about the welfare of their
> pets but can't make the transfer to other animals such as cows/sheep/pigs,
> etc... Maybe in the paleolithic days and with hunter gatherers, hunting was
> and is a sacred activity but frankly I don't see that in large scale production of
> meat. I doubt that in a slaughter-house the people there perform any spiritual
> rituals before or after doing the deed. Of course, maybe in small organic
> operations maybe the people there do feel some connection to their "victims".
> However, given the amount of beef being processed now maybe quick and
> dirty is only possible and only done in large slaughterhouses.
>
> Of course, as you mentioned it is also the way cattle are raised that is
> disturbing and I realize that aspect could be remedied.
>
> Well, maybe enough of that argument. Maybe it's best to just disassociate
> meat from it's source, the animal.
>
> Let me throw this out to you and the other members of the list.
>
> If it was possible to create a non-meat food that provided all the nutrients of
> meat would you switch to it rather to continue eating meat?
>
> Maybe that's what those vegetarians do now. Try to make up for the
> differences between meat and fruits/vegetables by taking vitamins and
> supplements.
>
> Since I also try to exercise regularly I have also been thinking into looking into
> those "protein" shakes that I see advertised in muscle magazines and
> sometimes see in speciality stores. I need to do more research on their
> ingredients but I assume they are made from milk whey. Definitely, not paleo.
> I guess most people would say why go with a processed food when meat is
> complete. I'm only looking at the convenience (need to say Kosher) and the
> cost.
>
> I've also been looking at the fat aspect of the paleo, low-carb diet. So far
> from different books and articles it gets a little confusing. It seems everyone
> agrees on fish oil on being good for its Omega 3 content. Cordain recommends
> canola and flaxseed oil. Some people discourage canola. I looked a bit at one
> of Mary Enig books on fat and she recommends coconut nut (and sort of looks
> down on canola and flaxseed). I doubt coconuts were widely available to our
> ancestors.
>
> With regards to my current diet I'm trying to concentrate on fish and fowl.
> Before every meal I take an Omega 3 capsule, every other day I eat 1 or 2
> eggs for breakfast, the other breakfasts I eat almond butter on flaxseed
> bread. That and some nuts, mainly brazil,walnuts and almonds. For lunch I
> usually eat a tin of sardines or mackerel with a bit of veggies,some pumpkin
> and sunflower seeds and a fruit for desert. Mid-afternoon , another piece of
> fruit. For supper I've been getting my wife to go along with fish/fowl or beef
> with maybe one meal strictly vegetarian.
>
> I started this "diet" search looking for a way to help with my osteo-arthritis
> and I think this diet has helped me. Currently I'm reading one of those Zone
> books and trying to decipher the science. He mentions maybe borage/primrose
> oil can help as well.
>
> Maybe there is someone out there who has experimented with adding these
> oils to their diet?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:56:43 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>>> I think the point that person made was that whether you eat a carrot or a
>>>> cow, you must kill what you eat. You cannot sustain your own life
>>>> without
>>>> killing other organisms. I don't think that's controversial. But I take
>>>> it that your point is that you find killing carrots less morally
>>>> problematic than killing cows. Can you explain what you find morally
>>>> problematic about killing cows?
>>> I realize that in order to eat something must be killed. I think there is
>>> a big
>>> difference between killing a plant and killing an animal. I don't believe
>>> there is
>>> any pain and suffering involved in the killing of a plant.
>> Sorry to take so long resuming this discussion. I asked what was morally
>> problematic because I wanted to be as clear as possible as to what your
>> position is; I wasn't baiting you. From what you wrote, I take it to be
>> this: killing cows and other sentient creatures is morally problematic
>> because it causes pain and suffering to those creatures. Is that a fair
>> statement of your view?
>>
>> I notice you mention pain and suffering, but not death. Was that
>> intentional? Also, do you regard pain and suffering as different from
>> each other, or just variations?
>>
>> Again, I'm not baiting you. I think it's important to be clear about
>> these things. For example, I would make a distinction between pain and
>> suffering. A person competing in a marathon may experience considerable
>> pain, but it's not clear that "suffering" describes that condition.
>> Suffering seems to involve extended pain and the despair that it causes.
>> For this reason, I'm a bit more skeptical of attributing suffering to
>> livestock. Indeed, the slaughter of animals may be instantaneous,
>> involving little or no pain at all. Your moral scruples may be more
>> relevant to the practice of how cattle are raised and slaughtered than to
>> the bare fact that they are killed for food. Does that sound right to
>> you?
>>
>> Todd Moody
>
|