Hi Martha,

Welcome back to the list. Good to have vegetarian "voices" sometimes.

>1) after all, chimps have psyches too, and any parent knows that something
>the parents are having but withholding from the kids becomes *very*
>desired by the kids; and 2) (wild theory) it*s just possible that by
>withholding meat from these developing little ones they have improved
>their survival in some way.

1) You are right, but try to withhold boiled lentils from kids, I
don't think that food will become *very* desired. Maybe the fact
that meat is being withheld only increases their natural attraction
to meat.

2) If we consider that any common behavior in a given species is
useful for their survival, then yes, withholding meat to little chimps
may have improved their survival. But remember that
  *young chimps do not lack RAF. They are breast-fed for quite a
long time, and they eat insects;
  *adults go hunting whenever they want;
  *humans are not chimps, kids are given large amounts of meat;
  *what is important is the genetic adaptation to meat: we can
rely on the instinctive stop to determine if meat is useful or not.

>No, hostility is a form of human nature.  Let me ask you this:  would
>you display hostility if you saw somebody beating a defenseless baby?

My opinion about that subject is the following:
We know that eating meat is natural, but natural doesn't mean
necessary (strictly speaking, we do not need durians either, even
if it is a very "natural" food). However, experience shows that
a vegan diet is a very difficult path, if sustainable over the long
run at all. Thus, a would-be vegan who had to introduce dairy for
health reasons, or even eggs and/or insects (because some persons
are lactose-intolerant, etc) should not feel guilty if the amount is
kept at strict minimum.

BUT an omnivorous doesn't care about the necessity or not of meat
(or fish, etc), and generally eats more than the strict minimum.
In that sense, I understand your analogy with somebody beating a
defenseless baby: after all, most omnivorous commit unnecessary "crimes".

Unfortunately, there is no universal morality. In some countries,
prisoners are tortured. I am of course outraged by these immoral acts,
but cannot show hostility, since they honestly believe they are
serving justice. The only thing to do would be to explain my point of
view, and try to convince them to adopt less "barbaric" laws.

Unless vegans created a Veganland in which eating animal food is
considered as criminal, they have to abide the majority's opinions
and not display hostility, and maybe try to convince the world not
to eat animals, but IMO it is a hopeless cause (like trying to
convert the world to rawism).

To tell about my own feelings about animal suffering, I have absolutely
*no* feeling when I eat an egg, it is just like eating a fruit for me.
Eating a living shellfish is similar to eating a nut (they don't move).
Killing a larger animal with my own hands would be more difficult,
not because I care for suffering (as I explained in an earlier
post), but I would do it if I had to.

All of that doesn't mean that animals shouldn't be bred more "humanely",
i.e. be free-ranging, have natural food, not be too stressed by the
process of slaughtering, etc... Not because I am concerned by
unnecessary suffering (it would be paradoxical), but I think that
life still has a value (emotionally speaking) and humans do not
have the right to play with it like apprentice wizards. Genetical
engineering, cloning etc. seem to me to break the "law" of nature,
i.e. the fragile equilibrium that has been built in a natural ecosystem
for millions of years, and we don't have the "right" nor the ability
to reshape it in a way that conforms to our *idea* of progress. Nature
is not a tool, and in some areas, using too much intelligence only
makes things worse. Not that intelligence is not sometimes useful
(otherwise, we wouldn't have computers to discuss various subjects
on [log in to unmask]).

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis