Hello Richard, i like your thoughts about
morality or ethics of eating meat and would like to respond
some own thoughts.
(I'll try not again to produce such a lengthy post..)
>1.) Supposedly eating strictly vegetarian removes more habitat from
>the ecosystem than eating only meat. ...
Richard, that applies only if you ate only wild game, but thats
impossible for many persons (it may be possible to persons living
in /near a wild habitat). Living on wild game would need
astronomical big areas per human.
Eating (farmed) meat needs much *more* crop agriculture area,
because all the farmed animals are *fed* on something
that is produced by crop agriculture again, but "wasting" or
using most of the animal food for maintaining the animal body.
About 90% of protein and plant energy is lost in this way.
Further, Ray speculates about so big areas where no agriculture
was possible because only "grass" would grow, or which are very
sparse (highlands,as we have over here).
Cereals are grasses and grow where grass can grow.
At other areas (highlands) offer milk based agriculture
as possibility, where animals use much less for themselfes as
when killed (25% instead of 90% "loss").
So much about agriculture killing or driving out of wild animals.
Agriculture "producing" meat tenfolds this problem.
> Better yet, foster a better society
> that maximizes the smart use of resources.
So true, IMO.
>2.) There is the fear of death that humans have due to their
>amazing ability to predict and foresee the future. No other
>animal seems to have such foresight that they fear death.
Animals do have intense fear in the slaughterhouse like
workers there, which i know, have reported.
But thats only for one day(transportation) or some minutes dieing.
On the other hand most meat is "produced" in closed houses, where
animals are fed something and tried to be kept quiet.
Applies to ox, pig, and chicken in cage (which are under discussion
in germany presently because of a court judgement).
This prisoned, caged or bound life is not what natural animals are
longing for, IMO.
>My children often make comments like, "are lions
>bad?" and I answer, animals are neither good nor bad,
>they simply are.
Yes, they share their life in the wild with other animals.
They aren't bad. They just have a "bad" work, somehow as intended.
Human hunters which *need* to hunt to live (inuit for ex)
appear to me to be similar.
What about hunting in the supermarket? Where some anonymous does it?
I think that's quite different, from the impressive and colourful
description Kathleen gave us, how good some natives think about
their prey.
>... kill... indirectly to eat plants. In fact
>eating plants requires a lot of insects to be killed
>either with pesticides, or organic means.
Besides, that "normal" meat requires tenfold crops:
I experience, that farming without ever killing insects is possible
(in a organic way) nearby my home. The plants themselfes grow
quickly strong enough to help themselves.
To eat (and to live), of course you can hardly avoid to kill
something to some extent - plants or insects maybe.
But you may have an option what to harm, and to what extent.
>4.) Then there are the religious aspects.
> In Christian theology, God gave us all of the
> animals to eat (or most of them) and so we "own"
> the Earth and all it's resources.
I recall, in the bible we had the animals and world to rule over
- and not to eat them.
I recall Genesis 1:28
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds
of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground."
and Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of
the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in
it. They will be yours for food.
Well i only can find to rule, not to eat, regarding your reference.
I think, what we own, or rule over, we have the obligation to treat
well. We are not dictator rulers, are we?
>Most all other ancient theologies have a similar moral code
>in regards to animals, except Bhudism.
Budhism, how i understood it, allows eating of meat, but not
killing animals. Sometimes animals die on their own.
Jainism forbids any kill.
Hinduism - may better someone else speak- is Rainah still here?
Judaism and Moslemic - i don't feel competent to speak for them too
(maybe someone else can say)
but my impression is, that there are quite some hinderances in
consuming too much of meat.
>5.) There is the issue of wasting resources which is very
> serious. One should not waste food.
D'accord.
regards
Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
