Amadeus wrote:
>Many would never eat a dog or horse or cat - any pet animals - but
>they don't hesitate do munch calves or pigs. Where is the difference?
>Similar for insects, maggots, worms.
>The real wildlive hunter/gatherers are *not* concerned with that, are
>they?


There have been some interesting discussions on this within
anthropology. One theory is that meat-eating follows the same sexual
taboos as kinship. Animals that are close (pets) are treated as
siblings - not to be eaten. Animals that are farther out, but within
human control (tame animals) are treated as cousins. They can be
eaten, but only following certain rules - males eaten before sexual
maturity or de-sexualised for example (in many cultures cousins are ok
to play around with, but not to marry). Farthest out are wild animals,
treated as un-related persons. Here fullgrown, virile males can be
eaten.

Animal swear words follow in many cultures the same pattern. Naming an
animal close (bitch) is more insulting than a tame animal (cow, pig)
and not insulting at all is naming a wild animal (lion, moose).

In a H/G culture all animals would be perceived as wild (unless their
religion made them kin with a particular animal - note too, how there
are then rituals around eating this animal).

Sometimes I think about this myself. Do I feel close kinship with the
animal I don't want to eat? Is it really my brother or sister or am I
projecting lack of close family onto the animal? It is an interesting
perspective.

Cecilia in Sweden