arrogant animals
7/8/07
alright. so my friend and i were talking tonight...
before i begin my rant, let me offer a disclaimer of some kind. i do not really believe that anything i say has any bearing on what people believe. as far as i'm concerned, people who think for themselves are not simply going to agree with what someone else argues, regardless of how intelligent the argument is. but, i can't help seeing connections where many of the most common arguments fail to see them...as with most of my rants, this is mostly me just trying to organize some thoughts, in this case, based on a discussion...
so.
i have plenty of friends who at some point in our relationship have asked me why i chose to be vegetarian. i provide them a summary of my reasons/beliefs knowing full well that they probably don't agree with me on some key points--which is fine--and i often say that i'm not some crazed animal rights activist. i'm not going to stand outside of sax and spraypaint the fur coats that come out the door. there seem more immediate capitalistic issues to protest against...
but my friend and i were talking about the ethics of hunting. i know plenty of people who, although they hunt, do revere nature and follow practices based on the sacredness of nature and all her creatures. those who do not waste any part of the animal they take. those who do not believe in hunting as sport. etc. but so many of the points i have heard in support of hunting involve the idea of populations control. when there are too many deer, for example, deer starve because the food in an area is less than sufficient for a large population. if the population is not controlled, deer will appear even more frequently in human territories, threatening the tranquility of highways and backyards alike.
my response to this, usually only in my head, is that the only reason the environment cannot sustain a large population, of anything, is because people have restricted and depleated the parts of the ecosystem that would provide for the animals relying on it for sustenance. who invaded whose territory anyway? i don't know enough about this. and even if i did, the other (silent) issue seems to be that people are superior to animals, and therefore deserve first dibs on all that an environment has to offer.
i know i sound like some buddhist, tree-hugging, idealist. but there are many philosophies that entail an equal amount of respect for all nature's animals. the belief that humans are superior relates to both empirical and religious ideals. the empirical being that humans are "more intelligent;" the religious being that god gave adam (and therefore mankind) dominion over the animals (he named all the animals in the garden of eden, etc).
in response to the idea that people are more intelligent beings, i am forced to question (again, usually in my head) how human superiority is gauged. other mammals, reptiles, birds, arachnids, whatever--other animals--do not cause the grand-scale destruction that humans do. they do not engage in wars; they do not destroy environments (and when they do, you can almost bet on human interference--humans who have imposed an order unlike the...uh...natural one); they do not interfere with the ability for other species (of their OWN) to thrive.
and if people are so much more intelligent than other animals, how can we justify the mating rituals that influence so much of our behavior. we wear flashy clothing to attract a mate, reproduce, repeat. we go to clubs to meet potential mates (i'm sayin'--not all sex leads to procreation but the quest for sex, the mission to copulate is still strong among us). we carefully craft our own little nests. we form communities, cliques, groups that compete with other groups. our society takes survival of the fittest to the extreme on many levels; it's a dog eat dog world.
so if population control is one argument in support of hunting. then why fret over murder rates and death tolls and plagues? aren't they forms of population control in a world that is already struggling to support the population?
just what is the "natural balance?"
there are too many...internal contradictions in the arguments i've heard regarding the ethics of hunting. most do not approach the issue from the standpoint of taking life. immediately people turn to population--to statistics--to numbers that objectify the living, breathing things to which they are referring. the same way that statistics simplify, dehumanize the devastation of so many deaths.
and as i continue to consider my own beliefs regarding the value of life i have to wonder how many spiders, houseflies, mosquitos, raccoons, slugs, whatever i've killed (out of annoyance or fear !). and then, some people would point out, that plants too are living things that breathe and eat and grow like people do--so are they equally sacred forms of life?
native american belief systems (not all of them--i don't want to overgeneralize) follow the idea that nature provides what each form of life needs to survive, to thrive. indians did not over-hunt. they did not wipe out the buffalo. they were not responsible for endangering species. but they weren't vegetarian.
and it isn't as simple as saying that vegetarianism would solve any imbalance. the issue has too many levels, with centuries of socio-historical factors.
so usually, when people ask me about why i'm a vegetarian i bring up a few key points:
i don't enjoy the taste of most meats. the ones i do miss, i have found substitutes for that do not require the death of any animal and usually help out some soy farmer somewhere.
much of the meat produced by larger companies is not healthy for consumption.
the conditions in which many animals raised to be killed are terrible. how can people distinguish between the quality of life most cats and dogs enjoy (at least in our country) and the quality of life for so many chickens and calves.
the process of turning cattle into beef is inefficient; we could feed the world with the grains that are used to feed cows who only provide a fraction of the food for a fraction of the population.
and ultimately, just because i can drive a car, put sentences together and be much more selective about with whom and why i fornicate, doesn't mean that i am superior to othe animals who also have their own forms of communication, their own social orders (which they have maintained for how long?) and create their own small empires, as discreet as the networks of insects beneath the places we tread.
so.
live the life you want. but please don't try to convince me to eat a burger. i have my reasons and after thirteen years of being a vegetarian (i'll explain why not vegan another time), understand that my beliefs are the result of years of asking myself repeatedly WHY i have chosen to live this way, and finding more and more reasons (statistics, facts, etc) to support the choice i made and far outweigh the evidence that opposes it.
alright. so my friend and i were talking tonight...
before i begin my rant, let me offer a disclaimer of some kind. i do not really believe that anything i say has any bearing on what people believe. as far as i'm concerned, people who think for themselves are not simply going to agree with what someone else argues, regardless of how intelligent the argument is. but, i can't help seeing connections where many of the most common arguments fail to see them...as with most of my rants, this is mostly me just trying to organize some thoughts, in this case, based on a discussion...
so.
i have plenty of friends who at some point in our relationship have asked me why i chose to be vegetarian. i provide them a summary of my reasons/beliefs knowing full well that they probably don't agree with me on some key points--which is fine--and i often say that i'm not some crazed animal rights activist. i'm not going to stand outside of sax and spraypaint the fur coats that come out the door. there seem more immediate capitalistic issues to protest against...
but my friend and i were talking about the ethics of hunting. i know plenty of people who, although they hunt, do revere nature and follow practices based on the sacredness of nature and all her creatures. those who do not waste any part of the animal they take. those who do not believe in hunting as sport. etc. but so many of the points i have heard in support of hunting involve the idea of populations control. when there are too many deer, for example, deer starve because the food in an area is less than sufficient for a large population. if the population is not controlled, deer will appear even more frequently in human territories, threatening the tranquility of highways and backyards alike.
my response to this, usually only in my head, is that the only reason the environment cannot sustain a large population, of anything, is because people have restricted and depleated the parts of the ecosystem that would provide for the animals relying on it for sustenance. who invaded whose territory anyway? i don't know enough about this. and even if i did, the other (silent) issue seems to be that people are superior to animals, and therefore deserve first dibs on all that an environment has to offer.
i know i sound like some buddhist, tree-hugging, idealist. but there are many philosophies that entail an equal amount of respect for all nature's animals. the belief that humans are superior relates to both empirical and religious ideals. the empirical being that humans are "more intelligent;" the religious being that god gave adam (and therefore mankind) dominion over the animals (he named all the animals in the garden of eden, etc).
in response to the idea that people are more intelligent beings, i am forced to question (again, usually in my head) how human superiority is gauged. other mammals, reptiles, birds, arachnids, whatever--other animals--do not cause the grand-scale destruction that humans do. they do not engage in wars; they do not destroy environments (and when they do, you can almost bet on human interference--humans who have imposed an order unlike the...uh...natural one); they do not interfere with the ability for other species (of their OWN) to thrive.
and if people are so much more intelligent than other animals, how can we justify the mating rituals that influence so much of our behavior. we wear flashy clothing to attract a mate, reproduce, repeat. we go to clubs to meet potential mates (i'm sayin'--not all sex leads to procreation but the quest for sex, the mission to copulate is still strong among us). we carefully craft our own little nests. we form communities, cliques, groups that compete with other groups. our society takes survival of the fittest to the extreme on many levels; it's a dog eat dog world.
so if population control is one argument in support of hunting. then why fret over murder rates and death tolls and plagues? aren't they forms of population control in a world that is already struggling to support the population?
just what is the "natural balance?"
there are too many...internal contradictions in the arguments i've heard regarding the ethics of hunting. most do not approach the issue from the standpoint of taking life. immediately people turn to population--to statistics--to numbers that objectify the living, breathing things to which they are referring. the same way that statistics simplify, dehumanize the devastation of so many deaths.
and as i continue to consider my own beliefs regarding the value of life i have to wonder how many spiders, houseflies, mosquitos, raccoons, slugs, whatever i've killed (out of annoyance or fear !). and then, some people would point out, that plants too are living things that breathe and eat and grow like people do--so are they equally sacred forms of life?
native american belief systems (not all of them--i don't want to overgeneralize) follow the idea that nature provides what each form of life needs to survive, to thrive. indians did not over-hunt. they did not wipe out the buffalo. they were not responsible for endangering species. but they weren't vegetarian.
and it isn't as simple as saying that vegetarianism would solve any imbalance. the issue has too many levels, with centuries of socio-historical factors.
so usually, when people ask me about why i'm a vegetarian i bring up a few key points:
i don't enjoy the taste of most meats. the ones i do miss, i have found substitutes for that do not require the death of any animal and usually help out some soy farmer somewhere.
much of the meat produced by larger companies is not healthy for consumption.
the conditions in which many animals raised to be killed are terrible. how can people distinguish between the quality of life most cats and dogs enjoy (at least in our country) and the quality of life for so many chickens and calves.
the process of turning cattle into beef is inefficient; we could feed the world with the grains that are used to feed cows who only provide a fraction of the food for a fraction of the population.
and ultimately, just because i can drive a car, put sentences together and be much more selective about with whom and why i fornicate, doesn't mean that i am superior to othe animals who also have their own forms of communication, their own social orders (which they have maintained for how long?) and create their own small empires, as discreet as the networks of insects beneath the places we tread.
so.
live the life you want. but please don't try to convince me to eat a burger. i have my reasons and after thirteen years of being a vegetarian (i'll explain why not vegan another time), understand that my beliefs are the result of years of asking myself repeatedly WHY i have chosen to live this way, and finding more and more reasons (statistics, facts, etc) to support the choice i made and far outweigh the evidence that opposes it.
Comments
Post a Comment