Monday, November 27, 2006

Vegetarianism

I am told it is a tradition. Somehow the news of Bush releasing 2 thanksgiving turkeys the day before Thanksgiving makes me really sad. Not for the fact that the turkeys can now live, but for the fact that when sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner the next day, you can visualise that it is remarkably similar to the birds that took flight yesterday.

I try to rationalize that when people are served processed meat, they are not thinking about the animal in question. Fair enough: how often do we think of the condition of the cows when drinking milk? Had we lived on the farm, and Bessie the cow was not feeling well, or wanted a walk instead of giving milk, we might have let Bessie out on the pastures before approaching her when she feels like giving milk. In the store, there is just reduced fat, lowfat and whole milk. Bessie might have been sleeping when the milk was taken from her - but, we don't know that, and that absolves us of waking a cow deep in slumber.

So now my question comes back to relating the animal to the meat on the table. Do people do that, and when they do, does it trouble them or not? I am just trying to think of the meat-eating thought process here. Any insights are welcome. My vegetarianism from birth has endowed me with only 1 view.

15 comments:

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

I think it is an ethically relative question. Considering your own example, what if someone asks you how you feel about drinking milk given the plethora of conditions the cows go through. I am sure one will feel bad about that thought, but that doesnt stop one from drinking milk, isnt it? If there are questions about the alternatives, I am sure there are and people can get around to not drinking milk. But, will we? Its not that non-vegetarians dont feel bad about an animal being killed. I think they just dont think about it when they eat..:)...

Consider these scenarios... I read that more animals are killed in the process of growing crops than the sum of all animals killed for food... I am not sure if the statistics is correct. But, it does bring about an interesting point. Also, people wearing silk sarees will be well aware that a lot of insects are being killed in the process. Another case is, let us say one's life can be saved if they ate a certain type of meat. Will they still stick to their principles? Where does this ethical question end? How do we draw the line? It is pretty vague and it is upto each individual on where they want to fix their threshold... Let us not forget that a lot of restaurants here in US mix meat/chicken broths in food...

Personally, if something tastes good and is good for health and if I dont directly kill the animal, I wouldnt mind eating one...

Manohar said...

I tend to agree with mindframes. If everybody was a vegetarian- the land allocated for growing food for humans is land taken away from animals for their food, which in turn kills them. So I think killing animals or animals getting killed is atleast for me not the real question- that is a law of nature.

On the other hand, making animals suffer before killing them is a different thing. Whether one is a vegetarian (for animal related products like milk,eggs,articles of clothing) or non-vegetarian, I think the real problem is mass produced animal farming. While I know this is a problem I don't really see a solution other than a few grass roots movements that spurt here and there and I am not sure about their scalability- only time will tell.

Manohar said...

@Saumya: There is a question of perspectieve... from you post it sounds like drinking milk from a cow at worst a matter of taking the milk from an unwilling cow, while eating turkey is similar to slaughter.

In reality, the cows live like sardines in sheds lit by dim flourescent lights (they never see the light of day), in spaces that hardly give them an inch to budge (more cows=more milk/acre). Milked by machines that don't care if the milking process rips up a bit of nipples with it. Cows fed with corn (cheaper) that bloats their stomachs and fed antibiotics all the time because they are inevitable always terribly sick from the conditions and food they eat (remember the origin of the mad cow disease). Their calves seperated from them at birth and the males raised for veal in places that don't allow them to move so the meat is soft and the ladies raised for a bright future in the same glorious dairy industry.

Now tell me, is this going to stop you and me from drinking milk or eggs (eggs or a whole different story - and the details available through our favorite search engine- google)?

Survivor said...

I tend to agree with Mano and Mindframes.As the saying goes,"I didnot fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian" I think we should be eating animals to maintain eco balance and that is just law of nature. Being a vegetarian should be a preference.And it is the suffering part that breaks my heart..anyway,do we ever think twice about killing roaches, spiders,ants etc....thats way of life..

Manohar said...

@survivor: adding to what you said...
We don't feel bad for the plants we pluck food from and thats because they are not like us- they don't resemble our species (animals/us/etc) so we don't care for their pain. Some may argue that they don't have a nervous system and don't feel pain., but all that proves is that they don't feel pain in a way we do- but they must feel some sort of discomfort (for lack of a better term) as proven by Bose.

nourish-n-cherish said...

I agree with all of you - what I was trying to refer to also matches what you are saying: we are not in direct contact, and therefore does not affect us. That's what I was trying to say with the cow example.

bumblebee said...

One thing I have always been curious about is the origin of vegetarianism. We have a number of vegetarians in India, but that's not the same everywhere. I don't know of any other country with a large vegetarian population. Any one done any research on vegetarianism and culture?

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

Vegetarian monkeys..:)

I have a feeling that vegetarianism must have been followed by ancient people with sedentary lifestyle. Compare the effort needed to eat stuff out of trees and plants versus making a weapon and chase an animal, kill it and cook it...Which one requires more strategy and effort?

BrainWaves said...

I have lot of questions typed but deleted. But this question summarizes them. According to me, this is a paradox.

If "Law of nature" is survival of the fittest. Why do you we empathize with (innocent) people killed because of bombing, poverty etc.?

Should we only worry about people who are hurt (slavery, under poverty) and not who are killed?

I know, I am talking about different species. But people who kill, hurt directly, think others as "different/sub-standard" species not same.

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

I agree... They are all the same...

We (majority of people) empathize at different levels for a lot of things, not necessarily limited to killing,slavery, poverty etc., Very few people attempt to do something about it. I think, empathy is more like a physical/chemical property of humans... It makes them acceptable and be part of the community. I dont think it has any deeper meaning...

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

To give a positive spin on my comment on vegetarianism...

I think Indians wanted to find a better way to spend their time (science, math, etc.,) than in killing animals... As we know very well, killing animals not only makes them extinct but also, as population grows, it becomes non-scalable. So, I think they figured that growing more vegetables and grains is a more scalable solution for the food demand...

Manohar said...

@brainwaves/mindframes:

I think empathy is also specific to pack species. If as a whole you survive you improve the chances of individual survival...so empathy could be a instinctive survival mechanism too. But add intelligence to the equation and not everything is about survival of the fittest.. empathy takes on new flavours and you empathise for not just your pack but for anything.

bumblebee said...

I don't think vegetarians can lead a lazy lifestyle. You can't always find edible food hanging on a tree. Agriculture needs many skills and natural resources such as fertile soil, water to irrigate and the know how to cultivate. Hunting on the other hand was more primitive. Just a sharp stone (weapon) and running and hiding skills are sufficient.

Here's some material for those interested:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074954/vegetarianism

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

I agree that agriculture needs many skills..I was talking about the beginning of time where people fed on fruits and vegetables from trees/plants (without having to really cultivate anything)...

sdpal said...

if you think about all that, you wont be able to eat or drink anything.