true, true. i realized that i was answering too many people in one post, shortly after sending, but i ran out of quota before i could send a correction to my post. my bad.
> nor is
>> geography (w.r.t
>> carrol's point about the land). but if we must: our
>> nearest relatives,
>> chimpanzees, are mostly vegetarian (except for some
>> bugs and the
>> occasional monkey hunt). some biologists and
>> anthropologists have
>> theorized that humans were much more gatherers (the
>> women doing the
>> gathering which served as the primary source of
>> food) than hunters (with
>> the men occasionally hunting something down which
>> was quickly consumed
>> by them in various ritualistic forms).
>
> I don't believe it,...
>
why is it unbelievable? chimpanzee behaviour is quite well documented, yes? w.r.t hunting vs gathering, there are peer reviewed publications on that matter... should i hunt up links?
> and I did note that much of the
> contemporary world is involuntarily vegetarian. Be
> that as it may. We could be today if we cared to, and
> could be safely if we were careful. Should we be?
> That's a a hard question. I am familiar with Peter
> Singer's argument's arguments (for example).
the counter arguments to singer's position are with regard to the philosophical issues of species discrimination and animal rights. bernard williams or any of the other serious critics (as opposed to the anti-PETA idiots with their bumper stickers), AFAIK, have not written anything to contradict singer and others' voluminuous documentation of animal abuse. as i noted that in itself should provide motivation for a vegetarian diet. whether such a diet is sufficient: generations of [some segments of] indians have lived healthy lives, without any stunting of growth, and without any conscious need to pick and choose foods, on a vegetarian diet. protein is available through various means other than meat and whether meat protein in particular is necessary is afaik as controversial as the idea that animal protein is in fact less preferable to other sources.
> But this
> is not a left-right issue as far as I can see. Hitler
> was a vegetarian. Marx was not. What does that tell
> you? Nothimg, I think.
exactly i.e., looking at marx and hitler doesnt tell me anything. i am not saying being a vegetarian is a sufficient condition for being a leftist. and i have expressed my doubt that my idea of a leftist (a humanist, for want of a better word) is probably not shared by most western leftists. additionally, it remains to be shown (by me) that a "humanist" position leads to endorsement of animal rights (hence my various references to articles of faith, etc). but having said all that, i do think that it should be a necessary condition that a leftist to feel some empathy when confronted by the ugliness of large scale animal farming. that last statement needs a bit of righteousness knocked out of it...
> Don't blame factory farming on technology -- it is a
> matter of markets in general and capitalism in
> particular. Animinal farming itself needn't be
> horrible. Animals on Amish farms (for example) do not
> live bad lives.
of course technology is not a conscious agent. no machine decides that it wants to grow up and crush living newborn male chicks... but your own contrasting the factory against the committedly luddite amish methodology shows how technology is often a part of what enables humans to do what they do.
> Do you think it is OK to eat fish?
i think it is OK for you (i.e., others) to eat fish or any other meat, as long as you either hunt it or at least ensure it was procured with the least cruelty. w.r.t the particular reason you mention fish (that it is subject to lesser cruelty than pigs or cows or chicken), yes, i think it is better/ok to eat fish (singer differs). [for myself, i set a higher bar, but that is because i am fortunate to never have eaten meat, at least knowingly, ever in my life]
--ravi