Sometimes people ask me about my reasons for not eating meat. They start to talk about all the reason why humans are "supposed" to be meat eaters, or were built to be meat eaters, or they mention the real need for meat in order to be healthy. My reason is simple really.
I don't eat meat because I can live with out it. There are two reasons really.
The first is that I believe the only real way that we could ever all reach a truly joyful life, all of us together, would be if we were more compassionate. I think an primary step towards compassion is easily summed up in the adage, "Do unto others as you would have done to you", or "Don't do to others what you would not want done to you".
In a world where this is the way we begin our actions, most of us are not denied by any body else, the possibility of attaining our own happiness. Since the prime concern for most of us is being in the first place, not killing another is easily reasoned out. Since we can easily see in other beings the same efforts as ours to live then it is also to reason out including all life forms in this consideration.
This starts to bring up larger questions when applying it to our eating habits. If one includes all living beings, including plants in the scope of compassion then one could easily get to the idea that killing and eating a plant, being a vegetarian, might not be going far enough. One could then go on to the next level and decide to only eat the fruit and nuts and the different "leavings" of other living things that do not cause their death. This could come to include milk, and unfertilized eggs, seeds, leaves....
In truth, I don't have a real problem with one being eating another. It is the way our world works to a large part. But there are many beings who survive with out killing and eating others. Being human we seem to be able to adapt to many different ways of living. The practice of not killing in order to survive is a choice. In a world that is saturated with human violence, at a personal level, and at a national level, and if one considers how easily we cut down trees, and pollute habitats then on a species level as well, then the practice of not killing and causing the suffering of others seems a step in another direction.
The second reason is more selfish. I feel better, healthier for my choice. I have come to believe that my diet must change as I age, just as all other things must adjust to my older and decaying system. I look at the people around me and I see a host of ills that I do not suffer from. I cannot say definitively that it is due to my dietary choices but I believe that much of it is.
For as long as I have been eating the way I do and removed from my diet the meat of other animals I should by now be suffering some ill effects if they were to occur. I don't seem to be suffering at all. I work physically hard to cut the wood I need to heat my house thru the winter and doing all of the other work I do around here. I seem to be plenty strong enough. I don't feel that I have lost any intellectual capacity, but an outside observation would be more objective. I continue to learn new things and think critically and creatively, so I don't feel as though I have suffered any mental weakness as a result of my diet.
So, I try eat in a way that causes the least amount of suffering to other beings as possible, be they plant or animal and I do it because it is what I can do to try to be more compassionate to the other beings in our world, the way I would like to be treated.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Re-Wild, really?
I recently came across an article/advertisement for a show being done by the National Geographic Channel. The show is about "Re-widling", or leaving society and going out into the countryside, and what you will have to do to make it in the wild.
They list four essentials for survival:
1. food
2. water
3. shelter
4.protection
I think the show was called "Live free or Die" and is won of those challenge type of shows with competitors who are recorded and evaluated on how they do.
Ya, nothing changes much, it is the same old shite on the telly and that is why I don't watch it.
The thing I find worth discussing here is the way we humans continue to think of ourselves "outside of nature". Do we call a bee hive, or an ant hill, or a birds nest, unnatural and artificial structures, or do we call them part of the wild? How about when a spider uses his web to catch the wind to float from one place to another, or when a seed uses the wind to carry it a distance off from the tree or when a small fish hitches a ride on a larger fish, are these unnatural occurrence or part of the wild world?
We are just another life form on this planet of countless life forms. We all share the same requirements of environment to the degree that we all only exist on this planet. What we do is what is natural to us. NYC, London, or some remote village on the African continent, what happens in each of these places are examples of humans in the wild. This is our wild.
It is true that humans are different in to the degree that we create and seem dissatisfied with the state of things around us and manipulate the rest of the planet for our own benefit, and almost always at the cost of suffering of other people and other beings.
It might be more genuine to have a show that shows how most of the human animals do getting their four requirements. How many humans get food in a way that allows them to survive, healthfully and happily? Current medical statistics would indicate that an ever increasing number would be booted off the show because we are eating poisonous foods.
We are creating an ever increasing water scarcity and toxicity problem.
Homes are beyond the financial reach many and do little to actually protect us from things like flooding, tornados and hurricanes.
The last thing on the list, protection, is the most distressing. We are mostly in need of protection from other human beings, or, ourselves. The only time we hear of humans being "attacked" by other animals is when human beings put themselves into situations that allow for this. We play in waters were sharks thrive, or we domesticate animals and train them to be violent, and we wonder into the domain of large predators. We also open ourselves up to smaller threats like disease by our own voluntary actions, smoking and the resulting lung cancer for instance.
How many people do you know or suspect of having weapons to defend themselves against something other than other humans? Do you know of anybody who is worried about a bear coming down there street and breaking into their home. I can imagine it if you live in certain places, but most people don't worry over threats from anyone other than other humans. Our police and military are trained and focus on protecting us from each other, not from threats from other living things.
A much more prescient and informing and entertaining show might be to show how a few humans can take what all the information that is available to us now and then survive in a "wildlike" manner, or, in a manner more like most other living beings seem to. Most other living beings spend the better part of their time getting their food, locally and seasonally. Most stay within a certain range of a water source, and don't corrupt it. Most make their home or shelter in a manner that works with their surroundings and from local materials. Most other living creatures act in a way that protects them to a limited degree from predation, but almost none wage war against another.
Seeing humans living more like the rest of the living community, but using all that we know and have access to would be interesting, and a more reasonable thing for National Geographic to be investing their and our time in.
They list four essentials for survival:
1. food
2. water
3. shelter
4.protection
I think the show was called "Live free or Die" and is won of those challenge type of shows with competitors who are recorded and evaluated on how they do.
Ya, nothing changes much, it is the same old shite on the telly and that is why I don't watch it.
The thing I find worth discussing here is the way we humans continue to think of ourselves "outside of nature". Do we call a bee hive, or an ant hill, or a birds nest, unnatural and artificial structures, or do we call them part of the wild? How about when a spider uses his web to catch the wind to float from one place to another, or when a seed uses the wind to carry it a distance off from the tree or when a small fish hitches a ride on a larger fish, are these unnatural occurrence or part of the wild world?
We are just another life form on this planet of countless life forms. We all share the same requirements of environment to the degree that we all only exist on this planet. What we do is what is natural to us. NYC, London, or some remote village on the African continent, what happens in each of these places are examples of humans in the wild. This is our wild.
It is true that humans are different in to the degree that we create and seem dissatisfied with the state of things around us and manipulate the rest of the planet for our own benefit, and almost always at the cost of suffering of other people and other beings.
It might be more genuine to have a show that shows how most of the human animals do getting their four requirements. How many humans get food in a way that allows them to survive, healthfully and happily? Current medical statistics would indicate that an ever increasing number would be booted off the show because we are eating poisonous foods.
We are creating an ever increasing water scarcity and toxicity problem.
Homes are beyond the financial reach many and do little to actually protect us from things like flooding, tornados and hurricanes.
The last thing on the list, protection, is the most distressing. We are mostly in need of protection from other human beings, or, ourselves. The only time we hear of humans being "attacked" by other animals is when human beings put themselves into situations that allow for this. We play in waters were sharks thrive, or we domesticate animals and train them to be violent, and we wonder into the domain of large predators. We also open ourselves up to smaller threats like disease by our own voluntary actions, smoking and the resulting lung cancer for instance.
How many people do you know or suspect of having weapons to defend themselves against something other than other humans? Do you know of anybody who is worried about a bear coming down there street and breaking into their home. I can imagine it if you live in certain places, but most people don't worry over threats from anyone other than other humans. Our police and military are trained and focus on protecting us from each other, not from threats from other living things.
A much more prescient and informing and entertaining show might be to show how a few humans can take what all the information that is available to us now and then survive in a "wildlike" manner, or, in a manner more like most other living beings seem to. Most other living beings spend the better part of their time getting their food, locally and seasonally. Most stay within a certain range of a water source, and don't corrupt it. Most make their home or shelter in a manner that works with their surroundings and from local materials. Most other living creatures act in a way that protects them to a limited degree from predation, but almost none wage war against another.
Seeing humans living more like the rest of the living community, but using all that we know and have access to would be interesting, and a more reasonable thing for National Geographic to be investing their and our time in.
Monday, September 22, 2014
On Activism: "Don't Just do something, Stand there!"
What did the large corporations of energy companies see on their ledgers after Sunday, the day of the largest "Climate Change Protest" ever? Did they see slight increase in petrol and electricity profits from transportation to get the estimated over 300 thousand demonstrators to NYC? Did they see a spike in electricity use from social and regular media all tapped into the event? Did the restaurants of the city use more energy to feed all those people and sell them drinks? Did the buses and subways have an uptick in use for the day? Maybe every demonstrator in that march was actually from the island of manhattan, and they all walked or bicycled to the march. Maybe.
How can we expect the corporations who provide us with energy to change the way they provide that energy if we are not willing to stop buying it from them as they provide it to us now? How can these energy corporations take any demonstrations seriously when those very demonstrations use more of that energy, and the people in attendance are more and more reliant on any energy source they can find as they "plug in" more and more often and live more mobile lives?
I understand that many see the energy used to make an event like that happen as a necessary evil in order to "get the word out", or to make their voices heard. But I question the seriousness of those involved if all they want is for somebody else to change the way they live and work, while they go on ever increasing their own "quality of life" by advancing in the technological lifestyle everyday.
I am not saying that it is easy to accomplish a paradigm shift of an entire race and it's march towards what ever it is we are marching towards. But there is really not an easy way to accomplish the complete halt of industry and technology and population growth of the human race, is there? Isn't that what it is going to take to actually affect a change that will do anything? If all the information I have read about the state of things on our planet is even half right that is what we need to do. We need a paradigm shift away from the way we think about ourselves as a race.
No other species is creating waste that is beyond the capacity of the natural systems to assimilate. Most other species don't seem to need to create water treatment plants, sewer systems, land fills, nuclear waste sites, or create other means of conveyance like planes trains and automobiles. And yet, it is only our species that seems to be creating real and measurable troubles thru our inventions and use of these things.
If we were to remove human activity from the planet, as an intellectual exercise, do we think we would see the resource scarcity, the toxic pollution or the species extinction that we have with us here? I can't imagine it.
In light of these thoughts it seems naive to think that we can invent or create technologies that will get us out of the situations that threaten the quality of life, not just for our species, but for many others as well.
With the old phrase in mind that goes "Don't just do something, Stand there!" (apparently a director speaking to an extra upstage of the leading actors) Maybe we are doing more harm than good by our need to act.
What would a "Day of unplugging" do for the cause? The idea is that for a day, or any length of time that is chosen, people from all over the world, simultaneously did nothing. What if for that day nobody turned on a light, drove a car, or computer or cell phone, what would the energy corporations see on their ledgers for that day? I am sure we couldn't achieve a big fat zero, but we could, for a day, or however long, not feed the monster that threatens us. The willingness to actually sacrifice modern convenience by doing nothing that requires other than human energy, clean energy would show an intent in a way that a big party/parade in New York City on a Sunday afternoon doesn't quite achieve. It shows the ability to withhold from those large corporations the power that is our money. It shows unity. It shows a mature willingness to sacrifice. It sets a direction for what action is needed (or inaction) by those political groups and business groups and reinforces that message by withholding cash.
I honestly don't believe the conviction of all those people who attended that march was genuine. It makes me sad to think this, but it is honestly what I believe and I believe it because of what I see. In the same year we have a record breaking march to fight climate change we have a record high of CO2 emissions. As we march forward with our new Iphones in hand and we require more speed from them and more "apps", and as we drive to the march in our cars that are not getting any better gas mileage than a Honda civic from 1972, but have onboard computers and video cameras and........we all seem to be wanting our cake and to eat it too. It seems a bit childish and disingenuous.
Look up John Francis and find out about his life. He wrote a book called "Planet Walker" about giving up the use of any motorized transport after witnessing the oil spill from a tanker in San Francisco Bay. By not using a car he was able to actually travel the breadth of the continent, get a degree, and work to improve the standards by which oil tankers are used. Most people with modern computers, airplanes and cars couldn't achieve as much. He is an inspiration for what can be done in the microcosm of the self and the macro of the planet both at the same time.
Regardless of wether, or not, you believe that man made climate change is happening, it seems apparent and intelligent to realize the affect human activity has had on the biology/ecology of our planet. The exponential growth of our population over the past 100 (that's one longish lifetime) years is staggering. What is even more staggering is the exponential increase of the amount of energy we are using that comes from toxically polluting sources. And even more staggering and stupid, quite frankly, is the increase that we each support daily, of the use of petroleum products, i.e. plastics, in every conceivable application possible.
Back in the 16th and 17th centuries, somebody in England might have looked at the huge forests of oak and elm as they began cutting them down to build boats and burn as fuel and thought, "This will never end, there are so many trees." That sounds a lot like what many people say about fossil fuel, doesn't it?
We know our lifestyles corrupt our living space here on the planet. Think about England and coal. Think about 3 mile island or Chernobyl, or Fukushima. If you want you can think about NYC circa 1895, or anytime before the automobile, when the streets were layered with horse shit. All of these things pollute, oil, coal, animal/human waste, but there is a importance difference between them. Oil and coal and radioactive elements in even small concentrations are toxic to most life. The length of time in which they can be re-assimilated into the planet is so long that it makes them for all practical discussion poisonous. Animal waste on the other hand only becomes a hazard in high concentrations. If you doubt this then think about how much shit comes out of the back of an elephant, whale or bear and then think about how much that is NOT a problem for any of those species, or others, to deal with. The only reason our own human waste is a problem is because we don't know how to live with it, which is to say we live in very high concentrations and in one location. The only reason horse shit was a problem in the cities like New York or Paris or london was because we were putting so many horses in those places.
In Paris they came up with a great solution for the incredible amounts of horse shit. In the winter they collected and piled up the droppings and above the piles they made raised bed gardens to grow the vegetables. The heat that came off the decomposing shite allowed them to grow food all thru the winter and the compost fertilized the plants. Simple, smart, and even obvious really.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with trying to get a bit of help with the work we have to do to sustain us, but I think that there are more and less appropriate ways of getting that help. An example can be seen in the log splitter I have. It is a hydraulic ram that is powered by a person pumping a lever, like a car jack. This is absolutely technology in action, but it doesn't require constant energy from a toxic source. If you put a gas engine on that log splitter then you create a toxic pollution. You also deprive yourself of the physical experience of work and exercise and the intellectual knowledge of how much work it takes to keep your fireplace going.
It is a crazy culture that we have. We complain about the lack of jobs, but then work to create machines to do more jobs for us.? We get in a car to drive to a distant place to ride a bike or run for exercise.? We go on special diets and have operations when eating whole foods, mostly vegetables (thanks Michael Pollan) could fix most of our issues.
I am not trying to disparage the Climate March, I am just saying that it only makes sense if it is a small part of the steps people are truly willing to take, or the thoughts people are really willing to think, or the conversations people are really willing to be a part of or the sacrifices we are each willing to make in efforts to change our world for the better.
So, don't just do something, maybe just stand there. Consider the idea of a world wide "Just Stand there" day and the impact it could have, or even better, come up with a better idea.
How can we expect the corporations who provide us with energy to change the way they provide that energy if we are not willing to stop buying it from them as they provide it to us now? How can these energy corporations take any demonstrations seriously when those very demonstrations use more of that energy, and the people in attendance are more and more reliant on any energy source they can find as they "plug in" more and more often and live more mobile lives?
I understand that many see the energy used to make an event like that happen as a necessary evil in order to "get the word out", or to make their voices heard. But I question the seriousness of those involved if all they want is for somebody else to change the way they live and work, while they go on ever increasing their own "quality of life" by advancing in the technological lifestyle everyday.
I am not saying that it is easy to accomplish a paradigm shift of an entire race and it's march towards what ever it is we are marching towards. But there is really not an easy way to accomplish the complete halt of industry and technology and population growth of the human race, is there? Isn't that what it is going to take to actually affect a change that will do anything? If all the information I have read about the state of things on our planet is even half right that is what we need to do. We need a paradigm shift away from the way we think about ourselves as a race.
No other species is creating waste that is beyond the capacity of the natural systems to assimilate. Most other species don't seem to need to create water treatment plants, sewer systems, land fills, nuclear waste sites, or create other means of conveyance like planes trains and automobiles. And yet, it is only our species that seems to be creating real and measurable troubles thru our inventions and use of these things.
If we were to remove human activity from the planet, as an intellectual exercise, do we think we would see the resource scarcity, the toxic pollution or the species extinction that we have with us here? I can't imagine it.
In light of these thoughts it seems naive to think that we can invent or create technologies that will get us out of the situations that threaten the quality of life, not just for our species, but for many others as well.
With the old phrase in mind that goes "Don't just do something, Stand there!" (apparently a director speaking to an extra upstage of the leading actors) Maybe we are doing more harm than good by our need to act.
What would a "Day of unplugging" do for the cause? The idea is that for a day, or any length of time that is chosen, people from all over the world, simultaneously did nothing. What if for that day nobody turned on a light, drove a car, or computer or cell phone, what would the energy corporations see on their ledgers for that day? I am sure we couldn't achieve a big fat zero, but we could, for a day, or however long, not feed the monster that threatens us. The willingness to actually sacrifice modern convenience by doing nothing that requires other than human energy, clean energy would show an intent in a way that a big party/parade in New York City on a Sunday afternoon doesn't quite achieve. It shows the ability to withhold from those large corporations the power that is our money. It shows unity. It shows a mature willingness to sacrifice. It sets a direction for what action is needed (or inaction) by those political groups and business groups and reinforces that message by withholding cash.
I honestly don't believe the conviction of all those people who attended that march was genuine. It makes me sad to think this, but it is honestly what I believe and I believe it because of what I see. In the same year we have a record breaking march to fight climate change we have a record high of CO2 emissions. As we march forward with our new Iphones in hand and we require more speed from them and more "apps", and as we drive to the march in our cars that are not getting any better gas mileage than a Honda civic from 1972, but have onboard computers and video cameras and........we all seem to be wanting our cake and to eat it too. It seems a bit childish and disingenuous.
Look up John Francis and find out about his life. He wrote a book called "Planet Walker" about giving up the use of any motorized transport after witnessing the oil spill from a tanker in San Francisco Bay. By not using a car he was able to actually travel the breadth of the continent, get a degree, and work to improve the standards by which oil tankers are used. Most people with modern computers, airplanes and cars couldn't achieve as much. He is an inspiration for what can be done in the microcosm of the self and the macro of the planet both at the same time.
Regardless of wether, or not, you believe that man made climate change is happening, it seems apparent and intelligent to realize the affect human activity has had on the biology/ecology of our planet. The exponential growth of our population over the past 100 (that's one longish lifetime) years is staggering. What is even more staggering is the exponential increase of the amount of energy we are using that comes from toxically polluting sources. And even more staggering and stupid, quite frankly, is the increase that we each support daily, of the use of petroleum products, i.e. plastics, in every conceivable application possible.
Back in the 16th and 17th centuries, somebody in England might have looked at the huge forests of oak and elm as they began cutting them down to build boats and burn as fuel and thought, "This will never end, there are so many trees." That sounds a lot like what many people say about fossil fuel, doesn't it?
We know our lifestyles corrupt our living space here on the planet. Think about England and coal. Think about 3 mile island or Chernobyl, or Fukushima. If you want you can think about NYC circa 1895, or anytime before the automobile, when the streets were layered with horse shit. All of these things pollute, oil, coal, animal/human waste, but there is a importance difference between them. Oil and coal and radioactive elements in even small concentrations are toxic to most life. The length of time in which they can be re-assimilated into the planet is so long that it makes them for all practical discussion poisonous. Animal waste on the other hand only becomes a hazard in high concentrations. If you doubt this then think about how much shit comes out of the back of an elephant, whale or bear and then think about how much that is NOT a problem for any of those species, or others, to deal with. The only reason our own human waste is a problem is because we don't know how to live with it, which is to say we live in very high concentrations and in one location. The only reason horse shit was a problem in the cities like New York or Paris or london was because we were putting so many horses in those places.
In Paris they came up with a great solution for the incredible amounts of horse shit. In the winter they collected and piled up the droppings and above the piles they made raised bed gardens to grow the vegetables. The heat that came off the decomposing shite allowed them to grow food all thru the winter and the compost fertilized the plants. Simple, smart, and even obvious really.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with trying to get a bit of help with the work we have to do to sustain us, but I think that there are more and less appropriate ways of getting that help. An example can be seen in the log splitter I have. It is a hydraulic ram that is powered by a person pumping a lever, like a car jack. This is absolutely technology in action, but it doesn't require constant energy from a toxic source. If you put a gas engine on that log splitter then you create a toxic pollution. You also deprive yourself of the physical experience of work and exercise and the intellectual knowledge of how much work it takes to keep your fireplace going.
It is a crazy culture that we have. We complain about the lack of jobs, but then work to create machines to do more jobs for us.? We get in a car to drive to a distant place to ride a bike or run for exercise.? We go on special diets and have operations when eating whole foods, mostly vegetables (thanks Michael Pollan) could fix most of our issues.
I am not trying to disparage the Climate March, I am just saying that it only makes sense if it is a small part of the steps people are truly willing to take, or the thoughts people are really willing to think, or the conversations people are really willing to be a part of or the sacrifices we are each willing to make in efforts to change our world for the better.
So, don't just do something, maybe just stand there. Consider the idea of a world wide "Just Stand there" day and the impact it could have, or even better, come up with a better idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)