First of all, thanks for your reply.I think you miss my point. Nature, by definition, is horribly
cruel. I am not suggesting that humans "follow" nature blindly,
and adopt the same cruelty that it demands for the transfer
of energy from one living being to another.
But it is obviously unrealistic to expect humans, who
have the same DNA as every other living being, to be
substantially different. I still like the taste of
meat although I have not had any for many years.
This might be due to by upbringing, when I had it
often. At that time I obviously didn't know how
dangerous it is. I simply will not have any now
because I don't particularly want to poison myself.
It is an entirely rational decision.
But I don't "judge" others for eating meat or using
leather products. Since nature is horribly cruel, I
don't see why their slight "added" cruelty will make
any real difference, an obviously atheist stance.
I think it is simply foolish for humans to consume
any but very small quantities of meat--and if I
were in England, I think it would be insane.
Like you, I agree that there are so many reasons to
avoid meat that have nothing to do with so-called
"religious" or moral interpretations--that it is
an extremely easy argument to make.
But I will not carry signs decrying the evil nature
of meat eating, or protest McDonalds. I cannot tolerate
the "smell" of the place and avoid it like the plague. If
others want to subject their physiology to a 40% fat diet
it is their choice...but I don't want to pay for their
cardiac surgeries or subsidize their health insurance
for their crummy choices. That also is a rational stance.
Mike Rosenblatt
None.
