If one prefers to not eat meat, whatever; go for it. In the same way another may not like onions, broccoli or brussels sprouts and refuse to eat them, I can condone the refusal of a food no matter how grieved I may be at the closed-mindedness or the way in which said person is missing out on life. But, if one espouses compassion for animals as a reason not to eat meat, I get annoyed.
I mean, if one is going to rally with extreme measures for animals that he or she doesn't eat, I would think it fitting to do acts that are productive and not passive. Acts that, by virtue of their inherent soundness, are proselytory due to there superior nature. Look, if you want to help Mr. cow, expand the market of meat produced by farmers who care for their animals and who farm with compassion, respect, and ecological healing in mind and deed. Eating meat can be one of the most helpful things one can do for animals on a large scale. Trying to opt out of a system that is impacted by choice, (passivity) is actually quite a significant choice. Refusing to eat meat means that all food dollars, for that person, will go to non-animal agricultural products, most of which, are now produced in ways that negatively impact the ecology to such degree that animals, even if not eaten by humans, would suffer as a result. Not to mention that eating non meat products exclusively puts us, more directly, in competition with those animals that such a person would be endeavoring to help.
Many think that the ecology left untouched by humans leads to a kind of pristine-nature-intended-perfection. We have no evidence of that. What we have been able to observe is that nature at her best, thrives when cultivated by responsible caring humans.
One who truly cares, is proactive, not passive. One who truly cares, eats conscientiously and with a mind bent toward sacredity in such a way that he or she is mindful that life sacrificed responsibly and with gratitude promotes the furtherance of more life. Such a caring person is strategic and tactically spends his or her money so as to promote compassion for the animals.
I mean, if one is going to rally with extreme measures for animals that he or she doesn't eat, I would think it fitting to do acts that are productive and not passive. Acts that, by virtue of their inherent soundness, are proselytory due to there superior nature. Look, if you want to help Mr. cow, expand the market of meat produced by farmers who care for their animals and who farm with compassion, respect, and ecological healing in mind and deed. Eating meat can be one of the most helpful things one can do for animals on a large scale. Trying to opt out of a system that is impacted by choice, (passivity) is actually quite a significant choice. Refusing to eat meat means that all food dollars, for that person, will go to non-animal agricultural products, most of which, are now produced in ways that negatively impact the ecology to such degree that animals, even if not eaten by humans, would suffer as a result. Not to mention that eating non meat products exclusively puts us, more directly, in competition with those animals that such a person would be endeavoring to help.
Many think that the ecology left untouched by humans leads to a kind of pristine-nature-intended-perfection. We have no evidence of that. What we have been able to observe is that nature at her best, thrives when cultivated by responsible caring humans.
One who truly cares, is proactive, not passive. One who truly cares, eats conscientiously and with a mind bent toward sacredity in such a way that he or she is mindful that life sacrificed responsibly and with gratitude promotes the furtherance of more life. Such a caring person is strategic and tactically spends his or her money so as to promote compassion for the animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment