I got back from Texas two days ago fully reminded of what I consider the biggest flaw with the laws of Kashrut (the kosher laws in Judaism). Jewish dietary law concerns itself to a very large extend with restrictions about what meat can be consumed and how it should be killed / prepared. The intent of many of these laws is to keep sacred the life and death of an animal. The process of killing an animal must be careful and under strict supervision to assure that the animal's death is according to ritual.
I wholly agree with the principle that an animal's life is sacred and that if it must be killed for food and clothing, then its death should be sacred as well. So in that way I agree with the laws of Kashrut. However two contractions in the kosher laws have become apparent to me recently: The horrible treatment of animals and humans by the Rubashnik's; and the fact that hunting is not kosher.
To first address the question of hunting, I must include some person experience. I have visited my girlfriend's family in Texas twice and both times I have had extensive discussions about hunting with her father, an avid hunter. He has not (save at family occasions) eaten bought food for the last thirty years (basically since returning from his air-force service overseas). He grew up in North Dakota hunting for food and has been doing it ever since. Every year he kills about two or three deer, as well as a few scores of birds, and an occasional wild hog. This constitutes all of the meat he eats. He is an excellent shot, and on the rare occasion that his bullet does not immediately kill the target animal, he tirelessly hunts down the dieing animal and finishes it off. An animal which has been wounded like that has meat which is rendered rather distasteful by stress hormones, yet he will still butcher and eat that animal because it is not fair to waste its meat.
I have a great deal of respect for this try of subsistence hunting. An animal which he kills lives its entire life free, roaming the hills near his ranch. Then, when fully grown, it is killed in a swift manner, and immediately butchered (see photo).
The meat is free from antibiotics and very low in fat. In fact, animals in the wild tend not to have any fat within the muscles (they have it between and around muscles) as opposed to farmed animals. On my most recent visit I was offered the opportunity to consume some of the hunted deer, as well as to go hunting. I declined both offers, though reluctantly, because of issues of Kashrut.
The argument often made in Judaism against hunting is that because the death of an animal is sacred, one should not take sport in killing it, such as with hunting. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the only hunters in the bible are characters such as Esau and Nimrod, both rather unsavory. From a technical stand point kosher hunting is impossible simply because you must kill an animal in a very particular manner (slit its throat), which can not be done with a wild animal such as a deer.
I can accept the historic prohibition against hunting, since I imagine that methods of hunting used to be much more brutal thousands of years ago. I do not imagine, though, that many people engaged in sport hunting at the time of Moses. In fact, aside from food and clothing, animals were widely used for sacrifice. So perhaps, like many other laws in Judaism, the laws about animal slaughter were to make sure that methods of killing were distinct from those of non-Jewish sacrifice.
Times change and guns get better. I have fired very few guns, but with the help of an excellently calibrated rifle and a high powered scope, I was able to hit the bulls-eye on a target 50 yards away a number of times.
Therefore, if I want to sanctify the life and death of an animal, how better to do that than to hunt it? Of course you must take great care in being extremely prepared in killing and butchering the animal (if you rupture the stomach of a deer while eviscerating it, the HCl in the stomach renders much of the meat unpalatable), plus you must make complete use of its meat and hide.
Its true that allowing Jews to hunt would not create the artificial separation between Jews and non-Jewish ways, and would do away with some of the ritual aspects to kosher killing. However, my second topic really makes you wonder if that is such a bad thing. About a year ago news broke about certain practices going on at the Pottsville Iowa factories of Aaron Rubashnik's eponymous line of meat produces. More has come out since then and as things stand, the major practices which have been exposed are: Inhumane (and in some cases unkosher) treatment of animals; illegal and abusive worker practices; and an overall high level of complacency by Jewish authorities in the Rubashnik practices.
To see some of the kosher practices just go to youtube.com and search for "agriprocessor slaughterhouse". Watching a few of the videos really makes you wonder whether there is anything at all to the claim that kosher killing, in practice, is about sanctifying the animal's life and death. These animals live in feedlots, are fed corn rather than grass (as they evolved to eat) and become grossly overweight to the point that they have difficulty moving freely. When it comes time for their slaughtering, they are brutally flipped upside down by a machine and then their throat is cut. The machine then lets their body roll out onto the ground into pools of blood from that animal as well as other previously slaughtered animals.
Many of the workers at the Agripro slaughterhouse were mistreated plus many workers were illegally working in the US and others were to young to legally work at a slaughterhouse. Lastly, all of the religious authorities responsible for oversight of this plant were blind to the practices which were going on within.
I will not get into the ethical issues which this case brings up (my uncle spoke about this a week ago to the Society for Jewish Ethics), however I really can not see any legitimacy left in the actual practical application of the Jew laws of Kashrut with respect to killing animals. How can you claim to sanctify an animal's life and death if you deprive it of its freedom, its natural nourishment, and then you kill it in an manner which anything less than the most humane method? Moreover, how can you trust an establishment to certify your meat as kosher, if is was so ready and willing to turn a blind eye to practices occurring at the Agripro plant?
It seems like hunting, and if that is not possible, free range slaughtering, is the only real way to observe the spirit of Kashrut. It is true that meat killed in this manner would be harder to come by and more expensive. However if you really want to sanctify an animal's life and death, you should probably just let it occur naturally --- that is, don't eat meat.
As I've been considering these ideas I have progressively cutback on my consumption of meat and poultry. I eat red meat about once every three months, and chicken or turkey maybe once every week or two. I am not ready to give up animal flesh entirely. Still, I would much prefer to be eating hunted meat on those occasions that I do consume it. I would know that the animal had a better life and death than the kosher steak I could otherwise buy.
23 comments:
My belief is that the way to sanctify an animal's life is to allow it to live....
You say: "life is sacred and that if it must be killed for food and clothing, then its death should be sacred as well". But indeed we can thrive on a plant based diet as millions of people do - so there is no "must" in the killing of innocent animals.
It's wonderful that you have reduced your consumption of meat -
As I'm sure you know, these animals in factory farms suffer greatly - as do the animals during transport and before slaughter...
I admire your attempt at keeping with your religious beliefs - people who value ethics have become rare these days, it seems.
May I suggest a web site that further explores a holy vegan approach to dietary needs called "A Sacred Duty?
http://www.jewishveg.com/asacredduty/
I hope it enlightens your path -
Very interesting post. I am not Jewish, but I've been aware that there are very few Jewish hunters and you've really helped explain why.
It is a very serious issue, how an animal dies.
I hunt. It's important for me to take personal responsibility for the deaths that nourish my body. And at a very instinctive level, I enjoy hunting - not the kill, which is always somber and sad, but the entire process of interacting with nature as man has for millenia (or in my case, woman).
With very rare exceptions - and I would call these exceptions psychopathic outliers - all hunters strive for a quick, painless kill. But that is much easier said than done. With big game animals, even the best shots (lung shots) usually take a minute or two to cause death. With birds - I primarily hunt ducks who speed by at 35 mph - most people really can't be assured of an instant kill because of the extreme variables.
This is an uncomfortable thing for all thinking hunters. But it's our tradeoff. I know that farm animals can be dispatched instantly, and done right, without causing them stress, and that is a fantastic ideal for omnivores.
But the downside is they live lives in captivity, often deformed (de-beaked, etc.) to prevent injuries during life, and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics that help them withstand the unnatural lifestyle.
So which is worse?
Some, probably your first commenter, would say both are unacceptable and people shouldn't eat animals. I very much respect the choices of people who think about their food and act according to their values.
But I've thought about my food a lot too, and I am comfortable with my omnivorous nature, and I have really come to terms with what it means. I understand my body needs meat, and that in fact, our very humanness was built on a diet that included animal proteins. And I understand that in nature, there is absolutely no escaping this: Life sustains life.
I think if Jewish law requires animals' throats to be slit, then observant Jews have no choice but to eat farmed animals, if they choose to eat meat. Within that context, though, I still think you can make choices to eat animals that have natural diets (i.e., pasture, some grains, and in the case of birds, also insects), no hormones or steroids, and decent treatment, both in life, and in a death carried out in accordance with Jewish law.
It makes me sad, though, that an observant Jew cannot hunt, because it is a humbling and amazing experience that imbues you with love and reverence for animals (as counterintuitive as that may seem).
And it makes you appreciate the meat on your plate - the sacrifice of a life, and the work required to get it. There are some ducks I've eaten that were the only thing I came home with that day, after driving 180 miles, paying fees to hunt public lands and stocking up on ammunition that is expensive ($2.40 every time I pull the trigger), and whose taxes actually support the purchase and maintenance of habitat. It is humbling, more than grocery shopping could ever be. But I believe I pay the true costs of eating meat - I am never allowed to take it for granted, or to think it is cheap.
Thanks for letting me blather on. I very much appreciated your post.
Hello NorCal - I too like to "hunt" - I love interacting with nature and the living souls in it - But I do mine with a camera which is probably just as challenging if not more so...
You say however, that your body "needs meat" - I was wondering if you have any specific health issues as it's clear that millions of us (vegetarians and vegans) do not "need" meat?
Also... Your use of the word "sacrifice" is a bit confusing. The animal did not "sacrifice" it's life for you -it was taken from him... And you "benefited" from this - so where is the "sacrifice"? I do have a hard time with substituting some words for others - such as "harvesting" animals, sending animals to be "processed" - they all mean killing - I don't know why the hesitancy to use the most direct and accurate language?
And certainly you are right about the cost of hunting. I'm often amused by hunters who say "I'm putting meat on the table" - calculating their costs... sometimes the "meat" is $50/pound -You can buy a lot of (compassionate) plant based protein with that, as I'm sure you know.
Bea -
I'm a photographer, and I can tell you that hunting with a gun is much more challenging than hunting with a camera (though a good lens costs way more than a good gun). And the interaction is not the same. I don't watch; I participate in a predator-prey interaction. Big, big difference. But don't worry, I'm not urging you to pick up a gun - enjoy nature however you want.
My use of the word "sacrifice" should not be confusing - it has long been used in reference to acts both willing and unwilling. For example, most would argue that animals used in ritual sacrifice didn't volunteer for duty.
Conventionally farmed animal and vegetable diets come at a much higher cost than heavily subsidized grocery store price tags would indicate. Are you aware of how much habitat has been destroyed by vast fields of soybeans and every other vegetable matter we have farmed? I am. And I'm sure you've heard before that many animals are killed in plant farming, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Finally, thank you so much for inquiring about my health. Yes, I could replace essential meat-derived nutrients with vitamin B12 and other supplements, but I have found that acquiring nutrients from the most natural sources is best, because isolated elements don't provide everything we need. Since switching to a diet in which most of my plant food is organic and most of my meat has come from wild game, I have become much healthier. I think much of the criticism of meat in diet would be more appropriately aimed at factory-farmed meat that is lower in natural nutrients, higher in pollutants and higher in bad fats. Wild game is much better for you.
As I said, I respect vegetarians and vegans who've looked at their options, made choices, and lived by them. I have done the same, and I have chosen to be what I am, and what my ancestors have been for millenia: an omnivore. Fortunately, my vegetarian friends appreciate the thought that went into my choice and the manner in which I carry out my decision to eat meat. I guess theirs is not an evangelical sect of vegetarianism, for which I'm grateful.
And while it is great fun for hunters and vegetarians to try to pick apart each other's arguments, rhetoric and data, it seems to me a fool's errand. You're not going to start eating meat because I tell you little mice are killed in soybean fields, and I'm not going to stop eating meat because you tell me photography is satisfying.
The people both of us should be focused on are the ones who eat meat without a thought to what it means to be a meat eater. They offend me as much as I'm sure they offend you. But they can be convinced to think about it, and I'm sure you can win over some of them.
But me? There is no rhetorical gotcha that's going to change my mind when I have made given it this much thought.
You know, only within the last 50-75 years in our society have humans had the luxury not to eat meat. It is an expensive source of calories, and throughout our 200,000 year existence we haven't been able to afford not to eat it. Meat was essential for human development--because it wasn't necessary that we grind and process plants all day like many other animals must do, we could spend our time on other things--eventually a society so plentiful that it could afford to demonize meat-eating. Perhaps you should recognize, Bea Elliot, and feel very lucky that the only reason you can cultivate such a lofty morality regarding this is because you live in the United States in 2009. There is nothing wrong with eating meat so long as you treat the animal with dignity and kill it in a respectable manner.
Sorry, I just commented as anon.--I hope my comment wasn't offensive.
I think the comments have been really interesting so far. I agree with NorCal's point that, from a pragmatic perspective, our best efforts are spent getting people to evaluate, for themselves, the worth of eating processed/farmed meat --- that is, making people face the facts and realities. Some might easily come to terms with these facts, while others might become more invested in seeking alternatives.
In talking to my dad about these issues, we decided to check out a kosher deer farm located in upstate new york. The deer are free range and natural-feed, free from antibiotics and the likes. While I find these type of animal facilities much more desirable, there is still the difficulty that it is not a method for meat production which could sufficiently serve the world's population. The amount of land is greater and the yield is smaller. The methods of farm raised meat were developed to deal with the constraints of space and the high demand for meat. So while I agree that it is better for an individual to hunt, I must admit that I do not think that is a tenable solution to the question of how to provide all of the world with meat. That solution really requires a decrease, on the whole, in the amount of consumption.
To respond to anon's comment, I appreciate the argument you are making. You (and NorCal) both argue that eating meat is a very natural thing for humans. In fact, you argue that meat allowed humans to develop and succeed, so as to become the dominant species. I agree with this point. What I struggle with is the claim that people make that because meat was pivotal in our evolution, it should continue to be pivotal in our life. It is true that meat carries a blast of nutrients, and when we were developing, that was very beneficial (it freed up time to create societies). Now we have other, not previously available, means to get our nutrients. Why should we continue to eat as much meat if there are many negative side effects which have only recently developed to eating meat. These side effects are not just to our environment and to our treatment of animals, but also to our health (mostly in the case of fatty farm meat).
I see a parallel in the idea of over-eating. It was advantageous for our ancestors to over-eat --- after all they did not know when their next period of glut would be. Over-eating and the conversion of excess food into fat allows for any animal's success in the wild. In our present situation, over-eating has lost this purpose (to many). Now those who over-eat never experience times without food, and they become obese and unhealthy. What was to their benefit during evolution is now to their detriment.
I'm not claiming meat eating is necessarily to our detriment, however the above example shows that the outlined evolutionary argument for eating meat is (in my opinion) not that strong.
Hi NorCal - yes, I am aware of the many lives lost in harvesting grains & veggies - which makes the casualties that much greater when such grains/veg are fed to animals - About the B12 it's been my understanding that most of us have a decade (or more) in reserve - I've not eaten flesh in over 6 years, am healthy as can be with no "supplements" of any kind... I suppose I might take some in the future, but for now I get all of what I need through food.
And I wouldn't be so very certain that logical arguments don't "convert" rational thinking, sometimes 180 degrees - I know from personal experience... and can add Howard Lyman (former millionaire cattleman turned vegan), http://www.madcowboy.com/ and Harold Brown (once a farmer now vegan), http://www.tribeofheart.org/ and thousands of others who make connections and changed accordingly... It's a safe bet to say 99% of us vegetarians and vegans once ate meat - *something* changed us... Not looking to do that here (although it would be wonderful) - just saying that talking about the subject does open one's perspective...
And anon - I agree with you that once, meat "was" essential - My conclusions though, due to expanding populations, climate changes and burdens placed on the earth (and animals) that it's time to progress beyond the needs of our cave-dwelling ancestors. Technologically speaking - we are at that point to do so. But your idea of what "respectable" treatment is to an animal is totally different than mine.
SP31415 - You've got some wonderful points to which I agree. I came across something the other day that said that the U.S. has doubled it's meat consumption in the last 40 years - not so amazing that obesity, heart disease and diabetese is also up accordingly. I think the key is to be mindful - unfortunately, the more we progress technologically, the more widgets and gadgets keep us from "thinking" at all... let alone about the inconvient truth about bacon. - I know.
And speaking of the side affects to the environment - Scientific America just released this eye opening report: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
It's quite an alarming future should we continue on this path...
And finally, this from Audubon magazine last month:
"Some folks, I realize, have a deep-down, gut-level (so to speak) reaction to vegetarianism as “unnatural.” We humans have canine teeth, after all. We evolved to include meat in our diets. To abandon such food is to break thousands of years of tradition and, in some cases, ritual behavior bordering on the sacred.
All true. But we also evolved as people who defecated indiscriminately in the woods and who didn’t brush our teeth. Somehow we’ve moved to a higher level on those counts. Now, with potentially catastrophic climate change hovering around the corner and with our briskets and London broil helping to drive the process, it’s time to evolve some more."
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html
Thanks for the lively conversation... It's always good to learn new things :)
Oh, SP31415, I agree 100 percent that hunting as a sole source of meat would not be at all sustainable for a human population this large. I'm actually a big fan of sustainable farming, and hope to start a farm with some pastured animals, possibly goats or chickens. It is possible to raise animals humanely and naturally - you just don't get profits (or meat) that are as fat as they are with factory-farmed animals.
What I don't know is what it would take to convert all meat farming to sustainable/natural/humane practices. It would be a massive retooling. I think it took us about 40 years to get from a better form of animal husbandry to this dismal state; perhaps it would take 40 years (or a really deadly plague or other apocolyptic force) to get us to change back. Knowing human nature, I'd put my money on the latter.
And Bea, it sounds like we definitely all agree that we'd like people to be more thoughtful about their decisions, and that lowering meat consumption (which I have done, since I began hunting) would be a good thing overall.
And interesting, the quote about vegetarianism being "unnatural." While it's not my cup of tea, I know many people who just find animal flesh distasteful, and for them vegetarianism seems such an obvious choice - pushing them to eat meat would be cruel. It's just that for me, it is a choice, and I really dislike being pushed or being called evil (not that you did that) for making the choice I've made. I have the same reaction to that that I have when the door-knockers come my way telling me that I'm bound for hell if I don't join their cult. (Proxy baptism, anyone?)
And I know plenty of avowed meat eaters - including hunters - convert, just reaching a point where they not only stop pulling the trigger, but stop eating the meat. That's fine. But I just started hunting two years ago, and you don't convert to one lifestyle at 41 and then do a 180 two years later. At least I don't. I didn't make this decision that lightly.
Thanks, My Kitchen Tale, for hosting this discussion!
Yes, I totally know what you mean about dogmatic positions and religious zealots who base thier ideology and actions on "God's" word, or "the bible" - I always have to wonder - who's bible? whose god? as many different teaching dictate different positions - especially regarding the treatment of animals.
And while I know there are "choices" between "tea & coffee", red cars or blue... somehow, when it comes to the treatment (and killing) of animals it's understandable how some may attempt to defend "beings" being perceived as "things" and used as commodities. Particularly if their belief is that their god or bible, (or ethics) call upon them to protect the helpless.
I'm sorry you find such people so annoying in their efforts. But I'm certain that as long as there are hunters (and other forms of violence), there will be those (atheists and theists alike) compelled to aid; always being more vocal, than welcome I'm sure.
I rescued a small flock of hens from a factory egg farm... Of couse, they're pets :) - but the place where I buy their feed has a pair of pigmy goats that I always enjoy visiting... They've been there since before Christmas... in a little cage waiting to be sold - I'm sure you could give them a much better home than what they're in now...
Oooh, I cringed when you called hunting a form of violence. But I'm going to take it that you're using the word violence to mean "physical harm," not angry aggression or malice, and move on.
I do understand why some vegans and vegetarians feel compelled to proselytize, just as I understand why Pro-Lifers feel compelled to fight that fight. If you really believe it's murder, what else can you do?
But my philosophy and spirituality is rooted in the belief that earth is a system that works, notwithstanding humans' "best efforts" to the contrary, and if something is a vital part of the life cycle for other animals (without apology), then so it should be for us.
I know there are some who would like to stop all animal predation - human, wolf or eagle - and I hope you're not one of them, because I have no respect at all for that viewpoint. It is naive.
I also know most vegetarians understand the cycle of life and just think humans have the wherewithal to rise above it. That is the point of contention.
I believe that every time we try to "rise above" what we are, we create disasters. Why walk when you can create a car ... that pumps out pollution that's desstabilizing our atmosphere? Why live in a simple abode when you can create sprawling cities ... that decimate habitat? Why live a modest life when you can work 14 hours a day and make lots of money ... to pay your psychotherapist when you have a nervous breakdown? Why chew a coca leaf when you can make cocaine ... and destroy thousands of lives?
I can't escape my civilization entirely. I drive a car. I live in a suburb. I work too hard. (I don't do cocaine, though.) But hunting is one of the very few things that brings me back to what I am - and what all of us would be, including lots of vegetarians, should civilization collapse tomorrow. (Which, given human history, is not out of the question - civilization is a thin and frail veneer.)
Can you see why, with that worldview, it is offensive to be told point blank that I am wrong, I am bad, I have made the wrong choice?
I believe in evolution, and I believe it would be possible to cleave the family tree and create a new limb that returns to the herbivorism of our ancestors 6-8 million years prior. (A little eHarmony, a little selective breeding...) But evolution ain't fast. And I don't want to be on that limb.
All that said, I'm enjoying the civil discussion :-)
Yes, I'm enjoying this civil repartee as well...
..."using the word violence to mean "physical harm," not angry aggression or malice"...
No, not anger or malice. I don't think a fisherman is anticipating a bite with hostility, anger
or "agressive" thoughts - Maybe with large "trophy" fish there might be an element of
physical contest and "victor aggression" (maybe). But hunting gets a little different
(sometimes)... Not all hunters (but some), might include volatile thugs that also abuse pets,
kids and spouses... And when they "kill", they do have deep anger and rage... In this way,
"hunting" can be "violence" in more than just the "physical harm", that's true... But I do see
that you might say these are not "hunters"... but for practical purposes, they are - move on...
"If you really believe it's murder, what else can you do?" You can justify, compromise,
explain, study, "evaluate further", discuss it, ignore it, take a poll, say a prayer... And even
get to the point (as most of todays *thoughtless* meat eaters are) that "the murder" is not
even seen. And certainly, for good or bad - hunters do "connect" with their "food" and should not be seen as "unmindful".
..."stop all animal predation - human, wolf or eagle" - You mean like "peaceable kingdom" -
lions, lambs that sort of thing... Not of this world - and certainly naive.
I disagree though, that all our attempts to "rise above" what we are have failed... I do see a march of social progress... at least in the way of "rights". But what we have done to our physical world, to humans and non-humans of the way to this "progress" is pitiful - I agree.
And I do see how the world might look in your view... we are so seperated from (our) nature
and only becoming (to our detrement) more so with each "modern marvel".
Chief Luther Standing Bear:
"But the old Lakota was wise. He knew that the man’s heart, away from nature, becomes
hard, he knew that lack of respect from growing, living things soon led to a lack of respect
for humans, too. So he kept his children close to nature’s softening influence."
But just as there is little chance animal agriculture will work it's way back to "husbandry" - I
doubt too that man will be lured from technology. Science and gadgets will reign supreme
(unless and until) the "collapse" - It depends on how far "beyond" nature we are at that point. That will all make a difference as to what we will "fall back on" regarding resources and "survival". In any case, I think we are both "dooms-daying" it... There is a veneer it's true - but under it may be some hardened oak :)
"I believe in evolution, and I believe it would be possible to cleave the family tree and create a new limb that returns to the herbivorism of our ancestors 6-8 million years prior." Yes, but with future technology... As in the case of vertical and sky farming that I just blogged about... I don't know about "going out on a limb" but rather... extending ladders... into a sustainable future. That is the major revolutionary shift that we will (hopefully) go to, with minimal discourse along the way.
I wonder in this type of future too... along with sustainable farming, invitro meat,
MagneGas™ , borgs, bots and artificial intelligence - might there not be a sort of "Star Trek holideck", that could simulate *everything* in indistinquishable replication? Capable of giving the complete experience of hunting. The connectness to nature, the weather, wind & feel of the woods... The realness of the prey and hunt... In such a "virtual" world... would there still be those who would long for the "realness" of the "kill"? And what would be thought of such a wo/man, that all things being equal would still choose the "other" way?
One last question - on the technical end of "hunting"... I know that there are thousands
of cervid farms in the U.S. I know that "game" are bred in somewhat similar circumstances
as a "factory farm". That there are "standard animal agriculture" practices used. Such as separating off-spring from maternal needs... substituing "milk replacers"... and opting for bottle feeding. I know that these farms also do selective breeding and all the nuances of that industry is reflected on factory farms as well... They are fed a diet largely of corn (I see you like Pollan) And these animals, deer and elk are often acclimated to humans. They get relocated for "management" purposes... and many "escape".
Question: How do you know the prey did or did not come from such a place, does it make any difference - and why?
My guess on some is that eartags, chips or tatoos might reveal the animal's origin... and also their CWD status too I guess (?) But I'm sure I would think it much sadder for a farmed deer to be prey (killed)... sad because the animal was a "commodity" from beginning to end. Or at the very least, that he was never really "free" like how we think wild animals and "game" should be.
Doomsday? I'm definitely a little doomsday obsessed. I love history and archeology and you can't study either without being acutely aware of the fragility of civilization.
Holideck? I'm guessing it wouldn't be the same - I'm guessing it would feel like the Matrix, a cage, a mean trick designed to hide the fact that I've been stripped of my true nature. Would hikers find it an authentic substitute for the real world? Photographers? Bird watchers?
Beyond that, in a world where humans are not allowed to eat meat, what would be the moral basis for a simulation that culminates in "killing" an "animal"? That would be kinda like a church offering lifelike computer simulations of infidelity, wouldn't it?
Finally, escaped farm animals. I suppose there's always a risk that a farmed or otherwise "cultivated" animal could make it into my sights, and there's no guarantee I'd know it.
Does it matter? Well, I'd rather have the untainted real thing - something with a natural diet and no human additives. But I have already made the decision to eat meat, and I do eat domestic animals (neighbor's chickens, pastured pork, when we need something with more fat than wild game). So would that kill make me more sad than a purely wild kill? No. The animal's inherent value is the same.
About the animal's inherent value being the same - what of loving nature and the beings in it? I'm assuming that the closest to nature (most untouched by man) would be the most "valuable" animal? Sort of why there are big game hunters who desire "exotic" and "rare" species. All things in nature as we exist in it today, can't possibly be "all equal"... Man has touched some, and not others. I guess I'm seeing it as a purist - and if I liked to hunt animals because it was most "natural" I'd want the most "natural" animal... not one grown and released from an "institution".
The holideck - I guess that's the problem with abstract, fantastical hypotheticals - it's hard to grasp the "just like the real thing" concept. But *if* such were possible, yes... I think it would not be difficult to please the bird watcher, mountain climber - or those prone to acts of infidelity even. As long as the mind is perceiving the information as "real" - the desired "experience" should be satisfied. Unless beyond the "doing" there's an end "product" like in hunting, fishing, foraging... But I hardly know how to work my remote control - so I'm sure I'm way off on designing holidecks too.
And I don't know that I mean "a world where humans are not allowed to eat meat" - I envision a world where eventually "meat" would not even be thought of as "food" except in context to our darkest and oldest antediluvian periods of "civilization". More to a time when *it* was a "necessity"... rather than a "choice", as we know it to be today.
In any case, our bones will be long into the ground before all these things come to fruit - but it's interesting to speculate anyway...
I wish you continued enjoyment of nature - We may be the last of the lucky ones to know it as such - foragers that we are...
Hi, SP31415, you say that there are negative side effects to eating meat. What are these side effects? Certainly, corn-fed, fatty beef that you can buy at McDonald's has horrible consequences if you eat it frequently, but animals in nature do not. I don't think anyone would ever argue that you should eat an Egg Sausage McMuffin for your health--unless of course, you are very poor and a low cost (extremely low cost--doesn't it cost about $1?), sugary, trans-fatty meal could get and you and your family through another day. No, certainly, there are no nasty side effects to eating meat; to the contrary (as has already been mentioned), meat has played an essential role in the development of humans. Everything about our gut morphology points to an omnivorous history, such as dentition and gut size--we have a small gut, fit for high-quality food that is meant to supply a relatively large body size and facilitated the development of a large brain. Our ancestors certainly could not have survived on plant material alone--they definitely would have experienced a huge negative side-effect in doing so!
You continue to say that you see a parallel in the idea of over-eating; what was good for our species once is not necessary good for us now. But, I don't believe that this example of over-eating quite supports your argument. You have said that for our ancestors (and for much of the world still), overeating was a valuable behavior because there were only certain types of foods available and sometimes they were very limited. A person would do well to have a big appetite and a great interest in food. But now that our environment has changed, there are more and different types of food available to us, and this affects us negatively--people become fat, have coronary problems, develop diabetes, etc. Really what you have said, though, is that bad things happen when we don't stick to the diet that we were originally adapted to eat. So this doesn't support your argument against modern meat-eating. Genetically we are fit for a certain diet, so when we don't eat that diet, things do go awry. And this applies to any animal. If you were to try to feed elephants a diet of mostly meat or to try to get flies to eat concrete, they would have--shall we say--just a few problems prospering. Our genetics have remained the same, yet our environment has changed rapidly within the past 100 years.
:-)
That was a wonderful post! Thank you for sharing! Articles like this keep my updated with the current situations in our society or different body of knowledge that a human must know especially about medicine specifically about vitamins and health related topics. I admire you guys for sharing your post.
Discount Kosher Vitamins
Thanks a lot for the post. I love to read articles which are about medicine or health related topics. They keep me up to date with the current issues. I hope to read more from you!
Kosher Vitamins
Boy, is anyone else sick of spammers clogging up our blog comments with their thinly veiled free ads? It's like having graffiti on your blog. Very rude.
I believe you have hit many points right on with this post. The Rabbis for the kosher industry are little more than vampires praying on devout Jews money.
I had a juice company that was certified kosher. I was certified no one ever came to inspect not even once! Thay only wanted me to pay a one time certification fee and which they took over the mail and as soon as the check cleared they sent a certification certificate, and I had to buy a sticker to put on each bottle for $0.50 each raising the cost of each kosher bottle and enriching the rabbi for doing absolutly nothing. The Rabbi's should be encourging people to eat kosher by enabling the kosher establishments to sell at a lower cost, not at additional cost. There is no reason that Kosher meat cost 3 times more than convential meat except price gouging by the kosher industry.
If the kashrut is about not wasting any of the sacred animal why are so many parts of the animal tref? Like leg of lamb.
If hunting is not kosher how did Moses wander around for 40 years and not hunt, in fact I remember reading in the Torah about them hunting birds and animal while thry to figure out what to do next. Jews had to have been hunters in the beginning and this "No Hunting" law was made up to further enrich the Kosher industry.
I hunt, I am Jewish and eat kosher. I don't hunt for sport, but for food. when I sacrifice the deer, elk, pheasant, mushrooms, berries etc... for my food I feel much closer to god and the animal than when I buy my food at the supermarket. It's difficult to not feel for such beautiful creatures. I am sure the the rabbis working in the meat packing plants after their 100 cow killed that day don't feel anything for the animal.
I also have observered that people who buy their food at the store are not thankful to the animal but at best hide behind that some Rabbi did it for me.
Hunting for food IS kosher. The ancient Israelites practiced hunting for food and free range herding. In the Torah it states:
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.(Leviticus 13:17)
Killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible is much more humane than torturing an animal to death which is what so often happens in modern-day slaughterhouses.
Not all hunters spend a fortune to hunt. Quite a few poor people also hunt,and the cost is minimal.Easily under 1 dollar per lb. And as far as not thinking pants don't know about physical feelings, you might want to do some more investigation on that subject. It some scientist had some plants hooked up to some kind of electronic gizmo . Well when a particular individual showed once a week, the plant's would have the gizmo going ballistic. It seems said individual was the grounds keeper ie. the lawnmower man. Guess there's more to physical feelings than a brain, blood and guts. The book is by David Wilcock, called The Source Field, if memory serves me. Good luck.
I really liked your comment, and even the respectful way you addressed the first poster, who I don't think had the same respect for you.
After reading your comment, I realized that a lot of people have strong opinions that are not basfe on knowledge of a subject.
What struck me most though, was that your viewpoint closely matched mine, and I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks like that.
I got here, because my best friend is Jewish, and I wanted to share this philosophy with him, but I needed to understand his restrictions first.
The more I read, the more questions I had, similar to the OP.
Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to make a judgement on the topic, but it at least helps me understand the framework he is working within.
Thanks for taking the time to write all that out.
You write well, and I admit I'm only addressing a small point, but after reading several of your comments, I was compelled to speak about what I was noticing.
I couldn't help but feel, while reading your posts, that although you appear to shun violence, you also dish out a sort of violence in your judgement and righteousness.
That is not a comment on veganism, I have been vegan myself (I am no longer), and it works for many. It's more about how you express, and apply your views to others.
Post a Comment