Meerkats organize themselves in large family groups, called troops.
These troops wage war regularly with neighboring troops both in defense
of their home territories, and when they are seeking to acquire more
territory – usually forcibly taken from another meerkat troop.
This occurs when either their territory has become insufficient due to
weather,or the population of the troop has increased beyond the capacity
of their homeland to to adequately sustain them.
As in human-waged wars, death occurs frequently during and after
battles. Meerkats and humans die slowly and painfully from battle
wounds. Defeated troops suffer the loss of shelter and food.
Carefully considered and strictly speaking, these meerkat behaviors
fall under the human definition of patriotism as devoted love, support,
and defense of one's country. Love is defined as a feeling of warm
personal attachment or deep affection. Country is defined as the land of
one’s birthand any considerable territory demarcated by topographical
conditions by a distinctive population.
Meerkats possess systematic knowledge of their physical world, which
they gain through observation and experimentation. Additionally, every
meerkat kit is the pupil and responsibility of every elder relative in
their troop.Depending on which definition of science one chooses, one
could claim that meerkats practice science.
If pregnancy is the result of an unsanctioned liason, the imprudent
female meerkat is normally forcibly expelled from her troop. Shunning
follows expulsion. Miscarriage or the death of her young are the
expected reality for the unchaste female meerkat.If the troop continues
to shun her after she has lost her kits,then her survival chances become
virtually extinct.
Morality can be defined as conformity to the rules of right and
virtuous conduct, and chastity.
Under these definitions of human construction, I can see that meerkats
are practitioners of science and strict morality; they are patriotic beings
that participate in inter-troop wars; and that human beings construct
categories to organize that which they have observed into a humanely-
relational framework.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
More Nature and Nurture
For both humans and animals, I wonder how much of the overall feeling of well-being comes from the body's biological response to, and interchange with the vibrational component of music. How much of that feeling comes from a mind/consciousness/spirit's creative act of making music. Are their limits to the potential creative change occurring within the being as a result of being exposed to another's music?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Music - Nature or Nurture
Music, however we define it, significantly impacts us and our experience of life. Can you imagine a life lived without any music? Is it even humanly possible to live without music? What is the function of music biologically? What is the evolutionary relationship between humans and music? Between all sentient life forms and music? Is human music really so unique from other animals music?
Whales, birds and other non-human beings are obviously not using music to increase sales, or, as far as I know - to overtly worship their Gods. I think that some create songs as tools to motivate themselves, or make music purely for pleasure, and often, to increase the odds of successfully mating - just like we humans do. Is there an absolute difference between how humans and some other animals use music, make songs, or is it only a matter of perspective? And how do we define or differentiate between music and songs - birds, whales, and wolves all sing, but their songs are not composed of linguistical lyrics.
Research shows that certain musical activity produces endorphin surges. Brain scans show that the feeling of euphoria you get when listening to music is accompanied by activity in the same parts of the brain that respond to the rewards of food, sex and psychoactive drugs. Is expressing and/or experiencing music such a vital component of human life because of the way it makes us feel? Are other sentient musically potent beings also experiencing neuro-biological music feedback? Do we all make music because it feels so good?
Erich Jarvis and Duke University Medical Center colleagues published a study in 2006 (Journal of Neuroscience, vol 26, p 9010. They found "increased dopamine levels in male songbirds when they sang. The levels were especially high when the birds sang to a female. Dopamine, the "feel-good" neurotransmitter, is important for learning. It is not yet clear what role it plays in birdsong, says Jarvis, but he suspects that its primary function is to induce reinforcement learning and that its secondary function may be to create a feeling of euphoria."
Some wild apes are known to regularly drum on naturally resonant objects. Some researchers think that, like whales, chimpanzees groups have distinct cultural practices of drumming and vocalising. Cognitive scientist Josh McDermott's study of monkeys, they choose lullaby-like songs over techno music. The research shows that this had more to do with a general response to tempo than any discernment of style. When offered the choice between a soundtrack of 60 clicks a minute and one of 400 clicks per minute the monkeys opted for the low-tempo track. For wild animals, potentially life-threatening fights, storms, vehicular encounters, etc. occur in nature as rapid sequences of sound. So were the monkeys' choice of lullaby nature or nurture?
I think it is pretty clear, that for us and other beings, music is both nature and nurture. Until empirical evidence can prove which came first, and how much of our attachment and response to music is nurture, and how much of it is nature, it remains a question for the philosophers.
Whales, birds and other non-human beings are obviously not using music to increase sales, or, as far as I know - to overtly worship their Gods. I think that some create songs as tools to motivate themselves, or make music purely for pleasure, and often, to increase the odds of successfully mating - just like we humans do. Is there an absolute difference between how humans and some other animals use music, make songs, or is it only a matter of perspective? And how do we define or differentiate between music and songs - birds, whales, and wolves all sing, but their songs are not composed of linguistical lyrics.
Research shows that certain musical activity produces endorphin surges. Brain scans show that the feeling of euphoria you get when listening to music is accompanied by activity in the same parts of the brain that respond to the rewards of food, sex and psychoactive drugs. Is expressing and/or experiencing music such a vital component of human life because of the way it makes us feel? Are other sentient musically potent beings also experiencing neuro-biological music feedback? Do we all make music because it feels so good?
Erich Jarvis and Duke University Medical Center colleagues published a study in 2006 (Journal of Neuroscience, vol 26, p 9010. They found "increased dopamine levels in male songbirds when they sang. The levels were especially high when the birds sang to a female. Dopamine, the "feel-good" neurotransmitter, is important for learning. It is not yet clear what role it plays in birdsong, says Jarvis, but he suspects that its primary function is to induce reinforcement learning and that its secondary function may be to create a feeling of euphoria."
Some wild apes are known to regularly drum on naturally resonant objects. Some researchers think that, like whales, chimpanzees groups have distinct cultural practices of drumming and vocalising. Cognitive scientist Josh McDermott's study of monkeys, they choose lullaby-like songs over techno music. The research shows that this had more to do with a general response to tempo than any discernment of style. When offered the choice between a soundtrack of 60 clicks a minute and one of 400 clicks per minute the monkeys opted for the low-tempo track. For wild animals, potentially life-threatening fights, storms, vehicular encounters, etc. occur in nature as rapid sequences of sound. So were the monkeys' choice of lullaby nature or nurture?
I think it is pretty clear, that for us and other beings, music is both nature and nurture. Until empirical evidence can prove which came first, and how much of our attachment and response to music is nurture, and how much of it is nature, it remains a question for the philosophers.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Human and Economic Statistics of Iraq War
Massachusetts Taxpayers pay $3.9 BILLION for cost of Iraq War in FY 2007.
For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
1,132,002 Adults with Health Care
or
419,065 Scholarships for University Students
or
1,416,290 Children with Health Care
Global Poverty Facts:
•12% of world’s population uses 85% of the world’s water.
•51% of world’s wealthiest bodies are CORPORATIONS.
•225 of richest individual's combined annual income equals 47% of world’s wealth.
From: MCLA 2007 Hunger Banquet
The U.S. spends $16.67 BILLION in Iraq EVERY MONTH.
1/6th of war expense would provide 50+ years of stable U.S. Social Security System - without cutting benefits or raising contributions of individuals.
U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office.
$2 TRILLION higher as result of war.
$800 BILLION increase under Bush before the war.
U.S. troops injured in Iraq is 15 times the number of fatalities.
52,000 returning veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
40% of 1.65 million troops already deployed owed disability compensation from U.S. government.
Combined health-care & disability costs exceed $600 BILLION in present-value terms.
FOR IRAQ:
Death statistics from first 40 months of war estimated between 450,000 - 600,000.
150,000 classified as violent deaths.
Total population of 28 million.
4 million displaced.
2 million fled Iraq.
50% of Iraq’s doctors killed or left Iraq.
Unemployment at 25%.
Baghdad has less than 8 hours of electricity a day.
From “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.”
Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, professor of economics at Columbia University.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7634/
For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
1,132,002 Adults with Health Care
or
419,065 Scholarships for University Students
or
1,416,290 Children with Health Care
Global Poverty Facts:
•12% of world’s population uses 85% of the world’s water.
•51% of world’s wealthiest bodies are CORPORATIONS.
•225 of richest individual's combined annual income equals 47% of world’s wealth.
From: MCLA 2007 Hunger Banquet
The U.S. spends $16.67 BILLION in Iraq EVERY MONTH.
1/6th of war expense would provide 50+ years of stable U.S. Social Security System - without cutting benefits or raising contributions of individuals.
U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office.
$2 TRILLION higher as result of war.
$800 BILLION increase under Bush before the war.
U.S. troops injured in Iraq is 15 times the number of fatalities.
52,000 returning veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
40% of 1.65 million troops already deployed owed disability compensation from U.S. government.
Combined health-care & disability costs exceed $600 BILLION in present-value terms.
FOR IRAQ:
Death statistics from first 40 months of war estimated between 450,000 - 600,000.
150,000 classified as violent deaths.
Total population of 28 million.
4 million displaced.
2 million fled Iraq.
50% of Iraq’s doctors killed or left Iraq.
Unemployment at 25%.
Baghdad has less than 8 hours of electricity a day.
From “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.”
Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, professor of economics at Columbia University.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7634/
Monday, April 14, 2008
Mass Transportation, an American Possibility?
Effective implementation of a mass transportation system must be a priority in any plan to reduce global hydrocarbon pollution.
My vision for America's clean, reliable, economic, and efficient mass transportation system includes:
1. Self-sustaining small communities provide their own food and energy with easily
accessible centrally located population hubs.
2. Mass transportation systems provide access between self-sustainable population
hubs and small communities.
3. Local hydroponic and organic food production replace mega-agribusinesses.
4. Each community would draw from one or more power sources, efficiently designed to maximize the potential of each micro and macro-environment.
Wave powered energy, solar energy from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, tidal energy, geothermal energy, wind power, passive and active solar systems, combined solar-hydrogen energy production, photovoltaic cells, hydropower, biomass energy, the Tesla Coil, compressed air engine and other alternative energy driven transportation vehicles are known commodities that could flourish in a supportive environment bolstered by proper public and private policies and funding.
We must acknowledge the connections between regressive policies, unsustainable behaviors, global environmental changes and threats to planetary health and security.
A biocentric world-view could address these problems through rapid implementation of policies that provide tangible economic incentives for choosing environmentally sustainable products and services.
My vision for America's clean, reliable, economic, and efficient mass transportation system includes:
1. Self-sustaining small communities provide their own food and energy with easily
accessible centrally located population hubs.
2. Mass transportation systems provide access between self-sustainable population
hubs and small communities.
3. Local hydroponic and organic food production replace mega-agribusinesses.
4. Each community would draw from one or more power sources, efficiently designed to maximize the potential of each micro and macro-environment.
Wave powered energy, solar energy from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, tidal energy, geothermal energy, wind power, passive and active solar systems, combined solar-hydrogen energy production, photovoltaic cells, hydropower, biomass energy, the Tesla Coil, compressed air engine and other alternative energy driven transportation vehicles are known commodities that could flourish in a supportive environment bolstered by proper public and private policies and funding.
We must acknowledge the connections between regressive policies, unsustainable behaviors, global environmental changes and threats to planetary health and security.
A biocentric world-view could address these problems through rapid implementation of policies that provide tangible economic incentives for choosing environmentally sustainable products and services.
Blackwater Stats
Continuing from today's discussion - Notes from congressional report on Blackwater October 2007
“A top Army sergeant is paid $51,100 to $69,350 a year in salary, housing and other benefits, a Blackwater contractor (often a retired sergeant) receives six to nine times as much. The U.S. government pays Blackwater $1,222 per day for one Blackwater “Protective Security Specialist...amounts to $445,891 per contractor” per year.
“Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., noted that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ annual salary amounts to less than half of what some high-ranking Blackwater security officials in Iraq earn.”
Robert Scheer, The State Dept.’s Murderous Guardians
“A top Army sergeant is paid $51,100 to $69,350 a year in salary, housing and other benefits, a Blackwater contractor (often a retired sergeant) receives six to nine times as much. The U.S. government pays Blackwater $1,222 per day for one Blackwater “Protective Security Specialist...amounts to $445,891 per contractor” per year.
“Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., noted that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ annual salary amounts to less than half of what some high-ranking Blackwater security officials in Iraq earn.”
Robert Scheer, The State Dept.’s Murderous Guardians
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Legislators of the World
"The acknowledged legislators of the world take the world as given. They dislike mysteries, for mysteries cannot be coded, or legislated, and wonder cannot be made into law. And so these legislators police the accepted frontiers of things."Ben Okri
Evolution of "Patriotism" Discussions
"Politics is the art of the possible; creativity is the art of the impossible."Ben Okri
How can the individuals, who compose the American majority, legitimately gain and exercise control over the policies and actions of the entity (political-corporate machine) masquerading as the country known as the United States of America?
Does the possibility for the rectification of “American” misdeeds exist?
How could it be accomplished?
Can we create a globally species-tolerant, humanitarian, ethical America?
How can we swiftly, legitimately correct the U.S. Constitution from its current imbalance and co-mingling of the supposedly “separate” executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government?
Iraq and Q & A #9
The magician and the politician have much in common: they both have to draw our attention away from what they are really doing.Ben Okri
I believe the “powers that be” (The American-political-mega-corporate machine) want dominance over Iraq because its strategic location provides easy access to neighboring oil and water resource-rich countries. Iraq was the easiest of these middle eastern countries to conquer. Once conquered, it will provide a good platform from which to stage/wage war against her neighbors.
According to A.K. Gupta, the Iraq War is all about oil - with a few Machiavellian reasons for launching the invasion thrown in. Bush and his cohorts used the war to assert a "new and improved" world order based on absolute might. They demonstrated how easily the Bush administration could defy international and national laws, norms, institutions, treaties and diplomacy. The American-political-mega-corporate machine thus notified rising powers China, West Europe, and Russia, and any other governments who might dare consider defying the U.S., that "America" is the "Big Boss" of the world.
For the Bush Administration and its American “patriots," a successful conclusion to the Iraq War would be the annihilation of the ethnic, religious and political dissonance within Iraq. It would require “neutralization” of any Iraqi resistance to a degree which would eliminates the possibility for any future resurgent resistance. It would create the open-ended occupation of Iraq by the United States political machine. This would endow the Bush supported mega-oil corporations with de-facto possession and expansion of Iraq’s oil resources. Control of all other Iraqi resources would be transferred to the mega- corporate interests dominating the U.S. political and judicial systems.
American war "success" over Iraq would look like the oppression of the Iraqi populace, occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, and domination, possession and control over all Iraqi resources by the United States.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Roots of Patriotism
In Wednesday’s class, DK said, “One’s love for country is an accident of birth.
It is an ingredient within the human condition that we attach ourselves to locations and to emblems, or symbols of those locations. We can recognize the universality of our emotional attachment to these symbols - they mean the same thing to each of us. This is an example of unity within diversity. The universal inclination to valorize certain symbols. It is natural, recognize it for what it is and do something constructive with it. Use it to unify the peoples of the planet.
I believe attachment to one’s locale, one’s country, and its symbols are simply manifestations of the natural, biological imperative of the human-animal to survive. It is the pack mentality that drives human beings towards territorial dominance and the instinct to preserve their territory by whatever means necessary, including warring on neighboring “packs” if our need for resources outgrows our current territory; or if we consider a neighboring “pack” a threat to our existing territory/resources or future resource requirements.
I look upon these now biologically limiting drives as the basest in the nature of the human-animal. It is the foundation of all that it is negative and dehumanizing in the concept of patriotism, because it fosters “otherness” at the expense of our humanity. We should be utilizing our minds, our consciousnesses, our souls and our spirits – our ethics and morality – to solve all the problems that spring forth naturally as diverse, potently-unequal populations strive to share unsustainable and sustainable resources in the single environment we call planet Earth.
Perhaps this is what DK meant when he addressed the fallacy of internationalism - I’m going to love your mother as much as I love my mother. I am going to empathize with you as a mother-lover, or lover of my country.
“’Unity in variety’ is nature’s plan in the evolution of the universe, and that only by harmony and brotherhood among religions and and by mutual toleration and help can the mission and destiny of humanity be accomplished.” Maharaja of Khetri. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume III. p. 202
It is an ingredient within the human condition that we attach ourselves to locations and to emblems, or symbols of those locations. We can recognize the universality of our emotional attachment to these symbols - they mean the same thing to each of us. This is an example of unity within diversity. The universal inclination to valorize certain symbols. It is natural, recognize it for what it is and do something constructive with it. Use it to unify the peoples of the planet.
I believe attachment to one’s locale, one’s country, and its symbols are simply manifestations of the natural, biological imperative of the human-animal to survive. It is the pack mentality that drives human beings towards territorial dominance and the instinct to preserve their territory by whatever means necessary, including warring on neighboring “packs” if our need for resources outgrows our current territory; or if we consider a neighboring “pack” a threat to our existing territory/resources or future resource requirements.
I look upon these now biologically limiting drives as the basest in the nature of the human-animal. It is the foundation of all that it is negative and dehumanizing in the concept of patriotism, because it fosters “otherness” at the expense of our humanity. We should be utilizing our minds, our consciousnesses, our souls and our spirits – our ethics and morality – to solve all the problems that spring forth naturally as diverse, potently-unequal populations strive to share unsustainable and sustainable resources in the single environment we call planet Earth.
Perhaps this is what DK meant when he addressed the fallacy of internationalism - I’m going to love your mother as much as I love my mother. I am going to empathize with you as a mother-lover, or lover of my country.
“’Unity in variety’ is nature’s plan in the evolution of the universe, and that only by harmony and brotherhood among religions and and by mutual toleration and help can the mission and destiny of humanity be accomplished.” Maharaja of Khetri. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume III. p. 202
Creating Harmony
I found the class discussion relating the analogy of music to reference harmony as it could pertain to solving international dilemmas a satisfying sensory scenario.
Harmony informs the elements of diversity, thus it entails a multiplicity. Whereas unity illumines a unified singularity.
The United Nations seeks to promote unity within diversity. To triangulate the commonalities that all persons share. Unity within a robust diversity – not a mindless pursuit of Diversity or its opposite Unity.
Creating Harmony
Extend the harmony to create a tension. We can build upon the tension between nations as we do with musical chords. Differences can’t be random, they need to be relative to some degree.
An existential commonality within all – could this be what humankind considers “God?”
Harmony informs the elements of diversity, thus it entails a multiplicity. Whereas unity illumines a unified singularity.
The United Nations seeks to promote unity within diversity. To triangulate the commonalities that all persons share. Unity within a robust diversity – not a mindless pursuit of Diversity or its opposite Unity.
Creating Harmony
Extend the harmony to create a tension. We can build upon the tension between nations as we do with musical chords. Differences can’t be random, they need to be relative to some degree.
An existential commonality within all – could this be what humankind considers “God?”
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Robert Jensen,“Goodbye To Patriotism”
I agree that at least since 9-11, the American administration and many American citizens have defiled and misappropriated our original concept of patriotism. Jensen provides us with the Administration's daily use of implied, insinuating misdefinitions of “patriotism.”
For a rational, intelligent discussion and understanding of Jensen's talk, it is crucial to first remember and acknowledge the true spirit, origin and definition of the term “patriotism.” I find Webster's definition, "devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country,and love of country,” closest in spirit and essence to the original concept of patriotism. It incorporates the ideals of public welfare, virtue and inspiration in its definition.
Both the word and concept of "patriotism" are archaic and inapplicable in the current market-based, globally-dominated world of mega-corporations. It is unusable in our blurred bordered world.
The Administration and the other immoral persons of the world have perverted the word "patriotism" into propaganda to create and maintain personal/corporate power and wealth. The ignorant flail the word about in a pack mentality that subverts the estimable ethics of humankind. The fearful and the weak bandy the Administration’s term about in recognition of their powerlessness, their loss of freedom, rights, and democracy.
As Jensen states, this is not merely an academic argument over semantics. It is nonsensical to want or try to redefine the term patriotic. Like Eugene Debs, "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world."
For a rational, intelligent discussion and understanding of Jensen's talk, it is crucial to first remember and acknowledge the true spirit, origin and definition of the term “patriotism.” I find Webster's definition, "devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country,and love of country,” closest in spirit and essence to the original concept of patriotism. It incorporates the ideals of public welfare, virtue and inspiration in its definition.
Both the word and concept of "patriotism" are archaic and inapplicable in the current market-based, globally-dominated world of mega-corporations. It is unusable in our blurred bordered world.
The Administration and the other immoral persons of the world have perverted the word "patriotism" into propaganda to create and maintain personal/corporate power and wealth. The ignorant flail the word about in a pack mentality that subverts the estimable ethics of humankind. The fearful and the weak bandy the Administration’s term about in recognition of their powerlessness, their loss of freedom, rights, and democracy.
As Jensen states, this is not merely an academic argument over semantics. It is nonsensical to want or try to redefine the term patriotic. Like Eugene Debs, "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world."
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Morality of Omnivorism
In researching our assignment in defense of meat-eating I landed on the Beef Quality Association site. I found their information educational, disgusting, and in light of the recent expose on forcibly torturing sick cattle into meat grinders, quite unbelievable.
The American Beef Associations sites tell us:
I was intrigued by their concept of expectations for eating characteristics. It sounds like their target audience eats primarily for pleasure, not health and sustenance. I wonder to what degree sensory or emotional pleasure factor into one's choice to eat meat or eat not-meat.
One can get much more protein from smaller amounts of meat than similar amounts of not-meat. Meat products from ungraded carcasses are relatively cheap. How much of a factor is poverty in one's choice/non-choice to eat meat or eat not-meat?
I have some expectations for eating characteristics of my own. I often ignore my hunger rather than eat food that I do not like or postpone eating until I can get the "right" stuff. My mind, my spiritual self, and my body prefer to eat only organic unprocessed, not-meat food. My emotional self enjoys good chocolate in various forms. I first became a vegetarian in 1978 for health reasons. While pregnant or nursing, I ate fish and chicken. Then I returned to vegetarianism. During times of significant ill health, if my body craves meat, I fulfill the craving, but always return to vegetarianism.
What percentage of a person's decision to eat meat is morality-based? For how many people is it an economically-based choice or non-choice? For how many is it simply the continuation of one's cultural or religious norm - where consideration of omnivorism or vegetarianism is inconceivable; or would result in ejection from, or rejection by one's family and peers? For how many is it a health-based rather than moral choice. How many people choose to be omnivores because they find it more sensory pleasurable or emotionally satisfying than vegetarianism?
The definition of morality is one's beliefs regarding appropriate behavior - an individual's comprehension of morality and the capacity to put it into practice. Should we view omnivorism and vegetarianism as a choice/non-choice arising from individual or social morality? Or, is one's choice of omnivorism or vegetarianism the expression of one's personal ethics or social ethics? Is it a moral issue for some, but an ethical issue for others?
The American Beef Associations sites tell us:
Consumers can feel good about loving beef because the protein in beef is a powerful nutrient that strengthens and sustains their bodies.The BQA repeatedly refer to beef from carcasses that consistently satisfies customer expectations for eating characteristics, with strict government inspection systems that ensure safe, wholesome, correctly labeled and packaged beef products. However, beef carcass quality grading is voluntary. Therefore, not all carcasses are quality graded.
I was intrigued by their concept of expectations for eating characteristics. It sounds like their target audience eats primarily for pleasure, not health and sustenance. I wonder to what degree sensory or emotional pleasure factor into one's choice to eat meat or eat not-meat.
One can get much more protein from smaller amounts of meat than similar amounts of not-meat. Meat products from ungraded carcasses are relatively cheap. How much of a factor is poverty in one's choice/non-choice to eat meat or eat not-meat?
I have some expectations for eating characteristics of my own. I often ignore my hunger rather than eat food that I do not like or postpone eating until I can get the "right" stuff. My mind, my spiritual self, and my body prefer to eat only organic unprocessed, not-meat food. My emotional self enjoys good chocolate in various forms. I first became a vegetarian in 1978 for health reasons. While pregnant or nursing, I ate fish and chicken. Then I returned to vegetarianism. During times of significant ill health, if my body craves meat, I fulfill the craving, but always return to vegetarianism.
What percentage of a person's decision to eat meat is morality-based? For how many people is it an economically-based choice or non-choice? For how many is it simply the continuation of one's cultural or religious norm - where consideration of omnivorism or vegetarianism is inconceivable; or would result in ejection from, or rejection by one's family and peers? For how many is it a health-based rather than moral choice. How many people choose to be omnivores because they find it more sensory pleasurable or emotionally satisfying than vegetarianism?
The definition of morality is one's beliefs regarding appropriate behavior - an individual's comprehension of morality and the capacity to put it into practice. Should we view omnivorism and vegetarianism as a choice/non-choice arising from individual or social morality? Or, is one's choice of omnivorism or vegetarianism the expression of one's personal ethics or social ethics? Is it a moral issue for some, but an ethical issue for others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)