one girl’s perspective on life, neopaganism, veganism, politics, books, films, and… stuff.

“The National Cancer Institute study is one of the largest to look at the highly controversial and emotive issue of whether eating meat is indeed bad for health.”

So, once again, in a study not sponsored by the American meat and dairy industry, eating meat (particularly red meat) has been linked with increases in just about every disease, including heart disease and several types of cancer. (Read the full article here.)

They’re right, though: as much as vegetarians and vegans are criticised for being “overly emotional” when it comes to animals, in my experience, few things will get a person more riled up than daring to suggest that eating meat is bad for them, bad for the environment, and it goes without saying that it’s the worst for the animals.

Sure, I’ll get annoyed when people won’t back off, and continue to criticise me for my choices. I’ll get downright angry at people who think there’s some big joke about torturing and brutalising animals. But if I turn around and question their ideals (or, rather, total lack thereof), I’m the worst thing to happen to this country since the Labor party was elected. (If you don’t see the blatant sarcasm there, you’re in the wrong blog.)

From the perspective of meat eaters, why is it a controversial issue? And why the hell is it an emotional one? I understand that you don’t want your civil rights infringed upon, but we’re not forcing you to stop eating meat, we’re trying to educate you so that, hopefully, at some point you’ll be smart enough to see that it’s really the only good choice here. Are you that addicted to the taste of a fatty, lard-dripping cheeseburger that you’d shed tears over it’s loss? Personally I’d cry over the senseless and brutal killing of thousands of animals every day, so that western society can continue to destroy itself through its own gluttony.

As for controversial: it’s only controversial because the meat and dairy industries, who’ve done nothing but cut back jobs instead of profits, and destroy the environment in their quest to spill as much blood as possible, tell us it is. It’s a non-issue. Anyone – who can be bothered getting past their own self-indulgent “But I wanna eat a steak!” bullshit – can see that not eating meat is a logical choice.

And this isn’t even considering the spiritual/humanitarian issues in eating meat. Personally, as a NeoPagan, especially one with strong Wiccan influence, I don’t think you can believe in an ethos of “harming none” and eating meat (this is a topic I’ll write more on, one day). I don’t think you can consider yourself “enlightened” or “progressive” as a species, when you still inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on other animals, based on your own absurd belief in your superiority. And all for no real reason.

Hopefully this is something to think about.


Comments on: "Your meat or your life, sir" (12)

  1. […] Original post by elfmage […]

  2. Have you considered that increasing your life span is actually causing more long term damage to the planet than your “share” of the meat industry would be? Have you ever done the math?

    …Just a thought from a Pagan carnivore 😉

  3. Ideally, if people became smart enough to realise the benefits of not eating meat, that would mean they’ve also started doing other intelligent things, like minimising their impact on the earth. Besides which, if you “do the math”, the minimalisation of impact from going veg*n would easily negate the impact of living longer. I can even obtain for you the figures, if you really want, and when I have time.

    Furthermore, people would be living longer, but in better health. Therefore reducing the massive negative impacts caused by things like pharmaceutical companies, whose chemical wasteproducts are doing massive amounts of damage. No more producing ever-increasing amounts of drugs to try and “combat” the rising cholesterol levels of an unhealthily obese society.

  4. The operative word – IMHO – was “ideally.” I’m afraid I don;t share your Utopian outlook. I’d also be concerned about the additional deforestation needs of increased dirt-farming agriculture.

    Saying, “meat is murder” is one thing, an ethical choice and judgment. Making a case for the practical benefits of such a course of action is quite another.

  5. I think I misunderstood your line of thought before. Based on the above statement, take a look at the figures for grain agriculture vs. raising stock. It takes significantly larger amounts of grain to feed the stock that humans then eat, PLUS the grains that the humans consume in addition. If you remove stock farming from that equation, there wouldn’t actually be any further land clearing required at any point in the near future, even given increasing populations.

    And it’s no more difficult to “make a case” at all, the evidence speaks for itself. 🙂

  6. […] Digital Likeness created an interesting post today on Your meat or your life, sirHere’s a short outline…as much as vegetarians and vegans are criticised for being “overly emotional” when it comes to animals, in my experience, few things will… […]

  7. Well, it more than just grain. There’s the rest of the nutrient needs as well, many of which are most efficiently gotten from animal products.

    There’s also – and this was key to my original point – no likelihood that society would adopt a model that didn’t stress the environment to some degree. Therefor, longer lived people would cause more overall impact.

    …Unless you’re willing to consider means of reducing the overall population of humans in the 1st place. I doubt that’s the case though.

  8. Ah, the old “animal products contain key nutrients that can’t be obtained easily, elsewhere”. I’d go into the details of how thoroughly that’s been disproven, but I’m sure you’re more than capable of searching it yourself, if you’re willing to admit the truth. And I was using grain as a short-hand “cover all” term to include all floral agriculture, since the veg*n diet is derived from these in one form or another.

    Personally I think the human population needs to be reduced GREATLY, back to a size resembling that of the Middle Ages (i.e. a sustainable one). The methods by which this can be achieved are contentious issues, though, that I’m not willing to go into at this time.

    And agreed, any society is going to stress the environment “to some degree”. It’s that degree that varies; veg*nism is all about minimising harm done. Besides, if society were to take the revolutionary (and, admittedly, almost certainly unlikely) step of becoming veg*n, it’s also equally possible that this would indicate greater social consciousness and knowledge about the impact humans have on the earth, and a greater desire to lessen this. If this desire weren’t to exist, why would society have taken that step in the first place?

  9. Im really enjoying your posts. Keep up the great work.

  10. Great blog, I’ll spread the word.

  11. Hi nice blog 🙂 I can see a lot of effort has been put in.

  12. I wish I could write this well! great blog thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: