Everything that is born has to die. So is that a good justification for killing animals for food? Anyways they are going to die some day! And even plants have to be killed to prepare vegetarian food, unless we only eat fruits that have fallen from trees on their own. So whats the difference between killing animals and plants for food? It's the cycle of life afterall!
Even people who claim to be able to eat any animal would most likely draw a line between killing humans and killing any other living being. Whats the basis of this distinction? Humans are clearly very different from all other animals. Similarly, are not all animals very different from all plants? In fact, it's scientifically much easier to distinguish between plants and animals than it is to distinguish between animals and humans.
Now lets consider an office of a large company where a lot of people are working. At the office entrance, there's a nice guava tree and a few dogs roaming freely. If a person comes along and plucks a few guavas from the tree, would anyone cry in despair? But what if someone comes and kills one of the dogs for food right there? That would be gory and unacceptable! One may say that plucking guavas wont kill the tree. But harvesting wheat and rice also doesn't lead to any gory scenes. The point is that harvesting plants and killing animals are not the same thing.
So is it just about some visual imagery that weak minded vegetarians are unable to accept? If all visually unappealing scenes were the result of bad activities, we will also have to ban excretion! From an absolute perspective, there is certainly nothing good or bad because at the absolute level, there is only energy and time. All these notions of good and bad are a creation of the human mind, and these notions keep changing with time and space.
Prehistoric humans had to hunt for food because agriculture was not yet invented. Also survival in ancient society was largely dependent on muscle power. That situation has changed over the last few centuries and accelerated over the last few decades due to technology. The world is no longer ruled by people with muscle power but by people with brain power. Non-vegetarian food made sense in ancient times when muscle power was needed and agriculture was not well developed. But in a modern society run by brain power, its not really required. And always remember, scientifically, plants are very different from animals. Similarly, plant food is very different from animal food.
Eating non-vegetarian food is just an ancient necessity which is better done away with. The idea is not to put a ban on anything but to just help human beings in evolving to a higher level of existence. Again, just being a vegetarian doesn't make someone more evolved than non-vegetarians, but eating vegetarian food surely helps in going deeper and becoming calmer. Its your choice!
The habits and taste die hard. That is the only reason, why non-vegetarians are not able to give up non-verg. This is what most of my friends often tell me. They are aware of the cruelty done to animals, and deep within they feel guilty about it. But somehow,due to family and societal reasons, they are probably not able to change.
ReplyDeleteGood to know! Thanks for sharing. :)
DeleteEating habits depend a lot on social n geographical conditions too. Where it is difficult to grow vegetables, for example in deserts, cold areas n so on, the only option would be animals. Similarly in places near water bodies, fish is available in plenty. More important is that whatever is eaten is earned out of honest money. Eating veg or non-veg is an individual choice but even then the food has its own impact on one's mentality. Non veg is often tamsik n perhaps better avoided if possible.
ReplyDeleteYes Mr. Gupta! Personal choice is of course always there, but one has to eat food that is more conducive to one's physical, mental and spiritual well being.
DeleteThank you for sharing this article with me.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me the group conversation we had in IIT Delhi Foot ball ground.
When Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian discussion was brought up by one of us, I instantly reacted and said don’t discuss about it, It is an individual choice and it will not lead to an end. We did not talk about it further.
Now more than 6 years passed away from that moment, I turned to Vegetarian who eats Egg occasionally, say Eggetarian. I stopped eating meat from Jan 2020. Today these comments aptly make sense to me.
A few of my family members prefer to eat Non-veg occasionally. But they cannot even see cutting a chicken, cannot clean the meat, cannot even hear people talking about it. Because they connect to life of animal there. Since they are used to like the taste and continuing it.
Now a days the trend I see, Non- veg become much available than before, at the same time, some of the people turning to vegetarians or eggetarians or vegans.
Very interesting to know about the change! Thanks for sharing. :)
DeleteComments received on email:
ReplyDelete1. Away from any religious doctrine, take a look at secular ethics around animal cruelty and non-vegetarianism, kickstarted in the west by Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation”, which started off a big movement in western countries. Indian idealist emphasis on non cruelty is so universal- found across Indic religions and philosophy- that it could be termed secular and in the real sense, ie it is practiced across hundreds of generations, not just an intellectual argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)
2. The climate change arguments: a)cattle/bovine farming for food is among top 3-5 emitters of greenhouse gases. B)They also consume enough corn/feedstock that can sustain 100s of humans if those humans were vegetarians. C) climate change is already killing humans (not only floods but also Vanuatu entire country islands are going under water). These three are good ethical arguments for vegetarianism or better, veganism, away from non cruelty or non killing alone.