Survival at Stake.
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Presumably it will advocate numerous and impossible reforms to capitalism like so many of its kind have done before.
Her argument (which is valid) about humans being animals more like many other animals than some care to admit works both ways. As some other animals have the “right” to eat other animals, why can’t we (especially as we wouldn’t have evolved if we hadn’t)? That wouldn’t mean that we can hunt other animals for pleasure or experiment on or be cruel to them as no other animals do this.
In fact the argument that we shouldn’t kill other animals to eat is based on something that does distinguish us from them — that we can change our environment and have now reached the point where we have a choice not to eat other animals in that we could survive without doing this. Whether everybody should be forced to make this choice is another matter altogether. All that books like hers can do is to try to influence people to make that choice. Which is presumably why she wrote it.
She may also, as WEZ suggests, be campaigning to ban hunting for pleasure, blood sports, animal experiments and cruelty to animals. But these are things meat-eaters can and do agree with stopping. Not sure about banning leather shoes but fashion accessories could be. She would only cross the line if she were to argue that eating other animals should be banned.
Carnivores are allowed to eat a cow, but it is against the law ( ain’t it?) to make love to one, no matter how pretty and willing she is.
If you were to ask Daisy which of the two she would prefer we can all guess what she would choose.
I like the quaint expressions they have and how they like to be photographed.Worth reviewing for the Standard? By the way is it true that, without eating animals, we wouldn’t have evolved as we have? There seems to be a fair amount of evidence now that there was a hell of a lot more gathering than hunting among early homo sapiens.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/why-scientists-believe-cavemen-may-have-been-vegan/ar-AA1nRZvo?item=flightsprg-tipsubsc-v1a?seasonThat article is irrelevant to the point at issue as it is about the eating habits of early members of the species homo sapiens. In other words, after we had evolved.
The claim is that meat-eating led to the evolution of modern humans from earlier hominid species — that eating meat provided key proteins for the development and functioning of bigger and more functional brains. In other words, before we evolved.
Like all scientific conclusions (and I think this is the majority view) this is open to challenge but that article doesn’t challenge it, not was even intended to.
Incidentally, the way that news website reports the findings is tendentious as it speaks of the humans concerned being “vegans”. I’ve not read the scientific paper but it seems to be arguing, not that they ate no meat, but more non-meat food than apparently some have thought. My guess is that it (the report not the research) was written by a vegan or vegetarian, a textbook example of bad journalism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.