Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!eirik
From: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller)
Newsgroups: net.veg
Subject: Re: Please go away.
Message-ID: <33@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 18:55:25 EST
Article-I.D.: tekchips.33
Posted: Fri Jan 31 18:55:25 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Feb-86 01:19:44 EST
References: <796@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 54

In article <796@decwrl.DEC.COM> benton@hbo.DEC (Janet Benton) writes:
> ...
>
>Those people who are vegetarians are that way for a reason.  Health is one
>reason, but in my opinion is not good enough.  Why?  Because those who become
>vegetarian only for health reasons tend to drop off when the going gets tough
>(by that I mean inconvenient, or getting hassled).  Only those who are
>vegetarian with a principle behind it stay that way. 
> ...

I'm not sure I agree with the implicit assumption that health reasons
don't qualify as a principle...  however, in what follows the wording
reflects that assumption.  

I am not a vegetarian, so I don't really know what I'm talking about
:-), but some friends of mine are vegetarians, and they claim they
don't eat meat because if they did eat meat, they would get sick
(apparently this has happened).  Their decision not to eat meat is
self-enforcing, to the extent that this barrier serves as a
deterrent.  I think their original decision was based on health
reasons.  I'm not sure a "principle" is more effective than health
reasons as a motivation to remain a vegetarian.  

My (limited) understanding of this "barrier" is as follows:  human
beings are not carnivores in a biological sense.  What humans are,
above all, is adaptable.  Their behavioral adaptation far outpaces
their biological adaptation; i.e.  the decision to eat meat was made
recently enough that biological evolution hasn't caught up.  In
short, perhaps meat eating is learned, not inherited.  This, of
course, assumes a limited short term biological apaptability.  

This line of thought brings to mind the Eskimo. Again, I speak from
the depths of my ignorance, but by my understanding an Eskimo diet
takes a lot of getting used to for a nonEskimo. Not to single out
Eskimos, there are wide variations in eating habits among different
cultures. While they are not necessarily equally good from a
nutritional point of view, each of these variations no doubt had
some reason to start, perhaps as simple as availability.

Maybe meat is a poison (more commonly called a drug) for which humans
have developed a tolerance. Maybe the ability to do so was once
essential to the survival of the human race. Our diet abounds with
drugs of assorted flavors; caffeine, ethanol, nicotine, and sucrose
immediately come to mind. I suspect there are many nonessential
ingredients in our diet, many of them harmful. I don't expect most
of them to go away soon.

Eating meat reminds me of drinking alcohol; it is a nonessential
nicety which facilitates social interaction through conformity.  The
main difference I see is that meat isn't entirely lacking in
nutritional value.  

Enough babbling for now. I won't apologize for any commotion I
stir up; use your 'n' key if you are looking for recipes.