Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!alang
From: alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Racists and Meat Eaters
Message-ID: <1909@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 22:45:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.1909
Posted: Mon Sep 22 22:45:50 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 05:21:21 EDT
References: <2558@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist)
Distribution: world
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 60


In article <2558@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes:
>Tim Sevener writes:
>> Then there is, of course, Heinlein's series on the "Methuselah Complex"
>> in which a secret group of "genetically superior" people who have
>> secretly crossbred to attain incredible lifespans are persecuted
>> and envied by the mass of the "genetically inferior".
>
>It's interesting that Tim associates genetic good fortune with
>"superiority", and its opposite with "inferiority".  Good fortune is
>one ground on which humans judge one another as superior or inferior.
>Another ground is accomplishment, another is ability, and yet another
>is aesthetic taste.
>
>snub you.  In the case of animals, humans judge animals to be *very*
>inferior.  So inferior, in fact, that most of us consider it okay to
>kill them for food.  In general, superior beings are considered more
>deserving.

David brings up some very interesting questions and points about human social
interaction.  However, I feel that his conclusions about "meat eaters" is
totally incorrect.

A lion does not consider itself superior to antelope, and thereby justify
its preying upon them and other prey.  Indeed, the lion is probably not
capable of such mental activity.  And if you believe otherwise, then take
the case of a spider.  In any case, these animals are preditors because
at some point along their evolutionary path, they developed the ability
to kill, and found it to be a dependable source of food.  Since that point
in time, they have been natural born preditors.  Fact: They are able to
kill because they are better at killing their prey, than their prey are
at killing them.  In that respect, and that respect only, they are superior.
Fact: They use this superiority to obtain food; they are natural born
preditors.

Humans have exactly the same evolutionary history, as far as preying is
concerned.  Since the point we started killing for food, we have been
natural born preditors; better at killing than our prey; superior at that,
and only that respect.

There is certainly people out there who do kill because of their believed
superiority, but this is a small minority of the "meat eaters" I know.

Note: I in no way wish to change the eating habits of anyone.  I merely
object to people trying to make me eat like they do, because _they_ think
they know what is right.

Possible question for discussion:  Many so called vegetarians (I do _not_
mean that in a derogatory way) I know will not eat air breathing animals,
but do eat fish and other water breathers.  I realize that some do this
for dietary, and not philosophical reasons.  But I have had more than one
of them critisize me for my meat eating.  How do they justify their apparent
hipocrasy?  And I have also had people who only eat domesticated animals
_and_ water breathers criticize me for my hunting of non-domesticated animals.
Again, how do they justify their apparent hipocrasy?  I have yet to obtain
rational arguments on my own (eg. "But fish aren't really animals.").  Maybe
someone out on the net can help me.

Alan Geist
tektronix!shark!alang