Newsgroups: alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals,alt.consumers,alt.cows Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.net.uk!netcom.com!rwahl From: rwahl@netcom.com (Robert Wahl) Subject: Re: What do Buddhists eat? Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <4qmhv9$n0o@acad1.tp.ac.sg> <4rb98o$b6j@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 19:37:40 GMT Lines: 23 Sender: rwahl@netcom14.netcom.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.zen:36617 alt.philosophy.zen:8461 alt.magick.tyagi:9228 talk.religion.buddhism:23055 alt.religion.buddhism:480 talk.politics.animals:77291 alt.animals:487 alt.consumers:390 alt.cows:26 lchance@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Frank Chance) writes: >Not to put too fine a point on it, but since cattle have been >bred/evolved out of any natural niche in the ecosystem, if all of us >didn't eat meat, would the animal still have been born? Probably not. But would you support raising babies for food because it would allow more beings to be born in the human state? Your point is a red herring. Things would be quite different if almost any terrible thing hadn't happened -- this is no excuse to perpetuate wrong actions. If we ate less meat, there would be a corresponding reduction in cattle populations. This would in turn lessen the need to destroy the natural habitat of other animals, providing more chance for THEM to flourish without our misguided and selfish interference. Also consider the unnatural and cruel treatment cattle receive in feed lots and milking factories, and the fact that cattle raised for meat seldom live even a third of a natural life span. The world DOESN'T need more cows (or even people); rather, we should treat the ones which exist with greater humanity, while reducing our (ab)use of them. -- Robert Wahl rwahl@netcom.com Denver, Colorado, USA