Thursday, 7 May 2009

Another argument for vegetarianism



if it were needed. Or, at the very least, for eating less meat. Or against intensive animal rearing, which amount to the same thing.




The pigs' revenge

Just as an unsustainable financial system caused the current banking crisis, the intensive farming of animals is at the heart of the swine flu pandemic

No. Eating animals won't give you swine flu. But the way that we eat animals has lead to this, and all sorts of other problems.

And to file in your incessantly burgeoning folder labelled Opportunity Wasted, instead of using this world-wide problem to re-evaluate past practices and remedy the situation in the long term, vested interests are seeing to it that while they make the right noises to some people, debate on the Larger Picture is muffled by small, inconsequential token gestures that do nothing to change the reality that got us into this mess in the first place. (Sound familiar?)

Lawrence says it very effectively, for me:
But instead of addressing these wider issues, the response to the flu pandemic in terms of food production is "carry on as normal". Urged to spend our way out of ecological recession, we are exhorted to keep eating pork products. Keen to protect the economic interests of its meat industry, the US government took to calling this swine flu "H1N1 flu" a couple of days ago, in order not to put people off their chops. The World Health Organisation, which depends on the US for a large part of its budget and has been bullied by it before, has now followed suit, rebranding the flu influenza A (H1N1). But simply saying "as you were" is no more an adequate response to the cause of this current crisis than it is to the banking collapse. If we carry on as before, the pigs may yet have their revenge. And if not the pigs, the chickens.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen (and dignified folk of unspecified or alternate gender) is a postmodern, post-industrial solution to a very industrial problem, so remind me to cite that as an example when you ask me later because I'll have forgotten.

Remember, if you go veggie tell them that it was me who convinced you: 2 more converts and I get a free toaster oven!

9 comments:

  1. The commercial business means breeding animals will continue but it can only come down if & when more & more people say no to eating animals.

    I think a healthy simple vegetarian diet is enough to remain healthy and feel strong within.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You only get a toaster oven if you turn them gay, too. I'll be a vegetarian the day they make tofu not taste like sick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not fair! I have no hope of making anyone go gay. (Is 'go gay' the right phrase? I shall ponder upon it.)

    Tofu doesn't taste like sick. Unless of course you cook it with sick.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So THAT's where I've been going wrong!
    I think the accepted homphobism is to 'turn people gay'. And no toaster oven for you until you do!

    ReplyDelete
  5. So 'go gay' is ok, but 'turn gay' isn't? Ok, thanks for the tip. (Geez. What a complicated little lexicon you've got going there!)

    And I am bitterly disappointed about not getting the toaster oven. What do I get for just making people go/turn veggie? A salad spinner?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Check my blog. This was getting complex.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ok. Here's the link for that:

    http://cunninglinguaphile.blogspot.com/2009/05/our-complicated-lexicon.html

    And my response to your response:

    http://michaelszollosy.blogspot.com/2009/05/terrible-pun-removed.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Argh! I have NO sources for you except for the percolations of my diseased little mind!
    In a nutshell: I don't believe in binary Gay/Straight sexuality. so being told your straight and coming out as gay is not so much wrong as a gross oversimplification. Actually, the way my thoughts are developing, I think this DOES fit in with my blog. Expect a post on sexual self-identification soon.

    ReplyDelete