This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg02638.html as retrieved on 25 Mar 2004 03:35:15 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:D_2KjX38f0YJ:csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg02638.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 

Re: [pf] A compassionate and reverential attitude toward everything < < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >

Re: [pf] A compassionate and reverential attitude toward everything

by David MacClement

23 January 2000 20:14 UTC


>David MacClement wrote:
>>* I ... started disagreeing at
>> Kaleopono (there's no way a rock can be aware; Gaia: maybe), and ...
>
At 18:42 22/01/00 -0800, Molly wrote:
>I'm sort of hoping that Kaleopono is wrong. I'm a vegetarian because I
>believe animals are aware and have soul (spirit, consciousness,
>awareness, choose your synonym; and that they suffer). If plants and
>minerals do, what am I going to eat?
>

**  Two things: the word animals, and eating to live.

**  I don't know the science definition of animals, but I equate it with
consumers: dependent on ready-made molecules from other organisms, in
contrast with plants which use water, carbon dioxide and minerals (plus
energy from either the sun or {sulfur-containing?} chemicals from hot vents
in the ocean floor) to make their own molecular building-blocks. This
version doesn't classify fungi etc. properly, and leaves viruses as
something separate from everything else, possibly not living.
**  However, most animals are not mammals, and I believe the invertebrates
(6-legged insects, 8-legged spiders, and those with more legs still, plus
those without a carapace) can claim by body-mass and by numbers of species
that they comprise most animals.

**  Leaving self-aware out, since I don't agree with Arianna and Kaleopono
that all living things are self-aware (there's usually not enough
"thinking" capacity) :- I would suggest that "aware" could be a criterion
for giving thanks to the organism for giving you the opportunity to
maintain your own life by eating-it / extinguishing-its-life. Since I as a
human rely more on sight than the other senses, I regard a jumping spider
as aware-of-me from a distance. If my world was created (in my mind)
largely by smell (like a dog) or vibration (like a web spider), I would
consider a different set of animals to be aware-of-me. The
smallest/least-complex animals that I know are aware-of-me are black-flies
and fleas. Note I'm making a distinction between aware-of-me and aware; I
know much less about the latter. In considering plants and poikilotherm
("cold-blooded") animals when cold, one should consider what it'd be like
to live at a much slower pace. IMO, the built-in chemical feed-back loops
that make a plant (e.g.) grow towards the light are not in the category of
"aware", though I would listen to debate on this.

**  On Molly's plaint: those who are vegetarians for ethical reasons (mine
is financial) should IMO feel no compunction in continuing their unthinking
ways. Yes, one is changing the future by simply staying alive, and one of
the ways could be that the plant or animal that was pulled up, cut or
otherwise died to feed you /might/ (if left where it was) have some
significant effect, either in its later life, or through the humus its
death contributes to the soil there. The probability is generally
negligible, but non-zero. This latter is the main reason against even
helicopter-logging; that the trees should be allowed to die and rot, as
they would without human interference.
**  The nutrients, bones and fibres need to be recycled (or possibly
replaced, but doing that right is a much bigger job than just spreading
fertilizer) if each valley or plain is to maintain its ecology
indefinitely. So, a self-contained farm can easily be sustainable, but
maintaining the full set of feed-back loops (e.g. sewage) between a town
and its hinterland (so they are sustainable together) is a systems problem
that no-one seems to bother with (at least for the last ~150 years) in the
West.

**  Since we as animals have to eat to live, I don't regard eating as an
ethical issue, at least while I eat so little and waste nothing. We're just
like the other animals - a part of The Earth's ecology. 
**  Waste /is/ an ethical issue. This includes long-distance transport of
food.


**  Do I come across as pedantic? So much of what I say seems not-thought-
about by most people, that I easily fall back into my "teacher" mode.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
 or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************


_____________________________________________________________
Check out the new and improved Topica site!
http://www.topica.com/t/13


< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home