asks In issue 33/2010 of TIME Iris Radisch the features section "Who can kill whom and why?" (P. 41f)
So: Why do we eat animals? The reasons are as simple as banal. Because we can! Because increased ihrVerzehr in dark antiquity, perhaps as in the not too distant past, even its own survival and that of the clan. Because since that time, a culture developed around the meat, the meat of the enjoyment as well as his production. Because the companies produce, meat, a substantial economic power, are unlikely to be easy to convince of vegetarianism.
You do not like me get me wrong: I too am a (semi) vegetarian, do not eat mammals, but well and with pleasure and poultry Meeresgeschnetz. My decision to continue to renounce the use of mammalian meat - he is now 12 years ago - is due to a short film documentary (a supporting film in a local cinema) of a pig life, from litter to the hook on which it bled. These pictures were enough to bring my vague discomfort in meat consumption at last to the point - the farming of animals, which we ultimately are themselves able to support and I no longer wanted. So it has remained to this day and in this respect I agree with Mrs Radisch. Nevertheless, it is in their article, in my view a very angry.
Because that would right man animals to eat, she asks. Yes, what law? As there were such a thing beyond the realm of man. A kind of natural law well at all? A divine? If I feel this idea does not least as cured, as the slope to the dead animal? Legal has not one, you get it. It is awarded to one (in the court process). The fact that we have right to believe, is nothing but an everyday linguistic shorthand. And the human right (intermediate) result of an endless process of negotiation between the various parties. Who else sees this will inevitably come into the situation, his rights, which he says have to be divine (or whatever) to be considered legitimate to defend. What sorrow, what trouble brought this idea of humanity requires, I think no further explanation.
What follows? Man has absolutely no right to eat animals, but he also unnecessary! At least not until a sufficiently large party committed to the protection of animals. Which then in turn gets into tricky ethical questions. About how the lion eating the gazelle may so completely in violation of any animal protection conventions alive. Should not prevent him from doing this as well, like a pit bull to bite of a man threatening? Oh, one wants to hear you there, this would contradict the nature of the lion. Than would exist beyond the human imagination. And the deer will "thank" for these were dubious excuse their killing.
Who really serious about animal welfare can not help but also in the "natural" order of things to intervene to share the savanna clean in the area of the lion and the gazelle, and thwart any attempt to limit infringement carefully. A ridiculous idea? Yeah, well ...
Natural Law to leave that is, where it belongs - in the dustbin of history of philosophy. Much more attention should practical approaches: the detention damage to the farming ourselves more than we realize. Daily steak, the steak, the blood sausage (the specific formulation often referred to as "dead grandma" and is the eye of the esthetician offended's most sensitive) on the plates we screen workers will be able to ban only if the consumers of disadvantage of meat production strongly convincing. Not with pseudoromantischhippiehaftem Wohlfühlgefasel but clear statements about the overall social costs entailed in this life change with it.
secure - this is not the same every stop of his meat. For how many still enjoy the Freedom and flexibility offered us the car, prudently, that ultimately passed both man and nature to the detriment. And who considers the environmental balance of his laptop ...? But would it ever a big step in the right direction. What will it take? For example graduated tax on meat, depending on production: the lowest tax rate on the flesh of happy cows, the highest on meat from non-animal welfare. What will happen? Meat (in a transparent way) more expensive, you can choose (which many a good in itself) and possibly even the meat industry has on his side, which will however have to change. At the same time, ensure that areas for livestock production do not grow excessively in order not to cause damage on the other hand, such as deforestation and forest. And that taxation is not only for local meat, but also to imported.
We must not be naive - such a change requires considerable political reaction force. Not only is the meat lobbyists are up in arms. Also of perhaps unexpected criticism is loud, such as by representatives of the socially disadvantaged. For good meat would then return to the luxury product that it once was. Hardly likely that this (artificial) fracture in the social fabric be well-tolerated. There is less meat consumed, and it will be the highest income that do so. Unfortunately, this will probably just there to enforce the understanding of the need for reduction in meat consumption faster than income in the layers. Well, this is then another problem ...
So what's the bottom line: The meat must be scaled down production, meat consumption can be reduced. But this is achieved not with windy references to a natural law that there are so not, but by pragmatic approaches. The ethical underpinnings may be helpful, it is not necessary.
[ Update: Here is the Link to original article in TIME Online, at the time of writing this article has not been available online.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment