Saturday, October 02, 2004
Anarcho-Carnivorism by Brad Edmonds
Brad Edmonds writes on the continuum of predator and prey, and why he eats shark but not bear.
Too bad he discounts the political intuition of vegans, though. Or perhaps I feel likewise, after all. It seems, the sensible person will eat based not strictly on the basis of rules (all meat; no meat) but in combination with a judgment of the circumstances (kindred meat sources, eg); by analogy, likewise to politics.
Link
Too bad he discounts the political intuition of vegans, though. Or perhaps I feel likewise, after all. It seems, the sensible person will eat based not strictly on the basis of rules (all meat; no meat) but in combination with a judgment of the circumstances (kindred meat sources, eg); by analogy, likewise to politics.
Comments:
Interesting. I think he goes too far in trying to categorize what he will and will not eat...specifically, many breeds of dog do have their eyes on the sides of their heads, and I have known rabbits with very strong personalities.
I'm also highly suspicious of his claim that "you tend to find more paleolibertarians among carnivores than among vegans." First, I don't believe for a second that he's actually researched this. Second, and more to the point, palealibertarians and vegans are both tiny slices of the populace, which fact alone makes their intersection extremely unlikely.
Finally, his conclusion seems to deny the logical end of his premise. Which species it's okay to eat is obviously a continuum, as he recognizes, but where in that continuum humanity draws the line between food and friend appears to be moving steadily animalward. I enjoy meat as much as (maybe more than) the next person, but I realize that it's a primitive thing. Vegetarians are out of place, and for that reason a little wacky, today, but theirs is the diet of the future.
I'm also highly suspicious of his claim that "you tend to find more paleolibertarians among carnivores than among vegans." First, I don't believe for a second that he's actually researched this. Second, and more to the point, palealibertarians and vegans are both tiny slices of the populace, which fact alone makes their intersection extremely unlikely.
Finally, his conclusion seems to deny the logical end of his premise. Which species it's okay to eat is obviously a continuum, as he recognizes, but where in that continuum humanity draws the line between food and friend appears to be moving steadily animalward. I enjoy meat as much as (maybe more than) the next person, but I realize that it's a primitive thing. Vegetarians are out of place, and for that reason a little wacky, today, but theirs is the diet of the future.
To tps12:
Underneath the bridge
The tarp has sprung a leak
And the animals I’ve trapped
Have all become my pets
And I’m living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
It’s okay to eat fish
’cause they don’t have any feelingsSo saith Nirvana on the subject.
I wonder whether you mean--or perhaps I simply disagree with--what you say about him going too far in trying to categorize, or whether rather you simply emphasize the imputed error in his categorization (dogs not okay, eg). I say this because he strikes me in his article in large part for that he does seem to go mostly by intuition--or: zoological-geneological intuition--in assessing who is kindred rather than the usual primary question of what attributes define a human or sentient species.
Cadbury must have been a smart one to have not been worth the many pounds of meat she'd have offered so readily.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
Underneath the bridge
The tarp has sprung a leak
And the animals I’ve trapped
Have all become my pets
And I’m living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
It’s okay to eat fish
’cause they don’t have any feelingsSo saith Nirvana on the subject.
I wonder whether you mean--or perhaps I simply disagree with--what you say about him going too far in trying to categorize, or whether rather you simply emphasize the imputed error in his categorization (dogs not okay, eg). I say this because he strikes me in his article in large part for that he does seem to go mostly by intuition--or: zoological-geneological intuition--in assessing who is kindred rather than the usual primary question of what attributes define a human or sentient species.
Cadbury must have been a smart one to have not been worth the many pounds of meat she'd have offered so readily.
Thanks for the comment.
