Since my last (ancient) post, I’ve done one large thing and a bunch of very small ones. The large one was that I took a trip to California to see the Coachella Festival (which ruled supremely). I have plenty of new pictures (and a few treats for my Flickr friends). The West Coast was everything I never expected it to be. I was impressed by the beauty of the landscapes there, different from the fluffy green trees and brown dirt East coast ones. The desert (well, sleeping outside in it) was a VERY new experience. I didn’t see any famous people, although I really tried hard. We drove down all the well-known streets in Los Angeles and many of the beaches nearby. It was unforgettable.
As for more recent “things”:
Today, while reading my AlterNet.org newsletter, I found an article about controversial animal-rights supporter and author Peter Singer called “It’s Not Enough to Be a Vegetarian” Which caused me to think about my own food opinions. As I attempt to be a conscientious consumer, I have considered all the diets that are available for human beings. I try to educate myself about the choices that will have the “least” impact on environment, animals and the world. Singer suggests that everyone be vegan (not eat any animal products or by-products [milk, cheese, etc.]) and that our consumption come from the most sustainable, least-harming places.
Unfortunately, while arguably the “best” option, it is not an option available to all, as many of the commenters and the writer of the article point out. One commenter noted that,
“We should consider ourselves VERY lucky to be able to talk abstractly about the ethics of eating. Most of the population on earth cannot engage in that discussion. They eat whatever they can manage to.”
I wonder, is the reason that they have to eat whatever they can an effect of our eating whatever we want? Many Veggie-proponents have described the environmental, economic and other impacts of the meat-heavy diets in this country; the water, soil and air pollution; the suffering of animals (link). But no amount of numbers can change a person’s “choice.” Most people are too far removed from it to be bothered and others simply don’t care.
Singer’s ideas are certainly controversial and in a few ways, hypocritical, but I will likely be reading his book soon. :-)
Another interesting addition to his story is his interaction with Harriet McBryde Johnson, a feisty (and funny) disability rights activist and lawyer, about his belief that we should (or should have the choice to) abort or euthanize disabled or ill babies and humans. Please read: Unspeakable Conversations. A favorite from the article:
He asks what I thought of the students’ questions.
‘’They were fine, about what I expected. I was a little surprised by the question about meat eating.'’
‘’I apologize for that. That was out of left field. But — I think what he wanted to know is how you can have such high respect for human life and so little respect for animal life.'’
‘’People have lately been asking me the converse, how you can have so much respect for animal life and so little respect for human life.'’
‘’And what do you answer?'’
‘’I say I don’t know. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.'’
