Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle” (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….
Showing posts with label vegetarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vegetarianism. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Six Years Ago Today: What is the cause of Heart Disease?

By Jim Rix

[Originally published on November 20, 2012.]

First let’s be clear on just what “Heart Disease” is, because some people confuse it with its consequences (heart attack, stroke, etc.) and/or its risk factors (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.).

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Six Years Ago Today

A matter of conscience

By Moristotle

[Originally published on June 20, 2011, not one word different.]

My opposition to eating animals probably doesn’t rest “on moral grounds“ but might be more appropriately termed “a matter of conscience.” Opposition on moral grounds seems to imply that I would condemn as immoral anyone who doesn’t oppose eating animals, and I don’t do that.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Fish for Friday

You don't want to give up meat, but at least you are careful about the type you eat and the quality, right? Actually, as shown in the report "Horsemeat scandal exposes complex food chain," when you eat meat of any type you basically have no clue what it really is.
    If the possibility of pork bung (rectum) instead of calamari didn't get your attention [see the last fish on January 18], maybe the idea of eating meat from a former race horse will give you pause, especially since it may have been given all kinds of performance enhancing drugs during its racing career. No, unfortunately the drug residue will not help you run faster, but it may help you die quicker.


Sunday, December 2, 2012

Always on Sunday: Forks over Knives

"Parental guidance suggested: Nasty diseases and scary statistics."
    That's the cute but accurate way Lee Fulkerson's 2011 documentary Forks over Knives was rated for audiences by Jeannette Catsoulis in her May 5, 2011 review, "Soul Food, Vegan Style," in the May 5, 2011 The New York Times.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Tuesday with Another Voice

Today's voice belongs to
Guest Columnist
Jim Rix
What is the cause of Heart Disease?

First let’s be clear on just what “Heart Disease” is, because some people confuse it with its consequences (heart attack, stroke, etc.) and/or its risk factors (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.).

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Shakespeare a vegetarian?

From the striking opening with its, I guess, Ninji-style attack on Duke Senior's court, set in 19th century Japan, to the witty epilogue delivered by Bryce Dallas Howard on her way back to her trailer from the set, Kenneth Branagh's production of Shakespeare's As You Like It is quite as you might like it.
    It was how my wife and I liked it, and how New York Times movie critic Virginia Heffernan liked it five years ago. She concluded her August 21, 2007 review ("Enough Already, Rosalind, Let the Kools Talk") with the statement: "This is As You Like It as we like it." Let her speak for all of us.
As You Like It (2006: Kenneth Branagh) [Rosalind (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of Duke Senior (Brian Blessed, the banished duke), is raised at the court of Duke Frederick (Brian Blessed, who is younger brother to Duke Senior and took over his dukedom), with her cousin Celia (Romola Garai, daughter to Duke Frederick). She falls in love with a young man named Orlando (David Oyelowo), but before she can even think twice about it, she is banished by Duke Frederick, who threatens death if she comes near the court again. Celia, being Rosalind's best friend, goes with Rosalind (who is disguised as a boy, Ganymede) and Touchstone (Alfred Molina), the court's fool, to the forest of Arden. Upon their arrival in the forest, they happen upon Orlando and his manservant, who are fleeing the wrath of Orlando's eldest brother (Adrian Lester). What follows is an elaborate scheme devised by the cross-dressing Rosalind to find out the verity of Orlando's supposed passion for her, and to further capture his heart, through the witty and mischievous façade of Ganymede.] [E] 6-22-2012
    We were delighted to see Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of American director Ron Howard) in the role of Rosalind. She played Hilly Holbrook in The Help, of which I have made much metaphorical use in telling the story of my retirement from the University of North Carolina General Administration (see Features page "To the three white ladies, I was a colored maid").

Preferring as I do, for ethical reasons, not to eat animal flesh, I was touched by the way Kenneth Branagh handled Act II, Scene I of Shakespeare's play. The scene features the character Jacques (Kevin Kline's) aversion to killing (for eating?) the animals in the Forest of Arden. In Shakespeare (as you can see at the bottom of this post, where I've included the text of the scene in its entirety), Jacques is not present, and his words and actions are reported to Duke Senior by others.
    But in Branagh's movie, when Duke Senior says, "Come, shall we go and kill us venison?," Jacques is present and Brian Blessed beautifully plays some embarrassment at speaking in Jacques's presence. And Kevin Kline delicately acts sadness at the thought.
    I don't remember having noticed before Shakespeare's sensitive portrayal here of an aversion to eating animals. Could Shakespeare have been a vegetarian?
    According to the Natural Healing Center, he was, but it would be in their interest to say so, true or not.
    YourDailyShakespeare.com quotes Act I, Scene 3 of Twelfth Night:
...but I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm my wit.
    Wiki.answers.com doubts it:
It was uncommon then to be a vegetarian. Most of the food that he will have eaten would be meat, so no, I don't think William Shakespeare was a vegetarian.
    I've emailed my college classmate Stephen Greenblatt at Harvard and asked him whether his Shakespeare studies have led him to any conclusion whether Shakespeare was a vegetarian.
_______________
Note: As You Like It is currently being performed in New York; see "Central Park, a Forest of Ardor" in the June 21 New York Times.

From the complete text of Shakespeare's As You Like It
ACT II
SCENE I
The Forest of Arden.

Enter DUKE SENIOR, AMIENS, and two or three Lords, like forester

DUKE SENIOR
Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile,
Hath not old custom made this life more sweet
Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods
More free from peril than the envious court?
Here feel we but the penalty of Adam,
The seasons' difference, as the icy fang
And churlish chiding of the winter's wind,
Which, when it bites and blows upon my body,
Even till I shrink with cold, I smile and say
'This is no flattery: these are counsellors
That feelingly persuade me what I am.'
Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
And this our life exempt from public haunt
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones and good in every thing.
I would not change it.

AMIENS
Happy is your grace,
That can translate the stubbornness of fortune
Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

DUKE SENIOR
Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools,
Being native burghers of this desert city,
Should in their own confines with forked heads
Have their round haunches gored.

First Lord
Indeed, my lord,
The melancholy Jaques grieves at that,
And, in that kind, swears you do more usurp
Than doth your brother that hath banish'd you.
To-day my Lord of Amiens and myself
Did steal behind him as he lay along
Under an oak whose antique root peeps out
Upon the brook that brawls along this wood:
To the which place a poor sequester'd stag,
That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt,
Did come to languish, and indeed, my lord,
The wretched animal heaved forth such groans
That their discharge did stretch his leathern coat
Almost to bursting, and the big round tears
Coursed one another down his innocent nose
In piteous chase; and thus the hairy fool
Much marked of the melancholy Jaques,
Stood on the extremest verge of the swift brook,
Augmenting it with tears.

DUKE SENIOR
But what said Jaques?
Did he not moralize this spectacle?

First Lord
O, yes, into a thousand similes.
First, for his weeping into the needless stream;
'Poor deer,' quoth he, 'thou makest a testament
As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more
To that which had too much:' then, being there alone,
Left and abandon'd of his velvet friends,
''Tis right:' quoth he; 'thus misery doth part
The flux of company:' anon a careless herd,
Full of the pasture, jumps along by him
And never stays to greet him; 'Ay' quoth Jaques,
'Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens;
'Tis just the fashion: wherefore do you look
Upon that poor and broken bankrupt there?'
Thus most invectively he pierceth through
The body of the country, city, court,
Yea, and of this our life, swearing that we
Are mere usurpers, tyrants and what's worse,
To fright the animals and to kill them up
In their assign'd and native dwelling-place.

DUKE SENIOR
And did you leave him in this contemplation?

Second Lord
We did, my lord, weeping and commenting
Upon the sobbing deer.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

A taste of irony

Photo taken yesterday in Durham
Hogs are like humans...
When in their natural surroundings—not on factory farms—pigs are social, playful, protective animals who bond with each other, make nests, relax in the sun, and cool off in the mud. Pigs are known to dream, recognize their own names, learn "tricks" like sitting for a treat, and lead social lives of a complexity previously observed only in primates. Many pigs even sleep in "pig piles," much like dogs. Some love to cuddle and others prefer space.
    People who run animal sanctuaries that include pigs note that they are more similar to humans than you would guess. Like humans, pigs enjoy listening to music, playing with soccer balls, and getting massages. Pigs can even play video games!
                        –From "The Hidden Lives of Pigs"1
In many ways...
Researchers have found that pigs are among the quickest of animals to learn a new routine, and pigs can do a circus’s worth of tricks: jump hoops, bow and stand, spin and make wordlike sounds on command, roll out rugs, herd sheep, close and open cages, play videogames with joysticks, and more.
    Last week, an international team of biologists released the first draft sequence of the pig genome...Even on a cursory glance, “the pig genome compares favorably with the human genome...Very large sections are maintained in complete pieces,”...barely ch in the 100-million-plus years since the ancestors of hogs and humans diverged....
    Many physiological and behavioral parallels between humans and pigs are reflected in our respective genomes. Pig hearts are like our hearts, pigs metabolize drugs as we do, their teeth resemble our teeth, and their habits can, too. “I look at the pig as a great animal model for human lifestyle diseases...Pigs like to lie around, they like to drink if given the chance, they’ll smoke and watch TV.”
                        –From "Pigs Prove to Be Smart, if Not Vain," by Natalie Angier2
Maybe hogs do...go to heaven too3?
_______________
  1. On the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  2. Article in the November 9, 2009 edition of the New York Times
  3. Humans often throw...them a chance to go:

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Motomynd: Global warming: How concerned are you...really?

[In the article that follows, Motomynd puts the heat on Moristotle as well as on Moristotle's readers. But to show he's a good sport, Moristotle confessed yesterday that he turf turds his lawn.
Recently your blog was abuzz about global warming. From the responses [see comments on the post "In awe of Nature's four billion years on Earth"], the consensus seemed to be that not only was the earth warming, but people were causing it. So here is a quiz designed to find out if your readers are concerned enough about global warming to actually be doing their part to combat it—or if all is just rhetoric. Answer the following questions to establish your GWAR—Global Warming Action Rating:

1. The stereotypical great American lawn is a green desert that, from an environmental perspective, ranks only a couple of notches above a parking lot. In our quest for tidy expanses of green grass we kill the earth beneath it with chemicals, spew pollutants while mowing and trimming, and waste water and energy. What does your lawn say about your GWAR?
    A) I have a yard that requires no mowing, watering or fertilizing. It takes care of itself and I pay the necessary attorney fees to keep my neighbors and the zoning commission at bay. Perfect score! 10 points! You don't just talk the talk, you walk the walk!
    B) Most of my yard is natural. I never seed, feed, or water. I do essential trimming with hand tools, or with a battery powered trimmer—and I recharge the batteries with solar panels or a windmill. Great score! 7 points! You talk, you walk, and you compromise on your terms.
    C) Part of my yard is natural. The rest I feed, seed, and water and I take care of, or hire someone to take care of, with a traditional gas-powered mower. 4 points, at least you are making an effort.
    D) To keep peace with the neighbors I have a yard that requires mowing, watering, and seeding. And aerating and plugging, whatever that is. No score! Zero points! You talk, but you don't walk—you barely crawl.

2. American business commuters create an immense carbon footprint. When traveling back and forth to work, what do you do to help with the problem?
    A) I walk or pedal a bicycle. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) I travel exclusively by mass transit. Great score! 7 points!
    C) I carpool, commute alone in an electric vehicle, or use a gas-powered vehicle that gets at least 60 miles per gallon. 4 points, at least you are making an effort.
    D) I drive alone, get way less than 50 mpg, and can’t be bothered thinking about it.  Zero points! But you knew that already, right?

3. American casual travelers also create an immense carbon footprint. How do you travel for fun?
    A) I walk or pedal a bicycle. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) I travel exclusively by mass transit. Great score! 7 points!
    C) I carpool, commute alone in an electric vehicle, or use a gas-powered vehicle that gets at least 60 miles per gallon. 4 points, at least you are making an effort.
    D) I drive alone, get way less than 50 mpg, and can’t be bothered thinking about it.  Zero points! But you already knew that again, right?

4. Since this is America and we can’t get away from travel, let’s talk about how we go on vacation. Yes, there is a recurring theme here.
    A) I walk or pedal a bicycle. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) I travel exclusively by mass transit. Great score! 7 points!
    C) I fly, or travel with three others in a vehicle that gets at least 30 miles per gallon, or drive with at least one other person in an electric vehicle. 4 points. At least you are making an effort.
    D) I drive alone, get way less than 50 mpg, and still don’t want to be bothered thinking about it. Zero points! But you already knew that again, right?

5. The typical American meat-based diet is another huge waste of resources that creates an oversize carbon footprint. So how do you rate?
    A) I’m a vegan. I use no animal products at all. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) I’m an ova-lacto vegetarian. I eat a grain and vegetable-based diet supplemented only with eggs and milk. Great score! 7 points!
    C) I am working on becoming a vegetarian. Eating mostly fish and chicken, and just the occasional burger, counts for something doesn’t it? 4 points. Again, at least you are trying.
    D) This is America, of course I eat a lot of meat. Zero points! Yes, I already knew that.

6. How and where we eat can impact global warming almost as much as what we eat.
    A) I never cook. Really. I eat everything raw. Perfect score! 10 points! (But how on earth do you do it? We really want to know!)
    B) I cook once or twice a week. The rest of the time I warm leftovers in a solar oven or microwave. Great score! 7 points!
    C) I cook when I want and eat out when I wish. But at least I favor dimly lit restaurants that serve mostly vegetarian fare. 4 points, keep trying.
    D) I drive a gas guzzler, sit 10 minutes in a drive-thru with the motor running, and cook outside on a grill that uses more fuel per meal than a hybrid car does in a week. Yeah, I know, zero points.

7. Enough about food—how about shelter?
    A) I live in a tent (or tepee or yurt) and I travel as the season changes like Native Americans and Mongols, so I never use heat or air. And by Mongols I mean descendants of Genghis Khan, not the motorcycle gang. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) I live in an environmentally friendly multi-family housing complex, or a single-family home completely powered by solar or wind. Great score! 7 points!
    C) My single-family home is powered by the grid, but at least I updated the windows and insulation and use insulated blinds, drapes, and curtains. 4 points. Keep it up.
    D) I’m pretty sure we added storm windows on the north side of the house, but gas, oil, and electricity aren’t really all the expensive, so I use what I need. Yep, zero points.

8. And how about minimizing the environmental impact of that shelter?
    A) I carry my tent on my back and walk from winter home to summer hangout. What more can I do? Hard to argue with that. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) We use a state-of-the art thermostat to maximize the benefit of our environmentally friendly heating system, water the garden with rain water, and compost all we can. Great score! 7 points!
    C) We use one of those fancy computer-controlled thermostats, wear more clothes indoors in winter so we can set the heat lower, and we threw out a bunch of stuff and downsized to a smaller home. 4 points. You are getting there!
    D) If it is cold we turn up the thermostat and if it is hot we turn it down. So what? Zero points, at least you are consistent.

9. How does your recycling affect your GWAR?
    A) We buy items only in environmentally friendly packaging and recycle and compost everything. We never have trash. Perfect score! 10 points!
    B) We recycle all our cardboard and paper products, and all the plastic bottles and jugs, but keeping track of all those different numbers on plastic is just a little too much. Great score! 7 points! That is a lot more than most people do.
    C) Cereal should be in a box, not a bag, so that’s the way we buy it. But we do recycle the boxes and a few other things. Four points, about average.
    D) We have four trash cans. Do you really expect us to find room for a recycling bin? Need we even say zero points?

10. Here is a chance to earn some bonus points.
    A) I never buy water in plastic bottles. Great! Add 10 points to your score!
    B) I maintain recommended tire pressure and check it weekly. Good! Add 7 points!
    C) I turn the thermostat down to 60 in winter and wear a sweater made from recycled plastic bottles. Nice touch, add 5 points.
    D) I always recycle all batteries and old electronics. That counts. Add 3 points.

So what does your GWAR say about you?
    100 or more points: You are a global warming action hero! They may make a movie and market a line of toys based on your exploits.
    80-100 points: You not only talk the talk, you walk the walk.
    60-80 points: Not awful, but you need more walk and less talk.
    40-60 points: Probably about average, sadly.
    20-40 points: Barely below average, even more sadly.
    0-20 points: Do you just not care? Or are you among those people who believe the world is going to end in a few months, so why bother?

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Beyond the rail

Renaissance Concourse
Atlanta Airport Hotel
My room was on the ninth floor. Yesterday (Friday), standing a few feet from my door, I took the photo to the right. By my estimation, the Renaissance Concourse Atlanta Airport Hotel has at least two hundred rooms whose door is about ten feet from a short railing leading to misadventure. Maybe three hundred rooms, assuming that you might not have to fall but two or three floors to kill yourself. And you can't see it well from that photo, but the balcony for each floor along the far right juts out farther than the balcony below. There's no chance on that side of grabbing a railing on your way down (obvious from the photo below).
From an elevator opposite the
spot where the photo above was taken
    Upon my arrival Thursday morning for an overnight meeting, the sight of the balconies had made me feel uneasy—the same way I'd felt walking across San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge in 1967 or 68. I hugged the hotel balcony wall as I walked from the elevator to the far corner where it turned out Room 938 was located. (It was a good location so far as the window view was concerned.) When I returned to 938 at the end of the afternoon session, a housekeeper's cart blocked my way along the wall, so I had to get closer to the railing than I liked. I considered moving the cart, but I made myself buck up.
    Yesterday morning, preparing to go down for breakfast, I thought about calling the desk to send someone up to escort me to the elevator. The intervening hours had given me too much time to reflect on the Golden Gate Bridge Feeling—the sense that your body might suddenly try to jump over the rail and you wouldn't be able to stop it.
    It made me wonder how many suicides each year aren't really suicides in the sense of a willful act to do away with yourself, but just people's bodies acting on their own without the bodies' "owners" being able to intervene? Might be difficult to get statistics on that.
    Again, I steeled myself and went unescorted. I may have walked faster than the day before.
    But why was I having this uneasy feeling now? I'd been near high cliffs and rails quite a few times since 1967, and I had rarely had the feeling again.

When our meeting convened on Thursday afternoon, we'd all been asked to introduce ourselves and share "something interesting." Most of us already knew each other, from one or more previous annual meetings of our enterprise, but several people were new this year.
    When my turn came, I said,
In eleven days I'll no longer be who I am, so there seems to be little point in telling you who that was. But for those who don't know me yet I will say that this is my tenth annual meeting. I am, for the few days left before my retirement, the state coordinator for North Carolina.
    I've been asked one particular question so often lately, it might possibly be of interest to you how I'm dealing with the prospect of retirement.
    The most interesting thing about it to me is the strong polar-opposite feelings I have about it.
    On the one hand, I'm really glad to be leaving the organization I've worked in for fourteen years. One of the reasons is that it has already ceased to be what it was, and I very much dislike what it has become. Your organizations back home are hierarchical too. So has mine always been. But over the past few months it has become rigidly so—more top-down, more chain-of-command. The commands come down, and subservience is supposed to go back up. If you want to communicate with someone in a different part of the hierarchy, don't call them directly, but go up your chain to where the two hierarchies meet.
    Enough! I'll be relieved to escape my division's oppressive regime.
    But on the other hand, I'm already sad thinking that this is not only my tenth annual meeting—it's also my last. I'm going to miss working with all of you on our beloved tuition-savings program for college students in our states who want to pursue degrees that our own state doesn't offer. I'm going to miss each of you personally. We have become friends.
    Of course, no one likes to feel sad, so I'm trying to focus on the glad part of the situation —escaping the division I've worked in for fourteen years. I'll try to put off the sad part until later.
Well, the truth is I can't feel entirely glad about retiring from work that has given me a great deal of satisfaction. I think I'm feeling...diminished.
    It happens to many retirees. Some feel that they no longer have anything to live for, and a number of these die soon after their last day at work.
    Walking along the hotel balcony, think I feared that some hidden part of me might commandeer my body and pull or push it toward the rail....

After passing through the The Zimbabwe Exhibit at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport yesterday afternoon, a World Wildlife Fund poster brought back a powerful feeling I'd had the day before on the flight to Atlanta. The sound of a young child talking to its parent had provoked in me a profound sense of vulnerability. My heart went out to that child. I ached with the knowledge that it would not always be taken care of, that it was subject to wanton hurt, ill-treatment, even abandonment. How helpless are our children, how dependent on us our pets and even the livestock we raise...to slaughter. How vulnerable wild animals subject to legal hunters, to poachers, to each other.
    On the plane, I thought it was the child's vulnerability I felt. Stopped before the poster of the young elephant and its mother, I thought it was the vulnerability of the small elephant.
    I suspect now it was my own vulnerability that was trying to speak to me.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Humanitarian inclusion

On my residential community's website the other day, someone asked whether anyone else had heard early-morning gunshots nearby. Someone else wondered whether local people were taking shots at the coyotes, which she had several times seen early in the morning as she headed out to work.
    A gun enthusiast in our community commented approvingly:
There is no closed season for coyotes, so as long as it is daylight, then you can hunt them. This area is also outside the city limits, so there are no limitations on discharging firearms. I am a hunter/shooter and I say more power to these folks if they are hunting coyotes. Coyote packs are a danger to small pets in the neighborhood and perhaps even to calves and small livestock in the pastures down the road.
    While predators of course need to be dealt with for such reasons as he gives (I do not condemn the killing of a home-invader, for example, if that's the only way to protect oneself or one's family), I asked this hunter/shooter to suggest humane ways to reduce the local coyote population. I pointed out that shooting them might not result in a clean kill, but only wound the animals and result in their prolonged suffering. I told him that I was opposed to hunting on philosophical grounds (and I cited my statement on sentients rights).
    This morning, I was thinking about the grounds of my opposition, but in doing so I misremembered characterizing the grounds as humanitarian rather than "philosophical." Humanitarian, of course, seems perfectly congruent with my asking the hunter about humane ways to deal with the coyotes.
    But opposition on humanitarian grounds doesn't seem quite right. Humanitarian is usually used in the context of the mistreatment of humans (human animals), even if humane has a wider berth—the humane treatment of animals is a common phrase, focusing on the idea that compassionate human beings would not treat animals badly.
    It didn't take me long to identify a nearly perfect synonym for humanitarian to include the mistreatment of other animals as well as human ones: sentientarian, derived easily from my statement of sentients rights.

I say nearly perfect. In fact, plants, too, are sentients, as my wife correctly observed (in attempting to demolish the moral foundation of my opposition to eating animals, but not to eating plants). "Plants can react to their environment. That's practically the definition of life."
    Which brings me back to a sentence from Wikipedia's entry on sentience, which I omitted in my statement on sentients rights:
For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things [emphasis mine] that requires respect and care.
(I myself avoid phrases like "metaphysical quality," however much they impressed me when I was in school.)
    Respect for life should of course take in respect for plants, but also for our environment, for our planet—the laboratory of our natural creation and evolution fueled by solar energy.
Rainer Maria Rilke
(1875-1926)
    And Rainer Maria Rilke (and others of a mystical bent, myself included) would count manufactured things as well. From the eighth of his Duino Elegies:
...Are we here, perhaps, for saying: house,
bridge, fountain, gate, jug, fruit-tree, window—
at most: column, tower......but for saying, realise,
oh, for a saying such as the things themselves would never
have profoundly said. Is not the secret intent
of this discreet Earth to draw lovers on,
so that each and every thing is delight within their feeling?
I didn't see it coming, that I would end up quoting Rilke this morning. But it is most agreeable to be reminded of the many transfixed hours I have spent reading his Duino Elegies, his Sonnets to Orpheus, and many others of his poems....
We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,

gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.

Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast's fur:

would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.
                [– Archaic Torso of Apollo, Stephen Mitchell's translation]

Friday, December 2, 2011

Lost in the numbers

About for days ago (maybe it was five), I noticed that one of our coffee cups was missing, and I mentioned it to my wife this morning as I was putting some dishes into the washer after breakfast.
    She started to count the cups in that pattern, but I said she needn't bother, I was sure that there were only five in the kitchen now.
    She wondered what had happened to the sixth cup, then? Had she set it down some place? She went to look in the spots where she might have done that.
    While she was out of the kitchen, I looked again in the refrigerator—sometimes we set a cup in there.
    Still not there.
    I looked in the free-standing cupboard. Still not there either. (At least, I think I'd already looked there, too—at least once.)
    She returned and said she didn't seem to have set it down anywhere. Had I set it down? How about upstairs (in the "loft" above the garage where my computer is), or out in the shed (where I had recently installed some electrical wiring)?
    I'd looked in these places already also, and the cup was still in neither place.

Okay, then, she said, if we hadn't set it down someplace, what about Joaquin1? He's the man who cleans our house once a week. He may be the best, most reliable cleaner my wife has ever engaged, but he has nevertheless broken a number of items, including, she says, all of her little ceramic "California Missions" coaster tiles.
    Well, it was possible, of course, that Joaquin had broken it. If so, it would be characteristic of him not to mention it. If it had been broken into smithereens, he might simply have discarded it.
    Still, surely not. We didn't want to believe it.

But if not Joaquin, then, what about André? He'd come over to help us get Thanksgiving over with for another year.
    Could André have taken it when he left?
    No, André could never have done that. Anyway, he left on Friday, and I was pretty sure there had been six cups on Saturday and Sunday. Nevertheless, I went into the guestroom to check whether he might have left it sitting on the nightstand.
    No, not there either.
    I went back into the kitchen to finish loading the dishwasher. Why not count one more time? I asked myself.
    Okay, there are two in the cupboard to the right of the stove. And, in the dishwasher, one, two, three,...four!?

I told my wife the sixth cup had just turned up. "It had just gotten lost temporarily in the numbers," I said.
    "You're probably not getting enough Vitamin B-12," she said. "The vegetarian kick...."
    I thought, but didn't say it, that I was probably eating enough meat. When André was here, she told me that if I didn't eat any turkey, I couldn't have anything else either. No sweet potatoes, no Brussels sprouts and tomatoes, no.... And no pumpkin pie.
    Of course I ate some turkey. Besides, as I've told my readers, I routinely compromise the moral principle of respecting other animals' right to life for the sake of the moral principle of not dishonoring my meal provider by refusing her offerings. (But, as I've also told my readers, I sometimes doubt whether I can honorably justify that compromise. I continue in a quandary over this.)

Things often get lost, or found, in the numbers—the loss or the finding conjured from the whole cloth of imperfect thought.
    When I believed in God, I was but finding him in the numbers. He was nowhere to be found in extra-mental reality.
    Just as I finally discovered that the cup was only missing in the numbers, so did I finally realize that God was only to be found there too, and not worth such finding.
    Most people (a majority of Americans, anyway) are patently more successful in performing that conjuring trick than I was.
    It's probably because of all the meat they eat.
______________
  1. Not his real name

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Work imagined in progress

Software for
writing screenplays
Moristotle is contemplating retiring from his retirement job (forty hours a week for the University of North Carolina) in a few months. While he looks forward to being able to spend more time blogging, he wonders whether he might enjoy a larger writing project, such as a novel or a screenplay—assuming that his brain hasn't deteriorated too much to keep in mind all that writing a novel or a screenplay entails.
    He has already concluded that if he undertakes a larger project, it'll be a screenplay, simply because he knows less about screen writing and would likely learn more from it than from writing another novel1.
    He had begun, idly, to wonder what he might write about, realizing that it should be something that he cared enough about to become "passionate" over.
    This morning, while heating water for coffee and ruminating over the morality of eating animal flesh when a host serves it to him, he thought of a screenplay about someone (or some group) that tries to do more for animal rights than just becoming a vegetarian or vegan (especially if mostly a "philosophical" one)....
_______________
  1. In 1974, in one hundred days, he wrote The Unmaking of the President: A Bicentennial Entertainment. Alas, it never found a publisher.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Sacraments

Cow being restrained for stunning
An often brilliantly astute reader tells me that Heather Moore's letter (October 23, in Durham's Herald-Sun)1 is "hysterical propaganda." He contrasts it to Wikipedia's entry on animal slaughter, which includes the following statements in its section about "approved methods" of animal butchering in the United States:
Chemical (carbon dioxide)...The animal is asphyxiated by the use of carbon dioxide gas before being bled.
    Mechanical (captive bolt)...A captive bolt stunner is applied to the livestock so as to produce immediate unconsciousness in the animals before they are bled.
    Mechanical (gunshot)...The gun is used to render the animal immediately unconscious (and presumably dead) before being bled.
    Electrical (stunning or slaughtering with electric current)...The current applied is sufficient to ensure surgical anesthesia throughout the "bleeding" of the animal.
    Each of these methods is outlined in detail, and the regulations require that inspectors identify operations which cause undue "excitement and discomfort" of animals.
    [and, from the linked-to entry on slaughterhouses] Investigations by animal welfare and animal rights groups have indicated that a proportion of these animals are being skinned or gutted while apparently still alive and conscious [emphasis mine]. There has also been criticism of the methods of transport of the animals, who are driven for hundreds of miles to slaughterhouses in conditions that often result in crush injuries and death en route. Slaughtering animals is opposed by animal rights groups on ethical grounds.
The reader probably saw my April 14 log, "No country for old men," which quoted a passage about animal slaughter from Jonathan Safran Foer's 2009 argument, Eating Animals. The reader may even have read Foer's book. His tolerance for the inhumane treatment of other animals seems nevertheless much greater than mine2. Sensitivity to animal suffering is a minority position in this country.
    The vast majority of Americans eat their "meat" without much thought, out of habit and from tradition. If they think about what they are eating, some such rationalization occurs to them as, If my parents and their parents ate pig, cow, and chicken, how can it be wrong? And if they're Christians, they may, in worshiping their carnivorous God, even eat and drink the flesh and blood of a man.
_______________
  1. The Herald-Sun ran my letter yesterday, under the title, neither reviewed nor approved by me, "Is there a moral way to eat meat?"
  2. Either that, or he's perhaps two or three times as sensitive as I am, which would explain his apparent tendency to want to minimize what happens in the factory farming and slaughtering of animals (that is, so that he can protect his own feelings through denial).

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Courtesy's dilemma

Alec Baldwin narrates
"Meet Your Meat"
Letters to local editors have been unremarkable lately. But in Durham's Herald-Sun this morning, under a title that "quoted" a yard sign I saw in Mountain View a couple of weeks ago, was a letter from Heather Moore of the PETA Foundation1.
    "PETA" stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." I'm not a member of PETA, but I am a person for the ethical treatment of animals.
    Or am I?
    Ms. Moore's letter asks whether we "want to be truly horrified this Halloween?" Assuming we do, she suggests that we "forget Friday the 13th and watch 'Meet Your Meat'—frightening footage from factory farms and slaughterhouses, chilling places full of panic and bloodshed...."

In writing to commend her, I came to an unexpected, and self-challenging, conclusion:
Thanks to Heather Moore of PETA for reminding us how horribly we human animals treat other animals, many of whom have sufficient intelligence and consciousness to suffer terribly in the process of being fed and slaughtered for our unnecessary culinary pleasure.
    Ms. Moore asks whether we "want to be truly horrified this Halloween." The answer, of course, is that we do not. We'll not spend a second longer on this topic than we need to realize that we must change the subject to preserve our peace of mind.
    We won't stop eating animals, however beneficial to our health, or however much they suffer. Just don't make us think about it.
    Philosophically, I'm not one of the "we" or the "us," but out of courtesy to my host I will eat animal flesh if it's served. Ms. Moore prompts me to reconsider whether that courtesy is morally justified.2
I like it that there's a religious angle to all of this. If God wrote the Bible (and God were ethical), there'd be no animal sacrifice in it, Old or New.
_______________
  1. The full text of Ms. Moore's letter, which may not be available on the web for long:
    Want to be truly horrified this Halloween? Then forget Friday the 13th and watch "Meet Your Meat"—frightening footage from factory farms and slaughterhouses, chilling places full of panic and bloodshed. Nearly 10 billion terrified animals are killed in slaughterhouses every year. They bellow in pain and agony and fight for their lives, but they are no match for the knife-wielding killers who string them up, slice their throats, and often dump then in scalding water to soften their skin and remove their hair or feathers. Many are boiled alive or dismembered while they're still conscious.
        This eerie scene plays out not just on Halloween, but 365 days a year. See it for yourself at www.PETA.org. But I warn you: It will give you nightmares. The only way to make the horror stop is by switching to a vegan diet.
  2. The Herald-Sun ran my letter on October 25, under the title, neither reviewed nor approved by me, "Is there a moral way to eat meat?"

Friday, October 7, 2011

A mouthful of pain

Click to enlarge
A very close acquaintance sent this photo to me this morning, from Mountain View, California, where he spotted it in a yard on Middlefield Road alongside California Hwy 85.
    MeetYourMeat.org, whose subtitle is "The Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See," features a video statement by Paul McCartney. I wrote about this sort of thing on April 14: "No country for old men."

Monday, June 20, 2011

A matter of conscience

My opposition to eating animals probably doesn't rest "on moral grounds" but might be more appropriately termed "a matter of conscience." Opposition on moral grounds seems to imply that I would condemn as immoral anyone who doesn't oppose eating animals, and I don't do that.
    Some weeks ago, a friend actually raised this point, although I didn't realize it at the time (March 24). He commented: "Jim eats meat, Jack doesn't. Is Jack justified in believing that he is morally superior to Jim?"
    Rather than face the issue, I danced around it: "Is that a trick question? What do you mean by 'morally superior'?"
    I'm ready to face the question now, and answer plainly: "Jack is not justified in believing that he is morally superior to Jim."

I think that my opposition is better termed "conscientious objection." Moral grounds seems to imply that the grounds are ones on which most people stand, which is obviously not the case in America, where the vast majority of people are meat-eaters and don't seem to feel guilty about it. Moral condemnation seems appropriate to majorities, or to a recognized authority, not to a small minority of wackos.
    Conscientious objectors to engaging in war opt out because of their personal beliefs; they don't usually condemn others for not objecting. (And conscientious objectors have generally been regarded as wackos.)

Today, most people feel that slavery is morally wrong, but not that long ago most people seemed to approve of it. God even seems to have approved of it, according to the Old Testament. Those who didn't approve of it, if they didn't object simply because they felt themselves vulnerable to be enslaved, may have objected as a matter of conscience for other vulnerable people, having imagined how enslavement might feel and coming to empathize with them.
    It took more time for the "moral grounds" to form on which most people would stand to condemn slavery.

Similarly, we're all against cannibalism, or the eating of other members of our own species. I think there's a moral basis for our opposition to cannibalism in terms of what's generally accepted.
    Back in March, I thought that the moral basis for not eating humans might also apply to not eating other animals; "the basis for condemning eating animals might be quite similar, given the fact that we and they have a common ancestor." In other words, let's not only refrain from eating our close relatives, let's not eat any of our relatives.
    I thought of it as extending to cannibalism Richard Dawkins's observation that even monotheists are atheists with respect to most gods (Zeus and the like), and atheists just add one more god to the list. We're all a-cannibalistic with respect to eating human animals; vegetarians on moral grounds are just a-cannibalistic with respect to other animals as well.
    Apparently, I might have been trying to establish a basis for Jack to be morally superior to Jim. If so, I was wrong to do so.

At this moment in the history of the world, the fact of a common ancestor might persuade a few conscientious objectors not to eat animals, but it's nowhere near establishing enough ground to support a majority. Besides, as my wife pointed out, animals have a common ancestor with plants also!
    I think my conscientious objection must flow from something more in the nature of a feeling than of an intellectual concept like "having a common ancestor."
    More pertinent is the fact (now well established) that other animals are also intelligent and capable of suffering. I strongly empathize with other intelligent, suffering animals. As I've said elsewhere, other animals deserve to live as much as we do. At least as much, seeing as how they are the innocent victims of hunting, fishing, and factory farming, killing activities committed by human beings. My conscience asks, What gives us the right?

Saturday, June 11, 2011

[Other] animals' rights

I don't write many letters to editors. Or, if I do, I don't send them, but publish them here. The one I just wrote to the editor of the Durham Herald-Sun, I did send. It went like this:
High marks to Joe Moran for the additional restrictions he suggests for honoring and protecting the sacredness of life.
Background before I continue. Mr. Moran's letter, titled "Women's rights," appeared this morning, on p. A6. He was writing about state legislators who "were said to have 'wrestled with deep philosophical and political differences before coming up with new restrictions on women seeking abortions' (New abortion rules for N.C., June 9)."
    You know, restrictions like having the women view a film of an abortion, listen to the heartbeat of their fetus, that sort of thing.
    Mr. Moran continued:
If the issue is truly the sacredness of life, I suggest that similar restrictions...should also apply...in the following instances:
    1) For judges and law enforcement officers, prior to executing a person
    2) For intelligence and military officers prior to dropping guided missiles or bombs from Air Force drones [sic] on homes where there are also innocent people....
My own letter continued:
But Mr. Moran could and should have gone further. Appropriate information would also be useful in the following instances:
    1) For people hired to work at Chik-fil-A, McDonald's, KFC, Smithfield's, etc., tell them how intelligent (and capable of suffering) are the animals whose flesh they'll be required to cook and serve, and show them how those animals are inhumanely raised and slaughtered, some of them still conscious when they're being skinned and dismembered.
    2) For diners before they're served their hamburger, steak, barbecue, or fried chicken, the same.
    That is, Mr. Moran might have given a nod to the rights of animals as well. Or, to be more accurate, the rights of animals other than human ones.
    Suggested reading: Jonathan Safran Foer's 2009 book, Eating Animals, which is this summer's assigned reading for entering freshmen at Carolina and Duke.*
There, I feel better already. Or is it worse, for having thought about the suffering of other animals one more time?
_______________
* June 14: My letter, under the title "Consider animal rights, too" (and above the signature, Morris Dean, Mebane), was published in this morning's Herald-Sun, though without the editor's identifying when Mr. Moran's letter was published or which article he was commenting on.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Yoineh Meir had more compassion than God

Isaac Bashevis Singer said that he was a vegetarian for the health of the chickens. In his short story "The Slaughterer" (published in The New Yorker on November, 25, 1967 and collected in one of The Library of America's volumes of Singer's short stories, 2004), the man passed over for the post of Kolomir's rabbi was, "so that he wouldn't be left without a source of earnings," appointed its ritual slaughterer.
When Yoineh Meir heard of this, he turned even paler than usual. He protested that slaughtering was not for him...The Trisk rabbi...wrote a letter to Yoineh Meir saying that man may not be more compassionate than the Almighty, the Source of all compassion....
    After the rabbi's letter, Yoineh Meir gave in....
    Barely three months had passed...but the time seemed to stretch endlessly. He felt as though he were immersed in blood and lymph. His ears were beset by the squawking of hens, the crowing of roosters, the gobbling of geese, the lowing of oxen, the mooing and bleating of calves and goats; wings fluttered, claws tapped on the floor. The bodies refused to know any justification or excuse—every body resisted in its own fashion, and seemed to argue with the Creator to its last breath.
    And Yoineh Meir's own mind raged with questions. Verily, in order to create the world, the Infinite One had had to shrink His light; there could be no free choice without pain. But since the beasts were not endowed with free choice, why should they have to suffer? Yoineh Meir watched, trembling, as the butchers chopped the cows with their axes and skinned them before they had heaved their last breath. The women plucked the feathers from the chickens while they were still alive....
    Yoineh Meir wanted to escape from the material world, but the material world pursued him. The smell of the slaughterhouse would not leave his nostrils....
    Yoineh Meir returned to his bed. All his life he had slept on a feather bed, under a feather quilt, resting his head on a pillow; now he was suddenly aware that he was lying on feathers and down plucked from fowl....
    Elul is the month of repentence...when man takes an accounting of his soul.
    But to a slaughterer Elul is quite another matter. A great many beasts are slaughtered for the New Year...everybody offers a sacrificial fowl...Each holiday brings its own slaughter. Millions of fowl and cattle now alive were doomed to be killed.
    Yoineh Meir no longer slept at night. If he dozed off, he was immediately beset by nightmares. Cows assumed human shape...Yoineh Meir would be slaughtering a calf, but it would turn into a girl. Her neck throbbed, and she pleaded to be saved. She ran to the study house and spattered the courtyard with her blood....
    In one of the nightmares, he heard a human voice come from a slaughtered goat....
    Since Yoineh Meir had begun to slaughter, his thoughts were obsessed with living creatures....    An unfamiliar love welled up in Yoineh Meir for all that crawls and flies, breeds and swarms....
    Yoineh Meir rocked back and forth in the dark. The rabbi may be right. Man cannot and must not have more compassion than the Master of the universe. Yet he, Yoineh Meir, was sick with pity. How could one pray for life for the coming year, or for a favorable writ in Heaven, when one was robbing others of the breath of life?....
    A week before the New Year, there was a rush of slaughtering. All day long, Yoineh Meir stood near the pit, slaughtering hens, rooster, geese, ducks. Women pushed, argued, tried to get to the slaughterer first. Others joked, laughed, bantered. Feathers flew, the yard was full of quacking, gabbling, the screaming of roosters. Now and then a fowl cried out like a human being....
    He stood there until sundown, and the pit became filled with blood....
    Yoineh Meir thought that he would be unable to sleep that night....
    Yoineh Meir shuddered and woke up...He put on his robe and went out....
    ..."Well, and what if the rabbi said so?" he spoke to himself. "And even if God Almighty had commanded, what of that? I'll do without rewards in the world to come!...." Yoineh Meir cried. "I have more compassion than God Almighty—more, more! He is a cruel God...." Yoineh Meir laughed, but tears ran down his cheeks in scalding drops....
    He...began to walk toward the river....
    He had opened a door to his brain, and madness flowed in, flooding everything....

For two days the butchers searched for him, but they did not find him. Then Zeinvel, who owned the watermill, arrived in town with the news that Yoineh Meir's body had turned up in the river by the dam....
    Because it was the holiday season and there was danger that Kolomir might remain without meat, the community hastily dispatched two messengers to bring a new slaughterer.[pp. 546-557]
For the health of the chickens, Yoineh Meir gave up more than Isaac Bashevis Singer did. But, with a new slaughterer quickly appointed, the chickens didn't derive any benefit, any more than factory-farmed animals do when you or I or the next individual becomes a vegan for ethical or health reasons. There'll still be KFC's, there'll still be McDonalds, there'll still be Chik-fil-A's.
    Could this be God's punishment for the few Yoineh Meirs of the world?

Thursday, April 14, 2011

No country for old men

And what might Harris's "cows being led to slaughter" be trying to escape from if they saw an opportunity?
Virtually all cows come to the same end: the final trip to the kill floor....
    One way or another, they are herded onto trucks or trains...A number of animals will die from the conditions or arrive at the slaughterhouse too sick to be considered fit for human consumption....
    At a typical slaughter facility, cattle are led through a chute into a knocking box—usually a large cylindrical hold through which the head pokes. The stun operator, or "knocker," presses a large pneumatic gun between the cow's eyes [like the Javier Bardem character did to his human victims in Ethan & Joel Coen's 2007 film]. A steel bolt shoots into the cow's skull and then retracts back into the gun, usually rendering the animal unconscious or causing death. Sometimes the bolt only grazes the animal, which either remains conscious or later wakes up as it is being "processed." The effectiveness of the knocking gun depends on its manufacture and maintenance [Anton Chigurh kept his in tip-top condition], and the skill of its application—a small hose leak or firing the gun before pressure sufficiently builds up again can reduce the force with which the bolt is released and leave animals grotesquely punctured but painfully conscious.
    The effectiveness of knocking is also reduced because some plant managers believe that animals can become "too dead" and therefore, because their hearts are not pumping, bleed out too slowly or insufficiently. (It's "important" for plants to have a quick bleed-out time for basic efficiency and because blood left in the meat promotes bacterial growth and reduces shelf life.)....
    No jokes here, and no turning away. Let's say what we mean: animals are bled, skinned, and dismembered while conscious. It happens all the time, and the industry and the government know it....
    In twelve seconds or less, the knocked cow—unconscious, semiconscious, fully conscious, or dead—moves down the line to arrive at the "shackler," who attaches a chain around one of the hind legs and hoists the animal into the air.
    From the shackler, the animal, now dangling from a leg, is mechanically moved to a "sticker," who cuts the carotid arteries and a jugular vein in the neck. The animal is again mechanically moved to a "bleed rail" and drained of blood for several minutes...If the animal is partially conscious or improperly cut, this can restrict the flow of blood, prolonging consciousness further. "They'd be blinking and stretching their necks from side to side, looking around, really frantic," explained one line worker.
    The cow should now be a carcass, which will move along the line to a "head skinner," which is exactly what it sounds like—a stop where the skin is peeled off the head of the animal. The percentage of cattle still conscious at this stage is low but not zero...Explains a worker familiar with such practices, "A lot of times the skinner finds out an animal is still conscious when he slices the side of its head and it starts kicking wildly. If that happens, or if a cow is already kicking when it arrives at their station, the skinners shove a knife into the back of its head to cut the spinal cord."
    This practice, it turns out, immobilizes the animal but does not render it insensible....[Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer, pp. 226-227, 229-230, 232-233]
I suspect that a vegetarian presidential candidate would have a harder time being elected than a homosexual. A gay president would positively remind many people of what they're relieved they are not. But a vegetarian would by counter-example remind almost all of us that we are not vegetarians, but participate by proxy in the cruel treatment of the animals we eat.
    I might not have been able to sleep last night if I'd realized when I turned out the light that this would be the post I'd write today. I awoke before four with the topic firmly in place and the unsettling sense that further sleep would be impossible.1
_______________
  1. I'm reminded of one English translation of Jean Paul Sartre's novel, La mort dans l'âme: Troubled Sleep. The literal translation of the French title is "death in the heart."

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Who has the power to tell the story?

In his talk last night at Duke University (according to this morning's article in the Durham Herald-Sun), Salman Rushdie asked,
Who has power over the narrative? Who has the power to tell the story of our world and our lives?
    [Tyrants] will come after you and try to kill you [if you try to tell it another way than theirs].1
    I was powerfully reminded of a brief passage in Harris that I almost included in yesterday's excerpt:
...would it be ethical for cows being led to slaughter to defend themselves if they saw an opportunity—perhaps by stampeding their captors and breaking free? Would it be ethical for a fish to fight against the hook in light of the fisherman's justified desire to eat it? Having judged some consumption of animals to be ethically desirable (or at least ethically acceptable), we appear to rule out the possibility of warranted resistance on their parts.... [p. 211 of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values]
Jonathan Safran Foer's graphic story2 of the miserable life and death of factory-farmed (and other) animals unable either to defend or speak for themselves makes Harris's hypothetical questions so real for me, I despair anew at our tyranny over the animals we eat.
_______________
  1. Rushdie's 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, drew protests from Muslims in several countries. The "Supreme Leader" of Iran, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, issued a fatwā (death sentence) against him in February 1989.
  2. Eating Animals, 2009.