11 May 2001 
 
I know I said last night on lj that I was gone, but I'm not, and I'm up early, so 
I thought I would type up something I had written in =another= journal (my lovely 
smooth paper journal that I had gotten to write a "life in 2000" piece, but I 
never got around to it, so it's really just a normal subway journal now) 
 
so here goes: 
 
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the Commonweal thing was won by some 17-yr-old 
("our youngest winner ever!!"  whatever.  The excerpt I saw indicated it was a 
nice, chirpy, upbeat composition.  I'm sure it wasn't tinged with darkness, like 
mine was, so I think I'm going to retool it again and try to sell the article 
somewhere else.) 
 
anyway, I wrote this on 6 May 2001 while waiting for laundry to finish: 
 
-> tape record speech of various people -- conscious v. unconscious? 
 
 
 
-> food that "should" be eaten? that for which we were evolved?  -> 
pre-agricultural food wild game - grass (not grain) fed beef, buffalo, etc. 
fish				nuts 
 fruit				beans  
 some root vegetables 
NO refined sugar, corn syrup, chickens, wheat.  Cooking is ok. 
 
this =can= be arguing for the health point of view, HOWEVER - natural state for 
hunters & gatherers is =scarcity= (how do we know something feels good?  think of 
inebriation... can feel pleasant but can feel =very= unpleasant @ any stage, for 
some) 
 
The problem is people no longer use their brainpower =directly= to get food, and 
starving for anybody, no matter the circumstances, is considered unacceptable. 
(Heard the man shown in the documentary "Nanook of the North" (ca. 1920s) died 
the next year of starvation.)  -- That kind of direct evolution - as with other 
predators where fitness is being able to get nutrition to survive, as opposed to 
prey, where fitness is avoiding being nutrition (and getting nutrition as well) 
-- if one thinks about it, predator/prey only exists as a temporary relationship, 
and I wouldn't be the least surprised if there are situations where which is 
eater and which is eaten depends totally on the end result of the match.  For 
example, if a snake gets the better of a mongoose, might it not eat the mongoose? 
I believe there are species where one hatchling of a nesting eats the others in 
the nest if it can.  And I'm pretty sure I've seen battles of insects of 
differing species trying to eat each other. 
 
Animal life is very strange. 
 
Okay, what about "moral" diets 
 
 
--> Eat that which is meant to be eaten ... =fruit= ok, let's admit that man 
cannot live by fruit alone (though I've heard there are people who have thought 
otherwise) 
 
 
 
-> Eat that which does not kill/harm the entity from which the food comes 
 
Obviously, again, fruit is okay.  Harvesting grasses (wheat, rice, etc.) is okay 
because the plant can grow back.  Nuts..... though one starts wondering what is 
meant by =harm= - other than fruit, which is =made= to be eaten because the 
plants need animals to germinate & spread seed.  But eat nuts and you have taken 
away some of the plants' regenerative power - this is a reproductive harm. 
Obviously eggs and dairy come under this rubric... the animal =producing= the 
milk or eggs is not harmed directly, but these items are for the furtherance of 
their next generation! 
 
 
 
-> Eat that which cannot feel pain. 
 
Now this is =partly= the reason most vegetarians give for not eating meat... but 
also allows a loophole for dairy and eggs. 
 
But then, it has been shown that there is an electrical reaction when one cuts 
the leaves or stem of some plants.... but really one cannot admit of plants 
feeling pain, unless you believe in a very cruel God... or maybe not... 
 
SO, why do animals feel pain?  Yes, because Yes, because they have nerves for 
pain.  But often pain is there to get one's attention... hold your hand in the 
fire, cells are getting damaged - pain is the way for a location to say - look at 
me! something's wrong! do something! and, one pulls the hand out of the fire.  
Also, in certain cases, when the reflex is faster than the pain, it's also 
conditioning to teach one to =not= put one's hand in the fire again, you idiot. 
 
Why should plants feel pain?  They cannot move - so they can't really avoid 
having people coming along & cutting their bits off.  =However= plants might 
release toxins local to where "pain" occurs in order to teach an =animal= to stop 
doing what it's doing -- to inflict pain on the animal, that is.  Now many plants 
simply have toxins spread throughout, and I don't know of any plant having a 
vascular system that works quickly enough to deliver toxins to a needed area. 
 
Now =another= use of pain in plants could be to stimulate the movement of healing 
substances to the area - so one need not have an ultrafast vascular system for 
this. 
 
Still, by this moral argument, then it's okay to eat the extremities of a 
quadraplegic, bits off of someone brain dead, or off of someone who has no pain 
nerves (there is such a condition, but I don't think many survive childhood -- 
for some obvious reasons... LAck of pain is always dangerous - ask any diabetic 
who gets gangrene on their feet... they never noticed it.  Ma tells me some 
hideous stories...) 
 
However, I =have= thought that the next stage in biotechnology should be growing 
meat! Think about hydroponic meat vats...  mmmmm hey we culture muscle tissues 
=now= - if we understand what makes muscle grow, multiply and achieve the proper 
states of tenderness/toughness... well then, we could actually have some 
meat-eating vegans.... tee hee. 
 
Now I must admit I don't quite understand those who eat fish but not warm-blooded 
creatures; fish & poultry, but not mammals, or all meat except beef.  Now if they 
do it because of personal taste or health, okay fine - but if they're using some 
kind of =moral= reasoning in this, I don't quite understand.  Not eating mammals 
because they're cute is not my idea of a moral stance. 
 
--> Eating in an environmentally conscious way 
 
This is a moral stance, believe it or not, but this is the first one in which 
fruit, or at least certain kinds of it, might be excluded -- however, fruit is 
generally not so bad as what is done to soil so that it produces grains.  Still, 
usually alot of pesticides are used, etc. etc. 
 
Also, often habitat for various larger species are lost when one begins to 
cultivate fruits & vegetables. 
 
Obviously meat-eating tends to waste energy & food - beef is a definite example 
of this (=grain=-fed beef actually.  Grass/hay fed beef is no biggee, as we can't 
actually eat grass.) 
 
Then one needs to keep abreast about overharvesting of wild animals, such as 
fish... 
 
In my book, this is a really thought-intensive diet - one must keep abreast of 
current news, etc. 
 
Anyway, I like eating beef, but I =have= cut down on my consumption somewhat.  At 
=most= one meal a day has beef - but I have gone entire weeks without meat & not 
noticed it.  I love beans, pasta & salad... mmmmm 
 
But that's enough on food for now.