:
Oh. Are you people talking about "industry" in the sense that it's referring to machinery, or the type of goods produced?
Because if it's the latter, I misunderstood the connotation of "industry" that you guys are using, and I retract my previous statement.
|
I've been talking about industries as social system by which a population can exceed its natural carrying capacity - the stable number of that species that can exist in a stable ecosystem. Other species may use tools, but as yet we've never seen those tools as a positive feedback system, only a negative one that leads to the crashing of that population to a mean, sustainable level. Eating meat, whatever the ethical implications to the individual living creatures, requires far too much of the planet's resources to adequately sustain the human population. Either our numbers will, sooner or later, plummet, or we can adapt to reduce the parasitic relationship we have with ‘nature’.
:
But on a side note: noted ethicist and vegetarian Peter Singer has said that he has no ethical problem with eating road kill, as that animal would not have been raised and killed intentionally for eating.
|
I've never heard of this person, but I've never considered eating meat to be wrong, just the killing of animals to provide it. If an animal dies naturally (or, as I sit here speculating, is killed to stop its suffering), I wouldn't condone discarding its carcass. Road kill is a slightly different matter asI abhor driving.
It's not just a matter of surviving. Vegetarians can survive. They can also have just as high a quality of life as anyone else. In modern society, meat is a luxury, more so even than the entertainment media, and one that requires much more energy be taken from the environment, and one that pretty much necessitates the slaughter of animals.