Meatlore... or Beef, it's what for dinner

[I'm Murrin]

They had healthsense - though they might not have been near enough to perceive it's full wrongness, they may have felt something was up.

[KAY1]

Maybe so. It just struck me that it seemed a fairly hasty move to make though I don't remember the exact story so they may have mentioned they felt it's wrongness.

As far as them using leather goes, I wonder where they had their tanneries etc. After all tanneries are smelly, messy and generally not in keeping with the scenery. The same goes for smelteries to refine ore to make weapons.

[Variol Farseer]

In TWL, the people of Mithil Stonedown are said to have kept goats in the caves, and brought them out to graze when the phase of the Sunbane allowed.

The people of the Land certainly had leather, since that was what clingor was made of.

As for the tanneries, smelters, etc., I imagine those were left unmentioned because (a) they would conflict with the pretty-pretty nature-loving image of the Land that SRD wanted to present, and (b) SRD himself didn't want to get into that kind of detail about them.

Actually, 'pre-industrial' industry can be a pretty ugly business. People have been firing clay for thousands and thousands of years, but two of the ugliest sights in the world are an actively-worked clay bank and a charcoal-fired kiln. Strip-mining and 'dark Satanic Mills' can both exist without any machinery at all.

(I'm sure that the people of the Land didn't use charcoal for their kilns, since graveling would work much better. But digging clay is still not an operation that improves the scenery.)

[NightBlaze]

Ok, sorry! I have to say this about the meat thing. I found a cow that has been CORRUPTED by the illearth stone. He can be viewed and heard at this address:
www.totallytom.com/MadCow.html
Enjoy!

[Seareach]

From SRD's gradual interview:

Geoff: Hi Stephen,
I have a quick question regarding the people of the Land. I was wondering if you ever considered that they be vegetarians? It just seems to me, that considering their reverent attitude to all things natural and their non destructive lifestyle choices (ie, fire without destroying wood), that a meat eating diet doesn't quite fit their character. Or would that have made them too hippy-trippy?


Honestly, it never crossed my mind. Which does seem like an over-sight, now that you bring it up. But every day I'm reminded--usually in some embarrassing way--that it really isn't possible to think about EVerything.

(03/18/2006)

[sgt.null]

aha! had he more time, the people of the land would have been vegans. thank you seareach!

[ur-bane]

Aw, c'mon. They couldn't have been vegans either! They had just as much (if not more) reverence for the growing things of the earth as they did for the animal inhabitants. They could see the hurting and sickness deep within the hearts of the trees, yet they were unattuned to the screaming of the potato as it was cut up for stew?

The only thing they could have eaten and still remained true to themselves was a mineral-rich protein drink that the Lords conjured up for everyone.

[Kaos Arcanna]

Aw, c'mon. They couldn't have been vegans either! They had just as much (if not more) reverence for the growing things of the earth as they did for the animal inhabitants. They could see the hurting and sickness deep within the hearts of the trees, yet they were unattuned to the screaming of the potato as it was cut up for stew?

The only thing they could have eaten and still remained true to themselves was a mineral-rich protein drink that the Lords conjured up for everyone.

They had to eat meat because the Potatoestral kept all the potatoes safe
from falling to the hateful stewing knives ...

[sgt.null]

them damn Forestals should have hushed the vegetables so the dwellers could eat.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I'm confused. I thought being Vegan meant you are from Las Vegas... does that mean you think the people of the Land should all be gamblers? High Rollers instead of High Lords? Hock the krill at the craps table?

[sgt.null]

vegans are the wacko branch of the vegetarianists. i mean, they indulge in no animal products at all. milk, cheese, eggs, honey, wool...

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I hope you have a tall glass of water to wash down that wool. Ack! Talk about hairballs...

[sgt.null]

i meant wearing wool.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Wow, the vegan diet sound very limited to my low-brow omnivorous tastes. I've had a few tofu and vegetables dishes that weren't bad, and I really do like black bean 'burgers', but most meatless dishes always seemed like they would benefit heartily from some bacon, especially if you have to forego cheese and butter.

I will simplistically assume, though, that it is easier to lose weight and maintain a lower weight by adopting a strict vegan diet? I've had dairy and animal product-free pastry before - bleck! - it's like eating Playdoh, except without the exciting colors...

DW

[sgt.null]

its a matter of taste. i had some bean curd tonight that was great, almost tasted like eggs. can't help with the weight loss question, as my type II diabetes is making it hard for me to lose weight. even with exercise.

[Zarathustra]

Damn, I swore off this discussion . . . and now find myself being inexorably pulled back in by Urbane's insightful observation:

They couldn't have been vegans either! They had just as much (if not more) reverence for the growing things of the earth as they did for the animal inhabitants. They could see the hurting and sickness deep within the hearts of the trees, yet they were unattuned to the screaming of the potato as it was cut up for stew?

Obviously, when SRD said the following:

Honestly, it never crossed my mind. Which does seem like an over-sight, now that you bring it up. But every day I'm reminded--usually in some embarrassing way--that it really isn't possible to think about EVerything.

. . . he still wasn't thinking of EVerything. Urbane's insight is another one of those things he didn't think of when answering the GI question. We can't assume (like Sgtnull suggests) that with a little more time, he would have made everyone in the Land vegans, because with a litte MORE thought, he would have realized how this falls apart by reductio ad absurdum. A reverence for plants makes even MORE sense in the Land than it does in our world.

But the reductio ad absurdum works in our world, too. This has been my main contention with vegetarians who adapt this lifestyle based on moral principles of "being true to the earth" or "animal rights," etc. Contained within such a belief system is the implicit accusation against us meat-eaters that we justify our preying upon animals by thinking we are superior to animals. The whole idea that animals have rights is another way of saying that we are all "equals" on this Mother Earth, no animal superior to another (think about the concept of rights--it is employed to reverse an inequality, or to assert an equality).

But the "racism" implied in such an accusation can be levied with equal force against the vegetarians for taking this attitude towards plants. How do they morally justify preying upon the plant kingdom? Isn't all life sacred and endowed with equal rights to continue its existence unharmed? If it is morally wrong to "farm" animals, then how are we justified in making slaves of plants, lining them up in unnatural rows for the cruel slaughter by our hoes? Isn't this just as unnatural and cruel as keeping chickens in small cages to be slaughtered by the thousands?

Yes, I know the comparison sounds silly. But can't that be construed as an effect of our prejudice towards plants?

Life is life. If you're going to make any distinction at all, then you are not justified in criticizing someone else's distiction, for you are guilty of the same thing you accuse them. It is obvious that not all life is equal--I'm not going to feel guilty for using disinfectant on my cuts. Screw bacteria. The only equality claim that makes sense is equality among a species. Cannibalism is the only morally inconsistant eating practice. Everything else is just warm and fuzzy feelings.

[sgt.null]

actually Malik many veggies (like myself) are sickened by the volume of animal deaths and the tretment of these animals while they are in captivity. i have no problems with a hunter killing an aninal and eating it. i have majore problems with Cheney killing bushels of pheasant for the 'sport.' because we are superior we have a responsibility to be better than the animals.

[Zarathustra]

How do you feel about mowing your lawn? Responsible neighborhood maintenance . . . or unwarranted torture of thousands of grass blades?

I really see no difference between this and what you're against. What about weed killers? Mildew stain cleaners? Flypaper? Why are you bringing up Cheney's hunting practices when we kill organisms by the billions for no better reason than we like the way our homes look when they are dead?

Your value system is arbitrary and inconsistent, is the point.

[Marv]

Damn, I swore off this discussion . . . and now find myself being inexorably pulled back in by Urbane's insightful observation:

They couldn't have been vegans either! They had just as much (if not more) reverence for the growing things of the earth as they did for the animal inhabitants. They could see the hurting and sickness deep within the hearts of the trees, yet they were unattuned to the screaming of the potato as it was cut up for stew?

Obviously, when SRD said the following:

Honestly, it never crossed my mind. Which does seem like an over-sight, now that you bring it up. But every day I'm reminded--usually in some embarrassing way--that it really isn't possible to think about EVerything.

. . . he still wasn't thinking of EVerything. Urbane's insight is another one of those things he didn't think of when answering the GI question. We can't assume (like Sgtnull suggests) that with a little more time, he would have made everyone in the Land vegans, because with a litte MORE thought, he would have realized how this falls apart by reductio ad absurdum. A reverence for plants makes even MORE sense in the Land than it does in our world.

But the reductio ad absurdum works in our world, too. This has been my main contention with vegetarians who adapt this lifestyle based on moral principles of "being true to the earth" or "animal rights," etc. Contained within such a belief system is the implicit accusation against us meat-eaters that we justify our preying upon animals by thinking we are superior to animals. The whole idea that animals have rights is another way of saying that we are all "equals" on this Mother Earth, no animal superior to another (think about the concept of rights--it is employed to reverse an inequality, or to assert an equality).

But the "racism" implied in such an accusation can be levied with equal force against the vegetarians for taking this attitude towards plants. How do they morally justify preying upon the plant kingdom? Isn't all life sacred and endowed with equal rights to continue its existence unharmed? If it is morally wrong to "farm" animals, then how are we justified in making slaves of plants, lining them up in unnatural rows for the cruel slaughter by our hoes? Isn't this just as unnatural and cruel as keeping chickens in small cages to be slaughtered by the thousands?

Yes, I know the comparison sounds silly. But can't that be construed as an effect of our prejudice towards plants?

Life is life. If you're going to make any distinction at all, then you are not justified in criticizing someone else's distiction, for you are guilty of the same thing you accuse them. It is obvious that not all life is equal--I'm not going to feel guilty for using disinfectant on my cuts. Screw bacteria. The only equality claim that makes sense is equality among a species. Cannibalism is the only morally inconsistant eating practice. Everything else is just warm and fuzzy feelings.

ahhh...Malik. just warm and fuzzy feelings? are you really that cold hearted? it doesn't sit comfortably with me that animals are born and live their short, horrible lives simply for my satisfaction at the dinner table.i would rather live my life differently. i dont know if the vegetarians you have met are of the 'soap box' variety, and if they are then i dont blame you for defending your lifestyle vigorously. i dont judge you or anyone else. i'm happy with my decisions on the issue and content myself with that.

to be honest, i dont think your over intellectualizing of the issue does you any favours. any value system that one might hold dear, when broken down into its most minute details becomes conflicted with others. we do the best that we can. there are very few absolutes in life.

and sarge and Dukka...i am a vegan....lets just say i dont live to eat anymore.

[Zarathustra]

Cold-hearted? I think of all the suffering humans on this planet--millions of them children--and can't really get that worked up about how my steak was treated before it got to me. (In fact, much of their suffering could be ended with a steady supply of steaks . . . )

I think it is absolutely irrational to worry about the suffering of something you plan on eating. That's like worrying about the bacteria you plan on disinfecting. Or worrying about Urbane's potato as he drops it into the boiling water.

Cold-hearted? How about your disregard for the plants you consume? Have you ever read The Secret Life of Plants? There is empirical evidence that plants do suffer, as well as is evidence that they have a form of consciousness (though this evidence is admittedly debatable).