What I’m trying to say is that if we have a duty to protect animals, why are we allowed to eat meat? How much animal death is too much? Not denying that we do need to look after ecosystems, but there needs to be a clear line somewhere.
If Genesis tells us to look after the earth, heavens and sea only, this does still involve some animal conservation. Herbivores help seed dispersion for trees, which consume CO2, which is good for the environment, predators are needed in order to prevent them from destroying vegetation.
I have a pet tortoise, I believe it is good to have a relationship with an animal as a pet, and to look after it. After all, God initially intended for animals to be the helpers of Adam, not Eve.
You did? Interesting. But I will continue to eat meat, because Genesis 9 explicitly allows it, and (mostly) because it is healthier, and because no form of food production is totally cruelty free. I will however ‘cut down’ on meat, and only eat it on special occasions, mostly due to the environmental harm caused by mass agriculture.
Thanks. You’re absolutely right. The question is one of context, as you probably read in the article. In fact, as the article says, getting rid of meat consumption, at least in the developed world, would decrease the rate of death by about 6 to 7%. However, nutrients Supply is much different in the developing world. For example, there was a study comparing vitamin A supplementation in terms of lung cancer development. In a poor country, vitamin A supplementation decreased lung cancer. In the developing country, such as in the United States, it seems to actually increase the risk of lung cancer. meat production on the whole scale as in the developed world certainly does increase our carbon footprint. I think that the entire developed world could do without meat nicely, because we can supplement very well. However, the poor don’t do so well without it. They don’t actually use antibiotics, nor do they Farm in large-scale. They use the land as it can be used, as one third of the world’s surface area is arid and semi-arid and cannot be used for farming. The point of the article was to get a long-term Vision about how to decrease meat consumption overall. The only caution the article was that if we apply developed-world standards to the poor, it could hurt them. They have entirely different ways of living than we do… I think the main drift of why I quoted the article was to contextualize the ancient near East, where meat was important to the nomads and subsistence farmers. Interesting about the lone star tick. It might be healthy for me. I certainly do need to cut back my meat consumption. right now, I live in the developed world. there are all sorts of interesting things I’m learning lately. Thanks.
But it was a flawed study, and the article even mentions that. And vegetarian isn’t vegan.
Besides, I thought you were extremely concerned about animal welfare???
Very true! We saw that in the Sahel. I am very afraid for my friends in Niger, where they are losing a lot of their farmland. Even the water table is dropping quickly with overuse and deforestation. However, it’s pretty neat to read the reforestation attempts.
there’s also pretty cool stuff going on in Israel.
You would probably love visiting Niger someday.
Have a good night.
As of where I am now I am less concerned about animal welfare, though it is possible that that is what Genesis 9:4 speaks of. I am however concerned about environmentalism, and by extension conservation of wild animals, which positively contribute to the environment.
Yes. My parents were missionaries. I was born in Nigeria and grew up there. Wonderful people and experience. (Clarification…my parents were only in Nigeria on rest when I was born. They lived in Niger and that is where I grew up). You can read more if you Google Galmi.org. there are good YouTube videos of Galmi, like For the Best and for the Onion, that reflect Hausa culture.
Hausa, Chadian language group; 1/4 Arabic influenced words. it’s different from the Bantu, which are further south. Hausa is easier to understand for us Westerners–fewer tonal changes than some. You can hear it on the video For the Best and for the Onion! by Sani Elhadj Magori - YouTube (this is a portion)
I’m not really sure where this streak of literalism comes from in your exegesis, but it’s the source of almost all of your interpretive problems. If you require a clear line, you’ll have to draw it, because you won’t find it explicitly stated in the Bible.
Your life would be much easier if you were a Christian. Just sayin’.
No. They are all Muslim, essentially. My dad said he loved working with them–he was a surgeon, only one for about 2 hour drive. I would trust my kids with my neighbors. He took to heart that missionary work isn’t only about souls
The new testament is completely against environmentalism and animal rights, St Paul interpreted Deuteronomy 25:4 as referrring to humans, which is clearly nonsense.
For a (possible) convert to some form of Judaism, you are remarkably unaware of the various forms of rabbinical exegesis. But, that’s a rabbit trail I don’t have time to pursue right now. Maybe another time …
