Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Bad Punchline: Nah, we're all lesbians anyway.
Of course the hetero-curious argument against the 'how do you know' cliche in my 'Objectivity' post a few weeks ago is one way to mess with people's heads but I've come up with a better one. How can you argue about sexuality at all when every person on earth is a lesbian? I feel there could be some spluttering and confusion as a natural reaction to this. You must simply and very calmly explain to them the way that human sex chromosomes work. Some people are mutants and end up with too many or too few sex chromosomes (just like they can end up with three sets of other chromosomes as with Down Syndrome). People who have 57 XXY are sterile 'males' with some 'female' characteristics and people with 57 XYY are so-called 'super males' and are sterile as well as purported to be especially aggressive and violent. People who have 55 X are 'female' and with modern technology can have children that genetically belong to them. Zygotes with the misfortune of getting the 55 Y mutation never become viable fetuses because they cannot. Humans require at least one X chromosome to live. The human default is to become female. It is the presence of a Y chromosome that causes a fetus to display 'male' characteristics instead but as a Y chromosome is not necessary for life and the human default form is female really we're all women even those of us with our genitals on the outside. And if every person on earth is female then every person on earth (barring anyone who is asexual) is a lesbian. If everyone's a lesbian than sexuality becomes a moot point. So, I think the next time somebody feels like debating sexuality in terms of religion I'll dismissively say: "Nah, we're all lesbians anyway."
Monday, February 27, 2012
Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional.
I just don't get it. What is their motivation? Do they just want to make him look bad because they don't like him? Or are they really so deluded they think that filing suit is going to help in any way? What do they hope to achieve? I just don't get it. Why is it that seven Republican state Attorney Generals have filed suit against the President of the United States? I've been thinking about it since I saw an article in the paper yesterday on the topic. I still don't get it.
Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.
Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.
I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.
I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.
So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."
Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.
Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.
I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.
I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.
So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."
Sunday, June 19, 2011
My Religion
I occasionally talk about other religions but never about my own. I actually don't really think that it qualifies as religion, per se. I am not "spiritual" particularly. I do not pray. I take the lord's name in vain often (my number one exclamatory phrase or swear is either Jesus or Christ but I don't know which one). I do not believe in organized religion. I do not believe in donating money to organized religion. I do not believe that the bible
is anything more than an interesting historical fiction. Neither is the Al-Qur'an or the Book of Mormon. I have read all three of those books and they're all quite interesting but though they may contain some true historical facts I don't believe they are the absolute truth. These are all the things I don't believe in so before you decide I must be an atheist here is one more: I don't even really believe in atheism.
I am not "spiritual" because I'm not so sure that "spiritual" actually means anything. According to the free dictionary website it is "of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material". So it is relating to things which are intangible or immaterial. Things which are immaterial and intangible can only be defined by what they are not. I, being a material creature, cannot by my very nature be immaterial and thus, cannot be spiritual. I know that this is a literal definition but I can't exactly think of a non-literal interpretation that makes sense for those people who claim to be "spiritual" unless they are merely claiming to have souls or perhaps they are claiming that they themselves are gods? I'm not sure but it doesn't seem to do with religion either way (I suppose that could be the goal of their claim).
I do not pray. I understand that the function of prayer is mostly to make the person praying feel better. I use a different coping mechanism. I don't feel bad about taking the lord's name in vain because it's just a name. Even when I practiced religion (and yes, I did do that, for years) I wasn't quite sure of the point of not taking the lord's name in vain because after all god or jesus or christ are only things that we use to label him. Human things. How can human things define a being which is supposed to be transcendent? It does not make any sense. So why does it matter if a name that has no real meaning be said in a way that it is not intended to be by humans? I can't see that it does.
I don't believe in organized religions or donating to them because organized religion is inherently corruptible, there are several verses within the bible that suggest that Jesus and/or god are against organized religion, and most of the organized religions I see out there have not only major flaws regarding sticking to their own ideology (either the specific wording there-of or the spirit of the wording) but also have major problems conducting themselves within the acceptable rules of society. Some religions might do some good but as far as your mortal soul is concerned and your standing in society and how good a person you are I don't think that organized religion is the key to any of those things.
As for the bible and other holy books you may say that the things that I think about them are only my interpretation. And I ask you in return: what is your interpretation? Whatever it is it doesn't matter. Why? Because in all likelihood you read the bible in English or your native language and unless your native language is hebrew you are automatically reading someone else's interpretation of the bible. Any conclusion you come to is skewed by them. In fact, I have read multiple versions of the bible and there's a particular verse I would like to use to illustrate this point so if you object please skip to the next paragraph at the end of this sentence. The verse is Matthew 19:5-12. In the Good News version of the bible Matthew 19:5-6 reads: "And God said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one. So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together." His disciples then ask about divorce and Jesus explains why they cannot and then goes on to say in Matthew 19:11-12: "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." Basically this was explained to me, when I was a child, that all men should love and marry women except for those men who married themselves to the church or those who were made not to love women. Homosexuals, in other words. I grew up thinking that this was the intention of the bible. It wasn't until I was well into high school that I learned that in most bible versions Matthew 19:11-12 reads more like this (taken from the King James version): "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." And I think that the difference between a man who does not love women because he loves men and a man who was born unable to sexually perform is wide enough to illustrate my point.
As for why I don't believe in atheism.... well. It has to do with what atheism breaks down into as far as it's classical roots go. Theos are things pertaining to God and religion. Isms are belief systems. And here is the part that I really have a problem with. A. A, you see, is a batardized version of ab (to make words nicer things to say, mostly) and ab means "away from". Which is, I guess, a belief system away from thoughts of god. Except, that doesn't actually mean they don't believe in god (as they all claim) it just means they keep their thoughts away from him. And they even fail at that, actually, because every time they say they're an atheist (or god comes up in conversation or everyday life) they are failing to follow their own beliefs. I can only conclude that no one is a successful atheist and if you want to be one perhaps you should find a different name for it.
All that and I still haven't said what I actually believe in. I sometimes like to tell people that I'm either agnostic or pantheistic- depending on how you look at it. I do, in fact, believe in a higher power but you could also argue that because I do not believe in a specific power (e.g. God) I can rightfully claim every religion. I know a bit about many religions. Aside from having read the aforementioned books I also know a great deal about Latin and Greek mythology from taking Latin in highschool. I know about Buddhism and Hinduism. I know about all the old Norse gods and some of the Native American gods as well as Mayan and Aztec beliefs. I know about animism and Wicca and I attended services at every different church (including Catholic, various Protestant churches, Seventh Day Adventist, and Mormon service) in the area where I used to live. I think that pretty much every religion has at least one beautiful aspect to it. The only religions I object to are ones that cause you to hurt yourself or others. I don't believe in the aspects of religions that break the law, as well.
Agnosticism or Pantheism really don't quite describe my beliefs perfectly, though. I like science and math, and I believe in evolution* and rigorous scientific inquiry. There is no way for us to prove at present that a god (any god, or even multiple gods) exist. Unlike other people who say that they don't believe in god because it cannot be proven and they only will if it is I'm actually, arguably, more rational. After all, there would not be a whole lot of scientific progress if they weren't a lot of crazy people in history that believed in things that they could not prove (or at least could not prove yet). And yet you enter a sort of a Schrodinger's** Religion scenario. Say that there can only be one true religion and the answer to what that is is inside a box that cannot be opened. Until you can open the box you have to assume that all possibilities are true.
So what do I believe? What do I really believe? I believe in possibilities. It is possible that the Catholics have it right or that the Romans were correct or that the Mayans were and retribution will come down from Quetzecoatl in 2012. It's possible that any religion or even all of them are right. It's equally possible that Earth is an alien science fair experiment created long ago. I don't know and I can't know so I can believe in everything. I don't practice a religion as such (by praying or attending church) but that doesn't mean I can't believe in them or convert to every single one I can think of in a single day if only in my own heart. So yes, there are a lot of things I don't believe in, but on the other hand there are a whole lot more that I do.
* If you argue that evolution is merely a theory I say to you: so is gravity and the next time you argue against the theory of evolution I hope the gods of irony set you floating into space.
** For those who do not know Schrodinger's Cat is a famous thought experiment. You have to imagine that there is a cat inside a box. The cat has been poisoned. The cat is either alive or dead but neither can be known until you open the box so in the interim you have to think that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
is anything more than an interesting historical fiction. Neither is the Al-Qur'an or the Book of Mormon. I have read all three of those books and they're all quite interesting but though they may contain some true historical facts I don't believe they are the absolute truth. These are all the things I don't believe in so before you decide I must be an atheist here is one more: I don't even really believe in atheism.I am not "spiritual" because I'm not so sure that "spiritual" actually means anything. According to the free dictionary website it is "of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material". So it is relating to things which are intangible or immaterial. Things which are immaterial and intangible can only be defined by what they are not. I, being a material creature, cannot by my very nature be immaterial and thus, cannot be spiritual. I know that this is a literal definition but I can't exactly think of a non-literal interpretation that makes sense for those people who claim to be "spiritual" unless they are merely claiming to have souls or perhaps they are claiming that they themselves are gods? I'm not sure but it doesn't seem to do with religion either way (I suppose that could be the goal of their claim).
I do not pray. I understand that the function of prayer is mostly to make the person praying feel better. I use a different coping mechanism. I don't feel bad about taking the lord's name in vain because it's just a name. Even when I practiced religion (and yes, I did do that, for years) I wasn't quite sure of the point of not taking the lord's name in vain because after all god or jesus or christ are only things that we use to label him. Human things. How can human things define a being which is supposed to be transcendent? It does not make any sense. So why does it matter if a name that has no real meaning be said in a way that it is not intended to be by humans? I can't see that it does.
I don't believe in organized religions or donating to them because organized religion is inherently corruptible, there are several verses within the bible that suggest that Jesus and/or god are against organized religion, and most of the organized religions I see out there have not only major flaws regarding sticking to their own ideology (either the specific wording there-of or the spirit of the wording) but also have major problems conducting themselves within the acceptable rules of society. Some religions might do some good but as far as your mortal soul is concerned and your standing in society and how good a person you are I don't think that organized religion is the key to any of those things.
As for the bible and other holy books you may say that the things that I think about them are only my interpretation. And I ask you in return: what is your interpretation? Whatever it is it doesn't matter. Why? Because in all likelihood you read the bible in English or your native language and unless your native language is hebrew you are automatically reading someone else's interpretation of the bible. Any conclusion you come to is skewed by them. In fact, I have read multiple versions of the bible and there's a particular verse I would like to use to illustrate this point so if you object please skip to the next paragraph at the end of this sentence. The verse is Matthew 19:5-12. In the Good News version of the bible Matthew 19:5-6 reads: "And God said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one. So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together." His disciples then ask about divorce and Jesus explains why they cannot and then goes on to say in Matthew 19:11-12: "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." Basically this was explained to me, when I was a child, that all men should love and marry women except for those men who married themselves to the church or those who were made not to love women. Homosexuals, in other words. I grew up thinking that this was the intention of the bible. It wasn't until I was well into high school that I learned that in most bible versions Matthew 19:11-12 reads more like this (taken from the King James version): "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." And I think that the difference between a man who does not love women because he loves men and a man who was born unable to sexually perform is wide enough to illustrate my point.
As for why I don't believe in atheism.... well. It has to do with what atheism breaks down into as far as it's classical roots go. Theos are things pertaining to God and religion. Isms are belief systems. And here is the part that I really have a problem with. A. A, you see, is a batardized version of ab (to make words nicer things to say, mostly) and ab means "away from". Which is, I guess, a belief system away from thoughts of god. Except, that doesn't actually mean they don't believe in god (as they all claim) it just means they keep their thoughts away from him. And they even fail at that, actually, because every time they say they're an atheist (or god comes up in conversation or everyday life) they are failing to follow their own beliefs. I can only conclude that no one is a successful atheist and if you want to be one perhaps you should find a different name for it.
All that and I still haven't said what I actually believe in. I sometimes like to tell people that I'm either agnostic or pantheistic- depending on how you look at it. I do, in fact, believe in a higher power but you could also argue that because I do not believe in a specific power (e.g. God) I can rightfully claim every religion. I know a bit about many religions. Aside from having read the aforementioned books I also know a great deal about Latin and Greek mythology from taking Latin in highschool. I know about Buddhism and Hinduism. I know about all the old Norse gods and some of the Native American gods as well as Mayan and Aztec beliefs. I know about animism and Wicca and I attended services at every different church (including Catholic, various Protestant churches, Seventh Day Adventist, and Mormon service) in the area where I used to live. I think that pretty much every religion has at least one beautiful aspect to it. The only religions I object to are ones that cause you to hurt yourself or others. I don't believe in the aspects of religions that break the law, as well.
Agnosticism or Pantheism really don't quite describe my beliefs perfectly, though. I like science and math, and I believe in evolution* and rigorous scientific inquiry. There is no way for us to prove at present that a god (any god, or even multiple gods) exist. Unlike other people who say that they don't believe in god because it cannot be proven and they only will if it is I'm actually, arguably, more rational. After all, there would not be a whole lot of scientific progress if they weren't a lot of crazy people in history that believed in things that they could not prove (or at least could not prove yet). And yet you enter a sort of a Schrodinger's** Religion scenario. Say that there can only be one true religion and the answer to what that is is inside a box that cannot be opened. Until you can open the box you have to assume that all possibilities are true.
So what do I believe? What do I really believe? I believe in possibilities. It is possible that the Catholics have it right or that the Romans were correct or that the Mayans were and retribution will come down from Quetzecoatl in 2012. It's possible that any religion or even all of them are right. It's equally possible that Earth is an alien science fair experiment created long ago. I don't know and I can't know so I can believe in everything. I don't practice a religion as such (by praying or attending church) but that doesn't mean I can't believe in them or convert to every single one I can think of in a single day if only in my own heart. So yes, there are a lot of things I don't believe in, but on the other hand there are a whole lot more that I do.
* If you argue that evolution is merely a theory I say to you: so is gravity and the next time you argue against the theory of evolution I hope the gods of irony set you floating into space.
** For those who do not know Schrodinger's Cat is a famous thought experiment. You have to imagine that there is a cat inside a box. The cat has been poisoned. The cat is either alive or dead but neither can be known until you open the box so in the interim you have to think that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Vegetarian Religion
I've said before that I don't want to be called a vegetarian for the same reason that I dislike being referred to as white. Both things are, ostensibly, true. I do not eat meat and I am pale enough that I practically glow in the dark. I do not like to be called white because that word is never attached to the good things that Caucasians have done. You hear white power and white supremacy and you hear that white people came and conquered and that white people subjugated others. If I could avoid that stigma entirely then I would. I'm not saying that all white people are bad- that's obviously not true and I'm not saying that all or even any vegetarians are bad. When I make that comparison I draw it because people have a very solid perception of what they think a vegetarian is and what they think a white person is. Understandably, perception is not going to be the same as reality.
The reason I don't want to be called a vegetarian is because there are a number of the tenets of the Vegetarian religion that I disagree with entirely. Some of them I can agree with and have no problem agreeing with. I can agree that people in modern times eat more meat than they really need and that it would be better for them to eat less. I can agree that CAFOs (that is, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are bad for the environment and bad for animals and almost certainly bad for the consumers of the meat as well. I can agree that humans can live without eating meat. I can agree that raising animals requires more arable land for the same number of calories and proteins and important things like that than if we used plants for those same calories and proteins. I can agree that I am healthier as a person because I do not eat meat. I can agree that there are many people with health conditions that could be managed through a meatless diet instead of with pharmaceuticals.
But one of the tenets of the vegetarian religion is that organic is better. One of the tenets is that all GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are bad. These are things that I do not believe and cannot agree with. Organic produce is better in the sense that since pesticides and fertilizers are not used there will be no pesticides and fertilizers that run off from that land to contribute to the giant algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. Better because it means that food will not contain traces of chemicals that will build up in our bodies and poison us slowly or mess up our hormones. But the "organic" label on the food in the supermarket doesn't mean what you might expect it to mean. In essence it does not mean organic. Organic in America at least is a niche market that big corporations know they can charge more for and then spend that money on lobbying efforts to create bills that undermine the values of organic. Organic in the United States is a set of rules set in place and enforced by the government but, like anything else in America, is defined by Capitalism. The way things are presently creates a situation where meaning to do well by buying organic probably isn't helping to do anything but make your wallet lighter. Another thing about organic is that it's still shipped thousands and thousands of miles before it gets to you. If you really wanted to reduce your carbon footprint you'd buy local produce regardless of whether it is organic or not rather than buying "organic" from the supermarket.
The other major tenet I disagree with is about GMOs and that all GMOs are bad. I will say that there are some things that Monsanto has done with genetically-engineered crops that are not particularly wise or good but drawing the conclusion that all GMOs are bad is irrational and irresponsible. For thousands of years humans have been modifying our food. If it were not for people tending it corn, for example, would not exist. Corn comes from a grass. Grass, you know, like the kind you grow on your lawn. It was a very fortuitous moment for one mutant maize stalk that somebody thought to cultivate it. Over the years that one mutant stalk of maize has become all the corn we eat today. Every food that we cultivate has been changed by human hands to be larger, tastier, to grow faster and in worse climates and weather. Growing the part that we happen to eat larger and better-tasting is not something that most plants do naturally unless they rely on having their seeds eaten in order to spread them. Every living thing on earth, at it's base, is comprised of the same thing. We're all written in the same language. So if there is a word that was created by one species and is used to that species' advantage why is it wrong for people to take that word, that gene, and add it to the vocabulary of genes that makes up another species? Why is it okay for us to breed natural genetic mutants to create more mutants but it's not okay for us for us to do it in a laboratory? That is an irrational conclusion to make.
The other thing about finding GMOs unacceptable, putting aside the fact that every food we eat is genetically modified and that finding it not okay to do in a lab is irrational, is that we cannot hope to live in the world we've created and feed the people that live here with us if we try to farm organically and without using GMOs. When you say that GMOs are not okay because they increase crop yield without using fertilizers and allow plants to grow in places that are normally inhospitable you are taking a stand that says that you don't care about humanity as a whole, just about the privileged few that can afford to do things and grow things in a way that, to you, is moral. If you say that you think that it might be better if we all spontaneously decided to cast aside technology and go back to living the way things were hundreds of years ago you, by thinking that, are also giving your blessing to the idea that it's okay that millions of people will die because of this. You are saying "fuck you" to anyone unlucky enough to be born in an inhospitable region of the world. I, myself, don't find that to be acceptable. I do believe that overpopulation is a problem we should be far more concerned with than we are but if we hope to continue living on this planet barring some kind of catastrophic event occurring we are going to need to utilize technology, including the genetic modification of foodstuffs, in order to produce enough food for people to live.
So no, I am not a vegetarian. I am not a vegetarian not because I eat fish or because I do it for health reasons. I don't eat meat because I lack a gallbladder and that lack causes me to have serious acid reflux and indigestion that could lead to other problems if left untreated. I don't eat meat because I am one of the millions of uninsured Americans. I have neither the luxury nor the money to turn off acid pumps in my stomach with Nexium or Prevacid or some other pill. I don't eat meat because if I don't eat meat I don't have heartburn and if I don't have heartburn I wont develop other preventable health complications that can arise because of acid reflux. I am not a vegetarian not because I don't think it's healthier or because I think CAFOs are okay. I am not a vegetarian because vegetarianism is not a diet. Vegetarianism to most people is an ideal, a belief and ongoing practice a person engages in to shape their character or improve traits of their personality. In other words to most people there is no difference between vegetarianism and the Vegetarian Religion. So my problem with being called a vegetarian has little to do with vegetarians themselves or the fact that I technically fit the definition- it has to do with ideological differences.
The reason I don't want to be called a vegetarian is because there are a number of the tenets of the Vegetarian religion that I disagree with entirely. Some of them I can agree with and have no problem agreeing with. I can agree that people in modern times eat more meat than they really need and that it would be better for them to eat less. I can agree that CAFOs (that is, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are bad for the environment and bad for animals and almost certainly bad for the consumers of the meat as well. I can agree that humans can live without eating meat. I can agree that raising animals requires more arable land for the same number of calories and proteins and important things like that than if we used plants for those same calories and proteins. I can agree that I am healthier as a person because I do not eat meat. I can agree that there are many people with health conditions that could be managed through a meatless diet instead of with pharmaceuticals.
But one of the tenets of the vegetarian religion is that organic is better. One of the tenets is that all GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are bad. These are things that I do not believe and cannot agree with. Organic produce is better in the sense that since pesticides and fertilizers are not used there will be no pesticides and fertilizers that run off from that land to contribute to the giant algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. Better because it means that food will not contain traces of chemicals that will build up in our bodies and poison us slowly or mess up our hormones. But the "organic" label on the food in the supermarket doesn't mean what you might expect it to mean. In essence it does not mean organic. Organic in America at least is a niche market that big corporations know they can charge more for and then spend that money on lobbying efforts to create bills that undermine the values of organic. Organic in the United States is a set of rules set in place and enforced by the government but, like anything else in America, is defined by Capitalism. The way things are presently creates a situation where meaning to do well by buying organic probably isn't helping to do anything but make your wallet lighter. Another thing about organic is that it's still shipped thousands and thousands of miles before it gets to you. If you really wanted to reduce your carbon footprint you'd buy local produce regardless of whether it is organic or not rather than buying "organic" from the supermarket.
The other major tenet I disagree with is about GMOs and that all GMOs are bad. I will say that there are some things that Monsanto has done with genetically-engineered crops that are not particularly wise or good but drawing the conclusion that all GMOs are bad is irrational and irresponsible. For thousands of years humans have been modifying our food. If it were not for people tending it corn, for example, would not exist. Corn comes from a grass. Grass, you know, like the kind you grow on your lawn. It was a very fortuitous moment for one mutant maize stalk that somebody thought to cultivate it. Over the years that one mutant stalk of maize has become all the corn we eat today. Every food that we cultivate has been changed by human hands to be larger, tastier, to grow faster and in worse climates and weather. Growing the part that we happen to eat larger and better-tasting is not something that most plants do naturally unless they rely on having their seeds eaten in order to spread them. Every living thing on earth, at it's base, is comprised of the same thing. We're all written in the same language. So if there is a word that was created by one species and is used to that species' advantage why is it wrong for people to take that word, that gene, and add it to the vocabulary of genes that makes up another species? Why is it okay for us to breed natural genetic mutants to create more mutants but it's not okay for us for us to do it in a laboratory? That is an irrational conclusion to make.
The other thing about finding GMOs unacceptable, putting aside the fact that every food we eat is genetically modified and that finding it not okay to do in a lab is irrational, is that we cannot hope to live in the world we've created and feed the people that live here with us if we try to farm organically and without using GMOs. When you say that GMOs are not okay because they increase crop yield without using fertilizers and allow plants to grow in places that are normally inhospitable you are taking a stand that says that you don't care about humanity as a whole, just about the privileged few that can afford to do things and grow things in a way that, to you, is moral. If you say that you think that it might be better if we all spontaneously decided to cast aside technology and go back to living the way things were hundreds of years ago you, by thinking that, are also giving your blessing to the idea that it's okay that millions of people will die because of this. You are saying "fuck you" to anyone unlucky enough to be born in an inhospitable region of the world. I, myself, don't find that to be acceptable. I do believe that overpopulation is a problem we should be far more concerned with than we are but if we hope to continue living on this planet barring some kind of catastrophic event occurring we are going to need to utilize technology, including the genetic modification of foodstuffs, in order to produce enough food for people to live.
So no, I am not a vegetarian. I am not a vegetarian not because I eat fish or because I do it for health reasons. I don't eat meat because I lack a gallbladder and that lack causes me to have serious acid reflux and indigestion that could lead to other problems if left untreated. I don't eat meat because I am one of the millions of uninsured Americans. I have neither the luxury nor the money to turn off acid pumps in my stomach with Nexium or Prevacid or some other pill. I don't eat meat because if I don't eat meat I don't have heartburn and if I don't have heartburn I wont develop other preventable health complications that can arise because of acid reflux. I am not a vegetarian not because I don't think it's healthier or because I think CAFOs are okay. I am not a vegetarian because vegetarianism is not a diet. Vegetarianism to most people is an ideal, a belief and ongoing practice a person engages in to shape their character or improve traits of their personality. In other words to most people there is no difference between vegetarianism and the Vegetarian Religion. So my problem with being called a vegetarian has little to do with vegetarians themselves or the fact that I technically fit the definition- it has to do with ideological differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)