You answer the questions about vegetarianism in strictly economic or agricultural terms. But vegetarianism can be a political stance as well–a desire on the part of people to NOT take from other species, to not use them, but in your words to “let all life forms continue to live and evolve.” A broad way of defining vegetarianism is that it not only involves not eating animal products but not wearing animals, not using them for research, not exhibiting them unnaturally, etc. In other words, if one looks at your 3-part definition of the Taker mentality, vegetarianism seems to fly in the face of all three. Why then, if looked at from this perspective, can we not say that vegetarianism, in its respect for the equality of all life on the planet, isn’t an example of the Leaver mentality? (I realize it isn’t the ONLY re-visioning necessary because we can still treat the earth as though it belongs to us even if we are only eating plant life. I also realize that Leavers ate meat albeit in a different spirit.)

My understanding is that anything we humans do that disturbs the balance of Nature must be discarded from our way of life. We do not have to give up agriculture just the type that promotes the killing of other creatures, that pollutes the environment, and that produces more than we need. We do not have to give up technology completely just technology that is not in accord with Nature’s Constructive Principle.

Awhile back I read a question that asked if being a vegetarian wouldn’t be a good solution. I thought I understood you to say no. However, as I have talked to vegetarian friends and explored this more, I wonder if not buying meat in stores is a valid aspect of helping to solve the problem. Since so much of the world’s agricultural production is tied up with raising and feeding cattle, it would help if people ate less or no commercially raised meat. It’s not that eating meat is bad, just that the meat industry is a variation of the agricultural form.

Go to Top