MEAT

To kill or not to kill- that is the question...If you're an Innuit or hunter/gatherer, there is no problem: you kill to survive. But here in the affluent West, when there is plenty of non-animal protein available, the question becomes more problematic. However, ultimately, the moral argument must trump all other considerations. 

As Simon Fairlie explains in his meticulously argued book "Meat- A benign extravagance", there are many legitimate technical justifications for keeping animals destined for slaughter.Thus animals may also double up as draft beasts (horse, oxen); they may act as insurance against crop failure or to be fed wastes (pigs) or to clear ground and remove pests (poultry, pigs).For the nomad of course, the great advantage of an animal is its mobility- you can't take your allotment with you on the road!  Such scenarios provide ample reason, from an energetic standpoint, for eating meat. 

Fairlie also quite rightly takes issue with vegans and the concept of a vegan agriculture. How will the vegan control crop damage by deer, rabbit, badger or squirrel?  Without some culling, crop losses could become substantial. In the past, the poacher helped to control this problem and it often provided a source of protein for the needy peasant. Otherwise, of course, veganism is more defensible than is a vegetarian diet since the consumption of any dairy product necessarily involves animal slaughter.

So, we can provide numerous arguments to explain why animal protein is consumed all over the world. However this does not address the moral issue- is it right to kill? I would suggest that the answer is basically- no. And this may help explain why indigenous cultures often have elaborate rituals surrounding the eating of animal flesh- to appease the gods- it reflects their respect  for life. In our culture we have no such qualms. However, many of us may feel uneasy about eating meat and this reflects our intuition that, if we don't need to eat meat when there are alternatives, it is wrong. Although we often use all manner of intellectual arguments to "justify" our actions, none of these can override the moral issue.

Every action we take has its impact- this is inescapable. Every hurt we cause, verbal or physical ultimately also hurts us Whatever suffering our actions cause, whether evident to us or hidden from us, we will also suffer.These are universal principles. 

Ultimately, the answer has to be that we should listen to our intuition- that quiet little voice that we hear first but which generally is then overridden by the mind with all its justifications.Intuition, which may present as a "voice" or a "gut feeling" is always right- because it represents the voice of God, cosmic wisdom, the all-pervading truth. 

PEAK CIVILISATION

Historians will no doubt ask themselves "when did Western civilisation reach its zenith?" But can we as un-objective participants do the same? Surely there are plenty of signs that social cohesion and harmony are and have broken down in plenty of countries. 
Duane Elgin in his book "Voluntary Simplicity" proposes four stages in the life cycle of civilisations:
  
  Stage 1 - High growth, "Springtime", Era of faith
  Stage 2 - Full blossoming, "Summer", Era of reason
  Stage 3 - Initial decline, "Autumn",  Era of cynicism
  Stage 4 - Breakdown, "Winter", Era of despair


Clearly, different countries will experience this process differently, as will areas within countries depending on a multitude of factors such as economic viability, governance and historical inheritance. Thus it may be easier to reach a conclusion on this question by examining individual states or perhaps regions and defining their likely stage according to the above model.  


As Britain led the way into the industrial era it might appear likely that it would also lead the field as regards the decline of industrialism and the de-civilisation process.Thus one might conclude that the departure of Britain from India in 1947 marked the high tide of British civilisation. Another analysis could propose that Margaret Thatcher's premiership defined the start of Stage 3 of the model. And, although a relatively immature democracy, post-WW2 saw the US overtake Britain as its economy and infrastructure grew and it replaced Britain as the major player on the world stage. If we are looking to define, on a micro-historical level, the equivalent US peak-civilisation moment might be Ronald Reagan's presidency which paralleled Thatcher's reign in Britain.  


But for me, what is most interesting is not academic accuracy in pinpointing the moment in time when our civilisation started its decline. After all, other commentators could equally justifiably suggest that World War I and II marked the turning point into stage 3 or perhaps even the Luddite struggles of the 19th century. Others will debate over the likely start of Stage 4- which, many believe, myself included, we have now moved into. But, of greater interest to me is the challenge that these momentous changes present to those living through them. 


In this regard, one question to ask is whether we have any choice over these changes and the process they represent, or are they, like evolution, a structural feature of our species, over which we have no control. The obvious repost would be that if we have free will then the future is in our hands, not some nebulous "fate". I would suggest that, either way it makes sense to respond constructively.


Thus, as institutions, corporations and governments collapse under the weight of complex bureaucracy and inertia, openings will appear that individuals and communities can exploit. Already, we see examples of saprophytic activities exploiting the waste and excess inherent in the consumer culture- people living off the waste food of supermarkets; others scavenging materials for re-use. I myself have often grasped these opportunities.


Nevertheless, I would suggest that there is also merit in helping lay the foundations to a new order by developing "parallel communities". Many of the building blocks for these already exist- eco-villages, alternative currencies, the Freeman movement, alternative media and the many spiritual communities. Perhaps the biggest challenge for this "parallel" approach is that of disengagement from the dominant economic model. This is vital if the destructive economic juggernaut is to be starved of oxygen before it chokes us

LIVE SIMPLY- that others may simply live.

How to escape that defeatist but understandable notion that we are powerless to change the poverty  and suffering of the underdeveloped world?
Of course there is no point crying crocodile tears over the desperate images that crowd the news dispatches. Equally, any action we take must be informed by political and economic understanding of globalisation, dependency and the financial mechanisms that ensure the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. But if, as I would propose, the West is the engine of globalisation and is thus culpable on a number of levels, then those of us in the West should accept our responsibility to minimise our impact within this process.


Just as the insatiable appetite of the rich North for recreational drugs fuels a massive destructive chain of producers, dealers and addicts, so does our addiction to consumer products originating in the Third World and a decadent lifestyle provide the motor for globalisation and the exploitation of a dependant South.And of course this whole process is oiled by the banking and financial sector which ensures that money flows towards those who already have it and that the highest cost of credit is paid by those who are in greatest need.


For too long we have hidden behind excuses like the Thatcher notion that wealth trickles inevitably down to the poor or that multinationals "create jobs for the poor". Yes, the poor get a trickle from the rich but they have to hand over a much larger chunk to their rich creditors, usually accompanied by the implementation of destructive fiscal measures  imposed on them by the IMF or World Bank. Thatcher's concept is a crude extrapolation of the notion that justified the landed gentry exploiting the poor and landless through centuries of British history. Of course, the rich will always create jobs to some extent but the relationship between rich and poor is primarily one of dependency and this is the crucial issue. Although one can justifiably argue that there will always be inequality because "man" is not created "equal", our present economic model is inherently skewed in favour of those with capital. And, despite all the supposedly supportive efforts of organisations such as the IMF, World Bank etc, the gap between rich and poor inexorably continues to widen .


The reaction most of us have when faced with the regular famines and Third World crises, is to provide a small financial contribution to one or more of the multitude of NGO's active in this sector.But here again, the concern is that such help may be perpetuating a pattern of aid dependency  which prevents the indigenous economy from hauling itself up by its own bootstraps.
Thus it has been proposed that to break free of these destructive patterns, the people in the West can best help the poor by disengaging themselves from those dominant economic structures active in the Third World. This obviously would include the majority of multinationals and investments trusts etc which actively influence commodity prices and even destabilise economies.This is obviously easier said  than done, since most of us with pensions for instance will be contributing to one or more of these very organisations.


One should also consider that the West contributes a substantial proportion of the negative Global Warming impact which has a disproportional impact on the poor South. A financial disengagement as proposed above will therefore proportionately reduce our ecological burden as well
Thus, consideration of all these issues leads me to a similar conclusion that Tolstoy came to when he stated " I came to the simple and natural conclusion that if I pity a tired horse on which I am riding, the first thing I must do if I am really sorry for it, is to get off and walk on my own feet".The second measure to take is to develop as much self-reliance as possible- living simply, that others may simply live. That is to say, grow your own food, use local materials,and reduce the impact of your lifestyle.


Modern trade, as it has globalised, with vast financial concentrations in a minority of Western corporations, is the modern representation of colonial imperialism. British, French and other post-colonial powers no longer need to geographically dominate African or Asian nations- the same effect can be achieved remotely via exploitative trade. 


The first concept that, for me, underlies my understanding of these issues, is there is, as the saying goes "there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed". Since the resource base of nations varies, trade between them will tend, over time, to favour those with a greater resource base.But this tendency can be minimised if we all live according to our needs- without indulging in greed. 


The second concept I hold dear, is encapsulated by E.F. Schumacher in his book"Small is Beautiful". So many of our current problems- social, economic and environmental can be ameliorated by localising and reducing the size of organisations, communities and splitting up power blocks. There is an optimum size of a town or city beyond which its social cohesion can no longer be maintained. Equally, huge financial institutions and global corporations can no longer respond to individuals as humans but see them as numbers on balance sheets.


Thirdly, and fundamental to achieving some of these changes, is the reappraisal of the mechanism underlying our banking system. Currently, the vast bulk of money in circulation is represented by debt.This debt is enabled by privately run financial institutions which are empowered to issue electronic credit having no relation to any tangible resource or or asset. This mechanism has led to an ever expanding debt-base which correspondingly fuels economic growth and hence resource depletion. Changing this unsustainable money-creation machine is crucial to effecting the other changes referred to above. Richard Douthwaite,James Robertson and David Boyle amongst others have proposed practical policies which would help address these problems.Historical precedent however, does not suggest that politicians are yet ready to grasp these issues seriously and thus, as ever, it behoves us all to take responsibility into our own hands and .apply our people power where it can be most effective.