Admittedly, this article comments on the science behind why I don't limit my food groups. I've always wondered why it was necessarily "ok" to feed on plants more than animals. In my lay person pants: If a plant bends toward the sun, can constrict at the touch of a breeze, or even grow in competition with other plants, why is this necessarily non-animal... and, by extension, ok to eat? I think this particular blog post brings into view a lot of what we have been discussing already about the Ecological Thought and the collapse of hierarchical modes. If we choose one particular ethics, must we not then also allow it to inform our behavior "all the way down" into the mesh? (And I'm not suggesting we stop eating. But we do need to become hyper aware of our choices... and the assumptions inherently therein.)
Admittedly, this article comments on the science behind why I don't limit my food groups. I've always wondered why it was necessarily "ok" to feed on plants more than animals. In my lay person pants: If a plant bends toward the sun, can constrict at the touch of a breeze, or even grow in competition with other plants, why is this necessarily non-animal... and, by extension, ok to eat? I think this particular blog post brings into view a lot of what we have been discussing already about the Ecological Thought and the collapse of hierarchical modes. If we choose one particular ethics, must we not then also allow it to inform our behavior "all the way down" into the mesh? (And I'm not suggesting we stop eating. But we do need to become hyper aware of our choices... and the assumptions inherently therein.)
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said we don't need to stop eating. I was beginning to picture a very...different world.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, could we not understand the mesh as "eat and be eaten"... and thus interconnection understood in part through absorption?
ReplyDelete