A Major Contributor To Aggression

Dear Reader,

Well, the world's leaders (apart from two that govern the major landmass of the world, China and Russia!) came to the little old UK to discuss more seriously - at the 11th hour - the matter of Climate Change.

One of the earlier outcomes was the 'success' agreement on the reduction of methane, one of the main pollutants of the atmosphere. The problem was, it was said, that China, Russia and India did not sign up to it.

It is said (quoted from the Internet):

China produces over 5.6 million metric tons of beef which also makes them the 4th largest producer in the world. China is the 4th largest producer and consumer of beef in the world. China is also the 5th largest beef importer in the world.

Russia does not get anywhere near to that figure, but beef production would appear to be rising. India, meanwhile, has become the biggest exporter of beef, yet until 1971 it produced a very small amount by comparison.

That last fact about India is quite saddening in that the country has traditionally been a vegetarian culture, apart from its Muslim and Christian population. Cows have long been a prize possession in that country, but essentially for dairy products in the past. Western influence has been very apparent there in the last 50 years - the country was seduced by the western idea that meat-eating is more beneficial.

Methane, as stated, is one of the worst pollutants of the atmosphere, so in the light of the facts about the beef production in the world's two largest populations (China and India) what must surely be the need is for the rest of the world to run down its production and consumption of beef. Thereby the large exports from India and China would not be needed, and their contribution to methane would come down despite their non-alliance to the agreement on methane production!

Therefore, the answer really lies with us individually. If we cannot switch to a vegetarian diet, then let there be at least a vast reduction in the consumption of beef to bring down the demand and exports from India and China. Not just in the UK, of course, but particularly in all the developed western countries and Africa.

There are considerable medical benefits from eating less red meat as well, of course, aside from the fact that meat-eating is a major contribution to aggressive behavior. The fact behind this is simple - by eating meat one is imbibing the characteristics of the animal being eaten, and one of those characteristics is triggered by adrenalin generated by the animal when it knows it is going to be killed. Meat-eaters are in fact consuming poison.

What was a telling experience for me, however, was a visit to a supermarket this very week when my wife and I encountered a tattoo-emblazoned middle-aged man and his wife who were examing the vegetarian section. We got to talking, and this unlikely-looking vegetarian announced, "Five years ago I thought, 'I love animals, so why I am eating meat?'!" With that thought the man stopped eating meat.

Wow! So the consciousness of the population is showing some evidence of change in their direction away from meat. There is hope for the world. Perhaps!

The key to hope is, in fact, a change in consciousness, and a change in dietary habits is part of this. In fact, was man originally created for a vegetarian or a meat-eating diet? I have read this interesting write-up that attempts to answer this question (not all of the article is included here):

There are various factors here, and the first to consider is the structure of our teeth. Carnivorous animals usually have large canine teeth and have poor, or an absence of, molars, as these animals usually cut and shear off their meat and then swallow their food whole, without chewing. The next time, observe how a dog eats and swallows its food.

Herbivores on the other hand have poor or no canine teeth, but have well-developed molars for the chewing and grinding action of mastication. Here, in man, we have a well-developed set of molars, and we are in the habit of chewing our food first before swallowing it.

Carnivores, too, tend to have a bigger mouth in relation to their head size, as compared to herbivores and man, who have smaller mouths in relation to head size, but with a muscular tongue to move food about and grind it on the flat surface of the molar teeth. This evidence lends substantial and credible support to the theory that man was indeed originally created as a vegetarian.

Another factor is the length of the small intestine. In carnivores, they generally have a shorter length, up to six times the length of their bodies, which helps in the rapid elimination of food that decays rapidly, after the required nutrients are extracted. Herbivores, on the other hand, have a longer length of the small intestine. This can be up to eleven times their body length and is designed for keeping food for a longer period of time to enable valuable nutrients and minerals to be extracted [from vegetarian food].

So, the argument - to me at least - is fairly clear. For the benefit of us all individually, improvement in social behaviour and the state of the planet, a move away from meat consumption is essential.

What must also be a consideration is the philosophy that we should eat to live, not live to eat.

If we all were to follow these fairly basic observations then we might start to succeed against the problem of pollution that we have created for ourselves by being seduced by the 'good life' - in all its forms, not just diet. We have become people that 'must have' rather than just 'be'. Happiness comes from within, not from outside.

Thank you for reading this!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure Of Universities In A Disunited World - And What To Do

Are World Events Bringing About The Biblical Armageddon?

National Growrh - But Any Kind Of Growth?