"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote in message
om...
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons. The
> first is a good start; the second is more nobel. So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area? If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.
>
> T.F.

Ms Fiddle,

Better to say a "vegan concern" than "deep concern". I've worked for many
years on projects concerned with drought and famine in Africa,
environmental issues and the rest. I keep my own free range poultry rather
than buy supermarket produce and support others who do the same. There is
a level beyond your "deep concern" (my "vegan concern") and that's genuine
concern where people don't believe they can eat or otherwise consume their
way to a better world, but where they educate and train themselves, and
then take action to actually build a better world. Such people tend to be
known by both their actions, and their names, rather than by their immature
philosophies spouted on the Net and fear of being known by their real world
name. Heck it's possible they aren't even entitled to real world names
because in the real world they're all non-entities.

Is there a purpose to your life? If so when do you expect to achieve that
purpose? Can you achieve it sooner by eating less? You see, it strikes me
that your philosophy doesn't solve anything.

Michael Saunby