Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00350)

Randy wrote:

>This has nothing to do with biopoiesis
>from the ocean.

Excuse me, but what is this "biopoiesis?" "Biopoiesis" is not in my 3000
page Webster's Dictionary - surely they could have found room to put it in
there.  What is the definition of this term?

>I do expect though that it makes you feel good(even
>superior) to impose your artificial ethic about not eating animal
products(an
>ethical luxury afforded only be modern food processing and distribution)
upon
>the natural order.

Ok, I cannot condemn your butt-crunching shots over my bow - i.e. implying
I feel superior (which I do) and that my ethic about vegetarianism is
"artificial."  I have, while on this list, among other things, threatened a
gentleman's testes and sent more than one incoherent post after having
partaken of nature's green gift (marijuana).  My faults are your fortune.

All I can say is vegetarianism is not a bogus ideal and is something that
humanity should attempt to strive for - if technology will help humanity
alleviate bloodletting, then technology we should use.  "Artificial" does
not automatically mean "bad."  I mean, think of all the hospital bills
saved by people telling each other off over e-mail rather than
face-to-face.  "Natural" does not automatically mean "good," either.  Go
eat a nightshade mushroom - and see where Nature will take you.

Nature and technology can work harmoniously, enhancing Life and each other.
 It's a matter of balance.  Due to the "natural" process of birth, humanity
has reached 6 billion.  The "old ways" of bug-grubbing, hunting, and
gathering cannot meet the enormous demand.  Have we become too disconnected
to Nature - yes.  But the "old ways" or the "natural order" were cruel;
survival of the fittest.  No, that is not the way, either.  We can do better.

>Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you
lose.
> And, there is nothing wrong with admitting such a loss.  It is even
>spiritually correct.

It ain't about winning or losing.  Nor does "losing" an argument mean one
has lost something.  Often, a person gains in "losing" a debate because
they have learned something new.

In this case, though, Randy. . .the only spiritually correct thing I can
think of is to sum up my thoughts toward your rhetoric in true Greek style:

I have forgotten the beginning of your harangue; I paid no heed to the
middle of it, and nothing has given me pleasure in it except the end.

Kym