|
|
Where did Vegetarianism come from? When did it start? Why are so many Indians vegetarians? Why is beef prohibited for Hindus? Isn't eating meat immoral? Why do we need to eat meat at all? Are vegetarians better people? Are we all going to become vegetarians one day? There seems to be a kaleidoscope of questions, myths and and controversies surrounding vegetarianism. I'm going to bust the myths, answer the questions and settle the controversies. I will try to present the different ways of looking at vegetarianism. I'm also going to go in to detail about Indian vegetarianism and beef prohibition. Pre-Historical View: Pre-historic man was hunter/gatherer. He ate huge quantities of fruits and vegetables. He also consumed a wide variety of plant food than we do today. The meat was mostly from small animals. 'Hunter' is really a glamorization, since it was mostly scavenged meat (prehistoric road-kill). He lacked sophisticated weapons to hunt big game. He was similar to chimpanzees, who have a mostly vegetarian diet, with occasional meat. However, at some point human carnivorism increased exponentially. It is at this time that early forms of human speech evolved. Humans learned to think and communicate with each other, and planned strategies for hunting in groups. They invented advanced weapons. Suddenly humans were well equipped to hunt big protein rich animals. This exploded human mobility as it followed migratory herd in search for meat. This transformation to a meat eating group is considered an evolutionary catalyst for humans. It gave rise to division of labor among adults, nuclear families. Human society really got a massive jumpstart due to this switch to carnivorism. It was not until the invention of beer that plants would again rival meat as a food source (I'll come to that later). The abundance of meat supply was multiplied by development of food preservation. That led to more free time on our hands. This in turn led to all sorts of new things. We invented pottery, art, textiles, and metals. We developed complex societies with hierarchy, kings, priests, doctors, and what not. So yes, this switch to meat, triggered a growth spiral that took us right to the dawn of the human civilization. Historical View: Abundant food gave us free time - time to sit and watch trees grow. Pretty soon we realized that we could plan and grow our own trees and plants. We didn't have to get the fruits right away, we had all the time in the world. That's when humans discovered cultivation. However, we didn't know how to preserve plant food, so it was still not a major source. Then one fine day, a genius, or a fool, in Babylon discovered that food grain could be preserved by fermenting it to a liquid form. Today we call be beer! It could be stored in jars and could be drank when we felt like. Soon people were craving this stuff. More and more land was brought under cultivation of not fruits, but grains like barley and wheat. The demand for ancient beer was so much, that finally after all those years of macho hunting, humans finally settled down and became the first modern farmers. Settlements grew up around fertile lands near rivers. Settlements expanded to villages, villages started trading in surplus food, resulting in trade centers. Trade centers developed in to towns and cities. Soon the towns, cities and villages joined hand to become nations. That's how the first human civilization developed; driven by the desire for beer! Animals were now domesticated, to till the farms. Now that plant food was back in fashion, hunting was passé. Meat was still a good source of protein, and with domesticated animals we didn't really have to even hunt. Food was finally easy to get, whether it was meat, or plant. And we ate them both, and we still do. This diet of meat and plant hand in hand, continued for thousands of years. Humans developed philosophies and religions and morals, and these things started having an impact on our diet. Ever since, there has been a constant pressure from every possible directions against eating meat. Religious/Moral View: The first religious and moral stand on eating meat was taken by Buddha in India, around 2500 years ago. His stance was interesting. He allowed consuming meat, by only if the animal was not killed by you or someone else for you. So eating meat was okay, but not killing it. Later towards of end of Budhha's life, his brother wanted to take control. He tried to establish his claim by imposing a more strict code for the monks to be vegetarians altogether. Buddha resisted fiercely and technically Buddhists are still allowed to eat meat. But the aversion to killing took fancy of the people, and Buddhism became the first spark of vegetarianism. It was followed by another new religion Jainism, which was strictly against eating meat. Islam takes a moral view on violence to animals but does not prohibit the actual killing. It says that an animal must not be caused undue pain while slaughtering (prohibits, beating with blunt objects, smashing the animal on the ground, strangling it, goring it alive etc.). I'm not very well conversant with Christianity or Judaism, but it doesn't look like it prohibits eating meat or killing animals either. Read more details on Indian vegetarianism and Hinduism in the last section. Modern Secular View: Today we have secular groups taking a moral and ethical stand on eating meat. The origin of secular vegetarianism starts with Greek mathematician Pythagoras. In fact early vegetarians were known as Pythagoreans. The modern term "vegetarian" was coined around 150 years ago in Britain. Killing animals causes pain to animals, and is hence "not cool". Plants are assumed to be immune to pain, hence chopping down a potato plant is "cool". Many people say lobsters and other lower forms of animals do not have the brain centers to sense pain, hence its "cool" to boil them alive. Both the religions and secular proponents of vegetarianism hope for better sense to transcend human nature. I disagree to parts of both the arguments. Pain is a sensory response to stimuli, and response to stimuli is one of the signs of life. When you boil a lobster, it thrashes trying to avoid the heat. It is clearly responding to the heat, hence must be sensing it. When you cut in to wood with an axe, scar tissue forms. The tree clearly senses the injury and is trying to respond by healing itself. Whether we call it "pain" or not, both plants and animals respond to stimulus. Just because we are more sensitive to the "pain" of a chicken, doesn't mean it is morally any different that a "pain" of the tree. Just like we are more likely to think that a puppy is more "cute" than a leech, a pigs "pain" affects us more than a fish's or a potatoes.
Nutritional View:Frankly speaking, there is no clear view on the "wheat or meat?" debate. I have seen pure vegetarians live healthy lives. I rarely eat vegetables, and don't remember when was the last time I fell ill. I believe we can do without meat. The scientific verdict is still out there, and I don't want to go in to detailed a debate here. My personal advice, based on all that I have read is - "eat little, eat often and eat mostly plants". Economic View: I admit, I have no clue about this :) A peek in to the future: Food Security: Morals and fashion aside, the future of food will be driven by concerns of food security. World population is growing by leaps and bounds, but food production is barely keeping up. Less and and less land is available for food production. Fertile land is being lost to human settlement. The argument against eating meat is pretty clear. Consider the following: Livestock production is responsible for more climate change gasses than all the motor vehicles in the world. It is responsible for 18 percent of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major source of land and water degradation. Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface. Livestock is a very inefficient way to convert energy to food. For every 1 Kg of pork, 60 Kg of feed is required. Most of the energy is wasted in moving around. A meat-based diet requires 7 times as much land as a plant based diet. Meat production requires 15-25 times more energy by weight than agricultural food production. Food borne diseases originate mostly from meat products.
The list goes on and on, and piles up a damning case against a large-scale meat based diet. The only thing for meat, is that livestock can be sustained on land that is unfit for cultivation. Other interesting things in the future Synthetic meat - Research is already underway to create meat synthetically. Scientists can already produce these in small quantities in labs. While it will not match a chunk of real meat, a synthetic burger patty would come pretty close to a real one. Synthetic meat cause some moral confusion requiring differentiation between eating meat and source of meat. That is exactly the kind of confusion that arose when vegetarianism first started under Buddhism. Buddhists are allowed to eat meat but not kill animals, or make others kill on their behalf. Anyway, currently it costs over a $1 million to produce half a pound of artificial meat! So a commercial use is far in the future. New food sources - Insects could turn out to be a valid food source. They are packed with protein, and there are found by the billions. They could be the secret weapon against global food shortage. We will probably never have those sci-fi one-pill-a-day food pill. GE crops will probably play the biggest part in the future of food production. Indian Vegetarianism and Buddhism: Rise of Buddhism With Buddhism and Jainism, India was first in the world to take a moral stand on vegetarianism. Both these religions grew by leaps and bounds, especially Buddhism. Under the patronage of the great emperor Ashoka, Buddhism spread worldwide from Afghanistan, to China. The spread of Buddhism triggered by Ashoka, launched the first and in my view the only true golden age of Indian science, economy, trade, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, and free thought. Ashoka, one of India's greatest emperors, was the first king in the world to have a department for conservation of environment, over two thousand years ago. Wildlife was protected against sport hunting. Unnecessary mutilation of animals was abolished. Backlash of the Brahmins The incredible success of Budhhists, alarmed the Hindu Brahmins, who saw more and more Hindus convert to Buddhism. They found an urgent need to stop the growth of Buddhism and Jainism. They formed a sinister double-edged plan. They launched a secret attack against Budhhist kingdoms to weaken their power. They also changed the mainstream Hindu religion to resemble Buddhism more. Killing animals was declared wrong, and vegetarianism was advocated as an act of virtue. Eating beef was banned, as it was the most widely consumed meat, and other meats were discouraged. The secret underhanded tactics of the Brahmins started working very well. The conversion of Hindus was halted and Buddhist empires fell from glory. The last of the Buddhists By 800 AD, India, the birthplace of Buddhism, was now almost entirely cleansed of Buddhism. The last Budhhists strongholds were in China and South-east Asia in the east, Afghanistan and Kashmir in the west, and Sri Lanka in the south. But the Hindu Brahmins were determined to finish Buddhism completely. They were stopped in the east by the mighty Himalayas and the powerful Mongols who had converted to Buddhism in large numbers. The Mongols would retain their hatred for Hindu India even after they converted to Islam. Sri Lanka was saved by the ocean protecting it from India. The Brahmins found Kashmir and Afghanistan the next natural target to get rid of Budhhists. But by this time the Hindu empires were so fragmented that they just couldn't unite to take on them on. Through seer luck they found a secret ally in one of the fast expanding military power the world ever - Islam. The Brahmins, using both passive and active means, brought the Arab armies to India. Brahmins joined hands with the new Muslim conquerors as ministers, and nobles and generals. Arabs had been trading with Indians for centuries and had no intention to use force Indians to convert to Islam. Neither did the Brahmins. However, they had other plans for Budhhists. After the Muslims conquered Kashmir and Afghanistan, their Brahmin partners, sometimes even against the wishes of their Muslim rulers, wreaked havoc on the Budhhist population. Some Muslim rulers resisted, some didn't, and some encouraged. They needed the influence of the Hindu Brahmins to stay in power. Under extreme oppression, Buddhists slowly and then in droves started to convert. But they hated the oppressing upper caste Hindu Brahmins, and decided to convert to Islam. Slowly the population of Afghanistan and Kashmir converted almost entirely to Islam, and the last stand of the brave budhhists of India finally ended. Kashmir, with its Budhhist population was the only Indian state to become Muslim majority state, even after centuries of Muslim rule (Muslim population in Bengal was an exception and is still not well understood - interestingly there is a sect in Bengal called 'bauls' which is a form of Hinduism strongly influenced by Buddhism.). A proof of the Hindu influence in these provinces is evident from the fact that at the time of independence, the ruler of Muslim Kashmir was a Hindu king. The Taliban struck the last death knell when it destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues. Decline of India With the backlash of the Brahmins on Buddhism, the slow decline of the Indian society started. Caste differentiation was strengthened, oppression of the lower classes was systemized, and free thought was slowly suppressed. India became a repressive society, and slowly lost its edge in science, technology, creativity, medicine, philosophy and strength for withstanding invaders. The power of the Brahmin class strengthened, but India on the whole degraded. The splendor of Taj Mahal hid the fact that while Muslim Indian rulers were fabulously rich, India was now a country of poor people. The last great Mughal emperor Auranzeb was however very communal and did not like Hindus at all. In fact he became emperor only after killing his own brother who was more secular. The rise of Aurangzeb weakened the relation between the Hindu nobility and the Mughal empire. Even his own muslim governors disliked him. India disintegrated and weakened further. This left the door open for Europeans who were held at bay till this time by the mighty Mughal empire. Wave after wave of European invasion turned India in to a free for all, till we hit rock bottom under British invasion. The British crippled India and brought it down to its knees (Before they conquered India, 25% of global trade originated in India. By the time they left, we contributed less than 1%). Unlike the Muslim rulers they had no intention of sharing power with the Brahmins, and disliked both Hindu and Muslim alike. Finally the Brahmins realized that they needed the people of India. They assumed leadership in India's freedom struggle, and helped liberate the country from the unholy British empire. Today Brahmins still retain their power in modern India, and Hindus still are prohibited from eating beef. But Buddhism lives on, not in its homeland, but in faraway adopted lands. It is still a beacon of freedom to India's oppressed lower caste, who still convert to Buddhism en masse to display their desire to escape the oppression, despite fierce opposition from Hindu right wing parties. While beef will still be prohibited for Hindus for a long time to come, India is now slowly evolving to a more egalitarian society and we hope for another golden age in the future. We'll have to be very patient though, as it won't be coming soon. |
|
|