I was just equating capitalism with cannibalism the other day.
It must be connected with meat-eating which is surely a form of cannibalism. It would be interesting to see what changes would gradually come about in human consciousness if we all became vegetarian overnight. The aggression involved in slaughter seems to express itself through the meat-eaters, and capitalism is one very aggressive force.
Focusing on competition, winners and losers, aggressive marketing as if the customer is prey and, of course, using war/slaughter rather than more civilised methods of necessary change.
Yes. I'm convinced meat eating tends to make us as primitive as cannibals.

Keep up the good work and get some more
people to do it.

Smash Cannibalism

aint no shelter , the frontline is everywhere.

Eiste Agglia, isos?
Ean eiste Lonthino tha entiaferomouna na milisoume, kapote.

Hmmm, and here was me thinking that cannibalism meant to eat those of one's own species (anyone own a dictionary?), but apparently I'm a cannibal for using my canine and incisor teeth for the purpose for which they evolved, ie to eat the flesh of other animals and gain the sustenance that nature provides.

Get a grip, guys. To equate meat eating with aggression may have a point, but for dog's sake, that's what we are, and have always been! How else did we evolve to the point where we dominate practically every other species? By being nice and inviting them along to our discussion groups?

I am personally opposed to feedlots and battery farms, I think they have no regard for quality of life, but I don't accept that we have no "right" to eat meat. If it's OK for sharks, dogs, apes, ants and any other species that, through evolution, figured that eating meat furthers one's chances in natural selection, then why are we different? The worms get to eat us when we die, too. Does that make them cannibals?

It's about respect, I think. I grew up on a sheep and cattle farm (at five thousand acres it's a far cry from a feedlot), and let's face it, these animals have done pretty well under humans for the most part: protection from predators, medical care, abundant food, ample opportunity to breed, and a quick death at the end. The trade off is that they lose their "liberty", a human construct, and I don't think they mind terribly (although I haven't, as yet, found a way to ask them. Any suggestions?). As for ecological degradation and species competition, sure, our actions impact on our environment (usually pretty radically), but what animal's doesn't? You can't say that elephants or giraffes are friendly to plant life during a drought, or that lions encourage gazelle population growth. You can say that they act as agents of evolution, like any other plant or animal that is part of the "web", some more powerful and disruptive, some less so, but all with a chance to exist for a time. The history of life is full of mass extinctions, all it takes is an ice age or a continental shift (or bacterial/viral/other epidemic? Or just little old us?). If we have no "right" to exist, Nature will let us know, probably by wiping us out, and who's to say that's a bad thing? If it weren't for the bad luck of the dinosaurs, we'd have never had the chance to get where we are as a species.

Face it, natural selection is a competitive regime, albeit one with an overall balance. That is, if we're too successful as a species, I'm pretty sure nature will do something about it ( I'm thinking of the effects of overpopulation, like increased suicide and homicide, war and "slaughter", starvation etc and the fruits of our technological advances like cancer, mad-cow disease etc.). We have as much natural "right" (as opposed to moral "right", another human mental construct) to kill each other as we do any other entity (animal, vegetable or mineral) on this planet, whatever way it lives, breathes,grows or generally fumbles its way through "life". We ARE animals, it is absurd and bigoted to claim otherwise (Christians need not reply....). We are animals that exist in an environment which formed us, nurtures us, and generally provides us with abundant opportunities and incentives to further our interests (admittedly human genocide seems irrational from a Darwinian point of view, but many other creatures kill and - gasp! - eat others of their own species, logical or not.) .

Don't get me wrong, I think capitalism and it's ideals of the "free market" (and the "equality" that supposedly results) stem from some selfish and misguided human notions, but we are still evolving, and for anyone to claim that they have "the answers" is about as arrogant and bigoted as George W claiming the same. Like I say, the universe will tell us to "shape up or ship out" if necessary. Then it's up to the worms and cockroaches (and plants, bacteria, fishes, reptiles, whatever is left when we're gone) to get on with the job of living and generally continuing the evolutionary process.

We are a funny species, to be sure, and we've probably grown too big for our boots, but we really are just chimps with an extra chromosome or two.

Why is it that in all the arguments I've seen put forward by animal liberationists and vegetarian/vegans - whose scientific/ethical foundations are strongly related to ecology, and whose moral foundations rest in Gaia worship, paganism, animism and all else empathic with Mother Nature - I don't recall seeing any reference to the rights of plants, fungi and bacteria, let alone our place as humans in the ecological web that is "Earth"? Perhaps one of "them" can explain how their political and moral beliefs do not leave them existing on oxygen alone? Again, it's about respect, for one's place relative to others', and understanding what is necessary to keep balance. If we're too stupid and disrespectful of that, then it serves us right, roll on the Apocalypse.

Oh, and N.J., what do you mean by primitive, exactly? Do you think the Egyptian Pharaohs were primitive? What about the Mayans or Aztecs (Who had a thing for cannibalism, but in a way that had respect for the vanquished, ie I eat you, I gain some of your power as a person.)? Even with their profound knowledge of natural rhythms and their place therein? I dare you to walk up to a Maori or Papuan Highlander (who until quite recently practised cannibalism) and call them primitive (especially with the negative tone you imply). Compared with your average urban vegetarian or vegan, I think they've got a better idea of what their "place" is in nature. But what would I know? I'm from the colonies, where of course we have no notion of the more "civilised" state of mind that exists in Europe, the home of modern warfare ("primitive slaughter") as well as modern philosophy.

As for that hackneyed old saw "you are what you eat" - if all you eat is vegetables, what am I to think? Over simplifying things just leads to misunderstanding, I find.

Thanks to Indymedia for letting me say my bit. :)