I am an avid fan of non vegetarian cuisine. Always have been and, unless something dramatic happens – always will be. But the moral issues to be considered by a non vegetarian are tremendous.
If you take a moment and think of the steps that have gone into preparing your favorite tandoori chicken or biryani, they are, in chronological order - killing a innocent lamb or a chick by slitting open or twisting its neck, ripping out its skin, tearing it limb from limb, boiling it in hot water, adding spices to it to make it palatable and then actually eating it – it makes one kind of blanch in disgust – doesn’t it? Am I really such a cruel person? Imagine a species superior to humans with a penchant for the human flesh. Imagine this ghastly species cultivating us in cages, giving us sustenance and then carefully selecting the most suitable ones among us and subjecting us to the same treatment. Imagine this species especially favoring tender human babies for their extra tasty flesh. Revolting? But then isn’t that exactly what we do?
Coming back to my original question - am I a cruel person. I had though not. I do not step on even an ant knowingly. When I remove cobwebs, I routinely avoid killing the spiders, although I know that these persistent buggers would go ahead and simply spin another web. I have always loved all varieties of animals – I have had pets ranging from puppies, kittens, white mice, frogs, ladybugs and what not. Heck, I even have my favorite lizard under my table that enjoys watching me work on my laptop and nods his head knowledgably when I issue rhetorical statements. Then what possesses me when I sit down to eat? Why do I turn in to a demon? Being a Hindu, I am forbidden against partaking any kind of non vegetarian fare on any day. Period. Naturally I manage, rather conveniently, not to ruminate too much on that while nibbling on a fish finger.
But then what exactly is vegetarian food? Is killing a plant for food better than killing an animal? Do plants feel any less pain when their leaves are ripped off their branches for food? Is depriving a calf of milk, so that I can drink it instead, fair? Imagine that same obnoxious species mentioned above having a proclivity for human milk. Unimaginable again – isn’t it? Is any food purely vegetarian? Does the avowed vegetarian Gujarati who so casually sprinkles the humble table salt on his dhoklas, theplas and khakras realize where this salt originates form?
As the Lawrence Sanders character Archibald McNally said famously: plussed I am non
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Bizarre Thought (2):
Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics. ~ Fletcher Knebel
More than 40% of the Indian population is infected with the Tuberculosis bacteria. However only about 10% of them are likely to breakdown and develop full blown TB disease in their lifetimes! What this means is that although many of us harbor the dreaded TB bacteria in side their bodies, a minority of us is likely to suffer from TB (more than 90% of those who have the actual bacteria in their bodies will not suffer from the disease). How is it so? The answer lies in the amazing human immune mechanism. The human immunity is so effective that it prevents the bacteria from replicating actively and thus preventing the disease. However when this remarkable immunity breaks down (due to a variety of causes, HIV being one of the most important), the human body develops the disease even though it may not be in direct contact with an active case of TB. So is TB a contagious disease? Is the TB bacterium the real cause of TB?
Smoking causes lung cancer. This has been drilled in to our skulls time and again. However all of us have come across cases where guys who down ten packs a day live up to eighty and ninety years where as non smokers develop bronchogenic carcinoma. So is smoking the cause of cancer? I can go on and quote hundreds of similar scenarios but then I presume you must have got my drift by now.
What then is the real cause of disease? Picture this: Two of us are lost in a dense forest with only a scimitar each to help us cut through the foliage and reach safety and thus survive. One has been given a state of art Swiss made knife and another possesses one of inferior quality. Who is more likely to make it through the forest and survive? Obviously a no brainer. The one with the better knife lives. Then who or what is responsible for the death of the second man? Is it the forest or is it the knife?
Before lack of sleep and too much beer makes me blabber let me get to the point which I am trying to make. The epidemiology of all disease depends on three variables. Host, Agent and the Environment. What we can control to some extent are the environment and the agents of disease. However what we have absolutely no control over and which is the most important factor of the above triad is the host. We are all born with a certain genetic make up. This is what determines everything about us. This is the inbuilt map that determines how tall we grow, how strong we become, how intelligent we are and so on. This also determines our resistance to various diseases. Hence there are persons who are inherently prone to get lung cancer and they will suffer from the disease irrespective of whether they smoke or not. Smoking, maybe, acts like a catalyst and hastens the inevitable. But smoking is not the primary cause of the disease. Not by far. Same goes for all diseases. Even psychiatric illnesses may have a genetic genesis. Some guys are simply more prone to depression and other mental illnesses. A stressful environment acts as a catalyst but is not the cause of the resulting madness.
I suspect that one day science will prove beyond reasonable doubt that all maladies are genetic in nature. Treatment, which is currently directed at external factors like killing germs and errantly multiplying cells, will in future, be aimed at modifying the basic gene structure of humans that will make them inherently resilient to disease. Does this make any sense or am I at my incoherent, rambling and long winded worst?
More than 40% of the Indian population is infected with the Tuberculosis bacteria. However only about 10% of them are likely to breakdown and develop full blown TB disease in their lifetimes! What this means is that although many of us harbor the dreaded TB bacteria in side their bodies, a minority of us is likely to suffer from TB (more than 90% of those who have the actual bacteria in their bodies will not suffer from the disease). How is it so? The answer lies in the amazing human immune mechanism. The human immunity is so effective that it prevents the bacteria from replicating actively and thus preventing the disease. However when this remarkable immunity breaks down (due to a variety of causes, HIV being one of the most important), the human body develops the disease even though it may not be in direct contact with an active case of TB. So is TB a contagious disease? Is the TB bacterium the real cause of TB?
Smoking causes lung cancer. This has been drilled in to our skulls time and again. However all of us have come across cases where guys who down ten packs a day live up to eighty and ninety years where as non smokers develop bronchogenic carcinoma. So is smoking the cause of cancer? I can go on and quote hundreds of similar scenarios but then I presume you must have got my drift by now.
What then is the real cause of disease? Picture this: Two of us are lost in a dense forest with only a scimitar each to help us cut through the foliage and reach safety and thus survive. One has been given a state of art Swiss made knife and another possesses one of inferior quality. Who is more likely to make it through the forest and survive? Obviously a no brainer. The one with the better knife lives. Then who or what is responsible for the death of the second man? Is it the forest or is it the knife?
Before lack of sleep and too much beer makes me blabber let me get to the point which I am trying to make. The epidemiology of all disease depends on three variables. Host, Agent and the Environment. What we can control to some extent are the environment and the agents of disease. However what we have absolutely no control over and which is the most important factor of the above triad is the host. We are all born with a certain genetic make up. This is what determines everything about us. This is the inbuilt map that determines how tall we grow, how strong we become, how intelligent we are and so on. This also determines our resistance to various diseases. Hence there are persons who are inherently prone to get lung cancer and they will suffer from the disease irrespective of whether they smoke or not. Smoking, maybe, acts like a catalyst and hastens the inevitable. But smoking is not the primary cause of the disease. Not by far. Same goes for all diseases. Even psychiatric illnesses may have a genetic genesis. Some guys are simply more prone to depression and other mental illnesses. A stressful environment acts as a catalyst but is not the cause of the resulting madness.
I suspect that one day science will prove beyond reasonable doubt that all maladies are genetic in nature. Treatment, which is currently directed at external factors like killing germs and errantly multiplying cells, will in future, be aimed at modifying the basic gene structure of humans that will make them inherently resilient to disease. Does this make any sense or am I at my incoherent, rambling and long winded worst?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)