Vegetarianism vs. Non.

You know how vegetarians and vegans always act all self-righteous when it comes to eco-friendly talk? It's bugging, and, truthfully, guilt-inducing. They tell you how they're "not cutting up innocent little animals to tear apart and ingest" so they're more "environment friendly"; even if they don't bother dropping their litter in to a trashcan, because, they, of course, have done their part by not eating animals, so what does it matter if in their process of littering, some stray cat or dog might choke on it and die? They've done all the good they possibly can. Psh.

To all those people, here's what I think: If you've noticed, animals who are a part of nature, eat other animals. There's a class for them; they're called carnivores. Now, if eating animals was cruel and unnatural, this class wouldn't exist. But they do.

So you see, being non-vegetarian does not mean not caring about other animals. I don't believe there's any problem with killing animals for food, like the lion, the tiger or even the Drosera capensis (carnivorous plant - yea, I'm showing off now ) do.

The problem comes when humans kill for sport. We have got to stop equating 'prestige' or 'maniliness' with the head of a deer mounted on your wall. I mean, seriously, hiding behind a bush and pointing a gun at the animal when it's got it's back turned; I fail to see the bravery or chivalry or 'prestige' in that. That's what we're doing wrong; that's what's hurting the planet; and that's what we've got to stop.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, and while I respect those people who are vegetarians for not wanting to harm any animals from their part, I don't believe in condemning non-vegetarians for being natural. It's only when we stop being natural and start being all too human that our real ugliness shows.

I close with the well known words of Mahatma Gandhi : " Earth has enough for every man's need, but not for every man's greed."