The one deciding factor was probably having all my hens killed by a fox. For a while, I felt confused, and thought about animals and their nature a lot. I finally saw that while foxes kill hens to feed themselves and their young, humans can survive without meat.
A somewhat off-beat idea just occurred to me, what if one's willingness to eat meat is influenced by the animals one associates with whilst growing up; basically if a child grew up around carnivores animals (like large dogs for example) could their association with the still psychologically developing child make that child more inclined towards a carnivorous mindset?
This idea is about a very subtle change in psychological biases could be caused by many years of said child interacting with it's pets, although it's a theory that would be nearly impossible to since such a small influence could easily be overshadowed by other events in the lives of any test subject, so this is all just interesting conjecture.
For the lols, lets have Nemo and myself as case studies. (sorta)
Nemo hypothetically grew up with poultry being his primary means of relating to the animal kingdom, an almost symbiotic relationship whereby the service of care and protection is rewarded with the prize of nutritious/tasty eggs. When the carnivorous fox killed the chickens this would have prompted a strong feeling of remorse from nemo; perhaps even guilt if we consider that he knew better than to blame the fox and in the absence of an otherwise acceptable “villain” he was left only with himself to blame, having failed to protect those that he probably believed at some level, that he was responsible for protecting.
It’s highly probable these events instilled in Nemo a sense of dutiful protection to all animals, by psychological association to them via the chickens that he was unable to save… I’d call it a “hero’s complex”, but that’s just me.
Speaking of which, I grew up with various dogs and a cat, a fluffy black Persian, it didn’t so much hunt, as it committed local genocide on any species that it deemed worthy of hunting. Most cats hunt small tasty things like birds or poor little native animals that don’t know how to protect themselves, but not Ebony, no for her I believe it was more of a dominance thing. It started as sport hunting, lizards as a kitten, snakes as she got bigger (dangerous snakes), eventually cumulating in foot-long water rats and traumatizing a german-shepard-something-or-other (a small bear of a dog, and known cat killer). Seriously if he (Hooch) got in her way, he’d get up just to let her pass, she’d even eat his food right in front of him, and once I even saw her curled up on top of him as he was sunbaking! I never saw the actual fight, but I remember seeing Hooch limp around with a face full of stiches and slight bleeding from between the shoulder blades. Evidently Ebony somehow managed to get onto his back and bite down on the back of his neck, I don’t know what the intention was when she did so (a kill bite? Or “kitten” treatment?) but it certainly earned his fear/respect.
…I’m not actually going anywhere with this, it’s just an interesting story, and obviously I seem to be lacking the necessary attention span for the point I was trying to make, although for the record Ebony was wonderful around people, seemed to think she was one too, as many cats do I suppose.
Okay here’s the point I was trying to make,
before I got side-tracked
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/891ad/891ad5775371410c654c59f6531842d3c961248c" alt="Elephant :elephant: :elephant:"
Having spent several years of my childhood doing what a boy and a dog do when they’ve got rural bushland to play with (explore, find things, play-fight, get into trouble, get out of trouble, get into more trouble). Now my interactions with other animals were rather limited, either involving staying the hell away from them (or join the “snake/spider-bite club”) or playing with (harassing) them. Games included “annoy the wombat until it chases you” which is quite self explanatory and unbelievably funny to watch; Socker, which is basically like soccer, but with competitive sheep herding instead of kicking a ball, trees at the far ends of a paddock for goals and the extra rule that you’re allowed to used rolled up sock-balls or tennis balls to assist your herding, otherwise the sheep just stand there, oh and dogs are allowed, helpful or decidedly not, it’s all funny; lastly there’s the bull paddock game, which is pretty obvious, and was absolutely thrilling, until we realised the bull had no interest in actually charging anyone, it was a hand-fed softy (as they go, they can be temperamental) and that was only chasing people because it wanted food & attention, hence the new game, “how long can you run with a bale of hay?” which was an excellent spectator sport.
Again I’m getting side-tracked
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/891ad/891ad5775371410c654c59f6531842d3c961248c" alt="Elephant :elephant: :elephant:"
My point was that playing with dogs and the associated dog’s perspective of respecting other animals made me less likely to be a vegetarian than Nemo who (hypothetically) enjoyed quietly feeding his peaceful chickens.
I say “hypothetically” because I’d like to assume this was the situation, after all the thought experiment isn’t about comparing Nemo and I as we are, it’s about comparing these hypothetical childhoods and discussing if or not they could have influenced dietary biases.
Yay, I got there in the end
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af448/af448df24b1cc0c3d132bd56273b8b09d0478c42" alt="King Twitter :king-twitter: :king-twitter:"