Singer's point is that it is unnecessary to inflict suffering on other animals (or people). Human beings survive just fine on a vegetarian diet. I have done it since birth, as have my siblings and my parents and their parents before them. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world do it daily. So if it is unnecessary to inflict suffering on animals, why do it? Just because they taste good? That taste is learned. On those accidental occasions when I get some food which has meat in it (at a restaurant, etc.) it does not taste good to me. The smell of meat, despite having been in the US and around it all my life, is not appetizing to me. So for a simple learned reflex (taste), we must inflict suffering and pain on an incredible scale on animals?

I also find it very hypocritical for those who have no problem eating pigs or cows to be horrified by the notion of eating dogs, cats, or horses. What is the difference? Pigs can be just as smart as dogs, so why is one a pet and another food?

As to the notion of being horrified by Singer's equivalence of Jews and the holocaust to what is being done on animals now, you must remember that the Nazis did not consider Jews to be people. To compare a Jew to an Aryan (or a black to a white during slavery times in the US) would have been scoffed at by the common person in that place at that time. Animals have emotions and some self-awareness, which is obvious to anyone who has owned a pet cat or dog during their life. Are they the equivalent of humans? No. There is a continuum, which is what Singer is saying, going from low-level invertebrates, ranging through mammals, to us.

To those that say that well, it's okay to eat animals because they eat each other, I say, by that logic it is okay to rape or to run through the fields naked or to have duels to the death to inherit harems because animals do that. Animals are not people, but neither should they have to suffer for no reason other than taste.

I wonder how some of the letter-writers, and Singer, can believe as they do and still do so little to stop what they consider torture and murder on a grand scale. If you believe what you seem to, how is your way of life any different from that of the "good" German who took his stand by swearing off lampshades made of human skin. All this mass murder and torture and you think you can feel great about yourselves by making a few fine adjustments to your bourgeois lifestyle? Instead of sitting in an office somewhere debating fellow readers in a letters column, shouldn't you be trying to destroy the apparatus of mass murder and torture? If it's as bad as you say, why aren't you doing more to fight it?

I'm serious. I feel the same way about pro-lifers who sit in their comfortable jobs while they claim to believe there is a massive genocide going on.

"I just eat a lot of leafy greens, legumes, and a few free range eggs, and take a multi-vitamin"

Remind me not to ride in an elevator with you.

...to a visceral issue. Wow! This article and the ensuing discussion has touched quite a nerve. Usually this only happens with those message-board-brawl inducing articles about parenting/procreation. Makes sense as food is right up their with sex and procreation among the fundamental issues of what it means to be and stay alive... and our ability to have this discussion back and forth (not to mention our ability to argue, convince, learn, take offense, engage, change our minds, etc.) is what makes us human. It's a good thing that folks are so worked up about what we eat-- it's an important issue, culturally, biologically, environmentally, and for some, spiritually/morally. Curious that we don't see people go bonkers posting comments on the articles about politics, the environment, etc.-- is it because arguing over whether or not to eat steak is easier and less depressing to talk about, because each one of us feels as though we're an expert on food (since we all eat), because it's a fundamental issue of personal liberty/choice? I guess people get defensive about what they eat, how they parent, etc. because those are things they can actually control, vs. the war in Iraq, global warming, etc. which we can blame on the powers that be. Though these events too are the products of millions of individual political and consumption choices, we feel less responsible/involved than when we decide to order the chicken sandwich-- we therefore feel less offended when someone states a position one way or the other.

I suppose this is a bit of a non-sequitir, I just think it's interesting to examine the issues we get worked up about... why is vegetarianism as a personal choice the hot topic on Salon today instead of say, the political nature of the USDA which both represents and regulates US food interests and therefore plays a much larger role in how livestock are treated in this country than any individual? Or about the way the USDA is urging it's folks to work in positive things about Iraq when they make speeches (see the War Room on Salon today). It's not just on Salon either... read the Washington Post, Slate, the New York Times and readers are all up in arms about whether or not you should take a sick child to day care, but fairly meek when it comes to the new CIA nominee. I'm glad there is debate about Singer's article, just wondering why you posters aren't responding to the other news of the day in such a vehement way (or at all). Anyone?

Pete Singer reminds me of the O. Henry story of the bounty hunter looking for a murderer.

The bounty hunter tracks the man to a small, secluded, rural town. In order to get the murderer to reveal himself, the bounty hunter takes a stick and starts beating a stray dog in the middle of main street at noon.

The murderer reveals himself when he comes to the dog's defense.

When asked by the townpeople how he knew his strategy would work, the bounty hunter says, and I paraphrase, "People who prefer the company of animals often have no use for other people. They care more about animals than they do about people."