[SPOILER] Click here to see my commentary for this page!
My comment for this page from Gaia: sic mundus creatus est:I was getting annoyed by some readers who criticized the strict vegetarianism in Gaia. Anyone who reads Sandra and Woo knows that I’m anything but a lefty, but the setting clearly demanded vegetarianism as ubiquitous ideology. Nothing else would have made sense in a world where people show such a deep connection to nature, where all creatures were initially created by the same goddess, where the number of different species is dangerously low, where sausages grow on trees, and where spirit is a limited resource.
|
A bunch of things came out of this page. The explicit vegetarian ethics among civilization (and it’s exception for those struggling to survive outside of it), someone who knows Lilith by name (… maybe this shouldn’t be so surprising, but Silas’ reaction is weirdly… calm), and knows of her and Dyson’s secret grove. Curiously, Lilith’s attention was only drawn to the first bit, ignoring the other two bits which seem to suggest to me Eldor knows of this place, and had some means to convey it to Silas, who choose the spot so he could engage in his evil activities, without interruption.
The vegan ethics, paired with how lifeforce works just brings up a lot of questions, worldbuilding, economic, ecological, ethical, etc. Also felt like it made the gods of Gaia much more… finite as a result. Especially with the casualness of some of the reference to meat based foodstuffs or typical meat byproduct industries.
Generally wasn’t worth abandoning a good comic over.
@ Carefulrogue:
Why wouldn’t people know a famous local, in a relatively small world, that was charged and convicted of a capital crime, and then escaped from prison.
My question was why Silas is so meh, about it.
“the setting clearly demanded vegetarianism as ubiquitous ideology.”
I don’t agree. I don’t object to that choice, as a worldbuilding choice, but it’s not at all required.
“Nothing else would have made sense in a world where people show such a deep connection to nature,”
I think this is going the other way. Vegetarianism is the main thing we are seeing (in the story) to demonstrate that connection to nature. But raising animals requires being close to them, interacting with them, and making space for them. I think you can feel that you are *participating* in nature and not be vegetarian. (And I say that as someone who does not even eat red meat!)
“where all creatures were initially created by the same goddess,”
Plenty of people on modern earth believe all creatures were initially created by the same deity — there’s more debate about who that deity is, but monotheism is doing very well, and most monotheists are not vegetarian.
” where the number of different species is dangerously low,”
I don’t really see that expressed in the story.
“where sausages grow on trees,”
That’s just too wacky to use as support. Do meat-trees not have spirit?
“and where spirit is a limited resource.”
That’s only expressed as low animal/human fertility, but since that’s the norm, are they even aware of it? It’s not like it abruptly dropped and they discovered there was a shortage of spirit.
@ JD:
Same feeling about the commentary. As long as eating each other is seen in nature at all, religion can easily argue that it is fine.
When rereading I first noticed the vegetarism part at all, and by this page I had forgotten again. Page wise publication really lends itself to forgetting details, even major plot points. So getting readers to actually remember such world building details may also be unaccomplishable.
What surprises me is not the veganism itself, but the fact that there are people who *still* eat animals.
If gaia people don’t need to eat meat, why this is still a (exceptional) thing? Why does Lili know what is a fishing rod?
Maybe in rare occasion people do eat “real” meat? Like very hungry people would (sadly, but true) turn to cannibalism in very bad circumstances?
Or is it happening every now and then, like in a farm you would kill (and eat) your old cow that is too old to produce milk anymore?
JD wrote:
That’s just the tip of the iceberg of “most arguments for veganism could actually be applied to plants as well, making you unable to eat anything”. Vegans deciding to “not count” plants makes exactly the same sense as vegetarians deciding to “not count” fish – and LESS sense than “not counting” eggs (because eggs for eating are rarely if ever fertilized).
Granted, on Gaia, they might be able to MEASURE the amount of spirit in something and use it as argument.
@ HKMaly:
” vegetarians deciding to “not count” fish”
Uh, vegetarians do count fish. If you eat fish, you’re pescatarian, not vegetarian. The big difference between vegetarian and vegan is eating some mix of milk products and eggs, which in theory can be harvested without killing anything. (And, even if counting the deaths of male calves or chicks, still involves less death than eating lots of meat.)
@ Carefulrogue:
They’re vegetarian ethics, not vegan.
@ mystery:
That then comes back to “weirdly calm” or perhaps disinterested. Given the geography, if Silas was a nobody, he shouldn’t act or respond to her appearing this way.
drs wrote:
I’m pretty sure plenty of people, including some vegetarians, count both vegans and pescatarians as different degrees of vegetarianism. But ok. Will you also address why death of plants doesn’t matter?
Does this world have cats? Because as we know cats – as quite a number of other species – are obligate carnivores. They die if they don’t eat other animals. But I guess they can also just nibble on the sausage tree fruits? Or it’s only barbaric if humans do it? The world building does not exhibit a “deep connection to nature”. It’s just silly. You know what a deep connection to nature is? Realizing that in nature everything really eats everything else. This silly vegetarian ideology is something you get when you live in a urban place where you don’t have an actual connection to nature anymore.
The thing is, the author is extremely silly and inconsistent about his philosophy.
Lili says: “Only a creature struggling for it’s own life has the right to take that of another one.”
Which is implied to be somewhat of a general sentiment.
Yet however in “The Way Back Home 59” we hear: “Kill everyone who looks even remotely like Dyson or Sandril”. There are similar sentiments expressed throughout the series. Everyone has large armies, does war and kill each other by the thousands (implied) just for lines on a map. Yet taking the life of a fish is unthinkable. Taking the life of a rabbit is so unthinkable that you need to invent sausage trees.
The author never bothered to actually sit down and think for 5 minutes about his philosophy. How the inhabitants of Gaia actually feel about taking a life and what it would mean for how the world functions. It’s how an eleven-year-old would design a world. Immature.