Sriram,
Your statistics obviously don't work where cultural and moral issues are more powerful than economics.
They’re not my statistics, they’re just statistics – and if you think they’re wrong then provide some evidence of your own to show them to be wrong. “Obviously” isn’t evidence.
And in any case, you’ve missed the point. You said: “Indians did not need clinical trials as proof that vegetarianism is good for health or that animals and the environment need to be protected and respected. It has taken many decades for vegetarianism to even get accepted as a normal diet form in the west.”
I merely pointed out that the prevalence of vegetarianism in less economically developed countries came about largely because of the economic circumstances, not because the locals could equally have chosen meat but decided on grain-based foods instead because of some superior knowledge of the health benefits.
Fact still remains that poorer countries in Africa, middle east, China, south east Asia and around the world have not adopted vegetarianism even during their poorer periods.
That’s not a fact. They exactly did “adopt vegetarianism” (ie, eat the only or most affordable food) during the “poorer periods”, and there’s been a sharp uptake in relative meat consumption in some of them (China in particular) more or less in line with growth in GDP. Have a look at the statistics yourself if you don’t believe me.
And the upper classes in India are vegetarians much more than the lower classes.
About 40% of Indians are vegetarians, and there’s no evidence I can find to suggest that of the other 60% the wealthiest eat less per capita of the more expensive food option while the poorest eat more per capita of the more expensive food option.
That would be a remarkable finding if it was true. Do you have any evidence to indicate that it actually is true?
