Page:Henry Stephens Salt - A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays.pdf/115

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

113

fleshless diet effects an enormous economic saving, and it is not seriously denied that such a diet is perfectly practicable for those who choose to try it. What, then, will be the value of Vegetarianism at a time when the nation is racking its brains to ﬁnd methods of feeding its millions, who at present, from some reason or other, are woefully short of food ?

In the ﬁrst place, I think we shall do wisely in not claiming too much. The unhappy condition of the lower classes is brought about by many complex causes, which can scarcely be remedied by any single reform. The evil lies in the inequality of the laws which regulate the distribution of wealth, rather than in any actual dearth of means of subsistence. It may therefore be fairly questioned whether, to gain a final and permanent relief, it would not be necessary to go beyond individual food-thrift, and to place the whole system of the production of wealth on a really equitable basis.^[1]

↑ It is often asserted by Socialists that the adoption of a thrifty diet could not in itself improve the condition of the poor to any large extent. Individuals, they say, may at present save largely by the economy of a vegetable diet, but when once the possibility of such a diet began to be recognised, wages would fall in proportion, and the whole advantage of the thrift would go to the capitalist class. This is very strongly urged by Mr. George in Progress and Poverty, Book VL, Chapter I.; and the obvious inference is that some external legislative change has, in the present state of affairs, become an absolute necessity. But while making this admission all Food Reformers must protest against the very slight importance attributed by Mr. George to habits of thrift and frugality in living. However true it may be that such self-reform is of itself useless, in the face of the constant pressure of poverty caused by insufficient wages, it is nevertheless deplorably unwise to undervalue and decry the importance of habit: without which no community can ever live in true happiness and content.

[1] It is often asserted by Socialists that the adoption of a thrifty diet could not in itself improve the condition of the poor to any large extent. Individuals, they say, may at present save largely by the economy of a vegetable diet, but when once the possibility of such a diet began to be recognised, wages would fall in proportion, and the whole advantage of the thrift would go to the capitalist class. This is very strongly urged by Mr. George in Progress and Poverty, Book VL, Chapter I.; and the obvious inference is that some external legislative change has, in the present state of affairs, become an absolute necessity. But while making this admission all Food Reformers must protest against the very slight importance attributed by Mr. George to habits of thrift and frugality in living. However true it may be that such self-reform is of itself useless, in the face of the constant pressure of poverty caused by insufficient wages, it is nevertheless deplorably unwise to undervalue and decry the importance of habit: without which no community can ever live in true happiness and content.

[1]