Eating animals

Markus, modified 6 Years ago.

Eating animals

Posts: 24 Join Date: 4/29/15 Recent Posts
I would like to start a discussion on this. We have another thread going here where we talk about this a little but the purpose of that thread was something else and I felt it's better to start fresh. I also feel i came across as a little condescending over there (i was going through some dark night shit) and that is not my intention. I admit that i have some room for development in my communication skills regarding matters such as this. I figured starting this thread is a good way to practise. 

I think it's wrong to eat animals in this day and age. It's unnecessary. I also think its harmful to our health, our environment and ethically speaking, harmful to other sentient life forms. I'm no expert when it comes to the science of these matters but from a philosophical viewpoint i cannot see any fault in the reasoning of wanting to cause minimal harm on our precious time on this earth. I have yet to find a justification that would indicate otherwise. 

Do you agree or disagree with this position?

Now how does this pertain to buddhism? I think it gets to the heart of it. And that is what the first training (morality, 4th noble truth, 8-fold path, etc) is all about. It does not matter so much what buddha or anyone decided to do back in the day. Times have changed. We live in a different world. What matters is what we do now. So yes, it is very crucial i believe to how we live in this world. 

It's also slightly baffling how little regard many practitioners have regarding this even masters of some traditions. In fact, there's even this antagonistic attitude which often appears when these matters are probed further (from my experience). I have noticed this again and again. I would like to understand why this is so. How can we talk about kindness and compassion and then then turn around to practise something entirely opposite. We should at least be able to talk about it freely and open-heartedly. Pursuing enlightenmnet through deep meditation while feeding hot dogs to our children or cooking bacon for our grandma is a clear indication that something has gone amiss in our wisdom. Perhaps we have forgot to think for ourselves and are relying too much on maps and teachings. 

It's foolish to think that just because we cannot do everything (ie. save the world), we should do nothing. It's always better to do something instead of nothing, just as it is when sitting on our make-believe throne of meditation. And making basic food choices is a simple yet immensely powerful and effective vote towards a world where buddhist practises could be spread evermore and developed. 

It's time for a reality check. 

Here are some excellent resources to educate ourselves which have helped me enormously since i began this path many years ago. This powerful information can literally change your life wherever you are with your daily practise. It sure has changed mine. All I ask is that you keep an open mind if this is an area of your life that is sensitive to external inquiry. And if it is, ask yourself why. Your life may depend on it!

films: 
Speciesism: The Movie
Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret
Earthlings
Forks Over Knives

lectures:
Carnism: The Psychology Of Eating Meat
The World Peace Diet: Being Healthy and Saving The Planet
Best Speech You Will Ever Hear

a good forum for the intellectual folk: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/

Feel free to discuss. 

As for me, its time to meditate and turn off this damn computer!
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
edit : i want to add two good "movies" which are relavent to my first post  (  best speech you will hear : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ

Or the movie "earthlings"  : http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32  http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
)

Hi - i just wanted to talk about a spesific issue and its about lineage - theravada is exelent and goes hand in hand with veganism - even if its not a "must"

I practice theravada mahasi sayadaw style meditation - and i think while its not saying you must be vegan it is supporting this idea - but you really need to keep meditating and do resarch to understand this - i thought at start it dosnt support vegansim and only mahayana  does but the more i "advance" i understand how veganism is a plus to the practice
 
Also the example people give fore the least vegan-freindly  sect  is tibetian lineage (vajrayana ect) cause they had to eat meat cause thats what available in tibet  - but than i saw this video  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923

In 15:28 minutes its a nice explanation of ven.bikkhu bodhi why there is some kammatic effect in buying chicken
 

  titled "animals and the buddha" - which had tibetian monks talking against eating meat (and also highly respected theravada monk bikkhu bodhi)    

I say all sects that you follow will indirectly support veganism -    you dont have to be vegan in order to be buddhist - but it sure helps --   if only  for practical cold "how do i advance faster in the path" considerations its worth being vegan  ar at least a vegaterian - which is better than eating meat -  just because its hard for some to be vegans dosnt mean they cant at least be vegaterians
It's foolish to think that just because we cannot do everything (ie. save the world), we should do nothing
thats a very "buddhist" saying
 
thumbnail
Bagpuss The Gnome, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 704 Join Date: 11/2/11 Recent Posts
I love animals. Especially steak. 
thumbnail
. Jake ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 698 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
I just heard this really interesting interview on the radio recently. It was with this guy who has a startup company making meat directly from plants. basically he argues that meat is a certain balance of protein, lipids, water and something else i forget. And he says that traditionally we have let animals turn plants into 'meat' through their metabolism but that we have now reached the point that through temperature, pressure, blending etc. we can take plants and turn them into 'meat'-- the substance that has those four elements in a certain balance. this is different from making chick-pea burgers as he's actually using a pretty intensive processing to extract and recombine the proteins, lipids etc into 'meat'. Anyhow it was really interesting and apparently his machine produces some tasty meat with no animal involvement at all. He strongly makes the case that he is making meat, not meat substitute, but actual meat, and he argues that the definition of meat shouldn't involve having been grown in an animal as that is just one way that veggies can be processed into meat. Pretty neat. I like it. I would totally be down with this becoming a big thing (based on what little I know of it at this point).
Scott Kinney, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 112 Join Date: 4/7/15 Recent Posts
. Jake .:
....He strongly makes the case that he is making meat, not meat substitute, but actual meat, and he argues that the definition of meat shouldn't involve having been grown in an animal as that is just one way that veggies can be processed into meat. 
Does his case involve showing that material resulting from his process can mimic the actions of a muscle (contract, relax, etc.)? 
thumbnail
. Jake ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 698 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
haha no because the nerves don't constitute the 'essence' of meat as he is arguing... he is saying that 'meat' is basicaly a combination of proteins, lipids, water and one other thing i can't remember. I think. Lol. And he says that animals turn plants into meat but we can also just make it directly by arranging matter into that configuration.

ETA: in other words, this is completely different from vat-grown meat or 3d printed meat that uses actual animal cells either cloned or what have you --
Scott Kinney, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 112 Join Date: 4/7/15 Recent Posts
Meat is muscle tissue. Nerves typically supply the impetus for muscles to contract and relax, though they are not the only stimulus source that can do that.

So, the person's argument is that "meat" is the part of the stuff that muscle is composed of, some sort of undifferentiated cell (?). It's sort of like pointing to a pile of sand and saying it's essentially identical to building composed of cinder blocks because sand is a great part of what's in cinder blocks.

I don't doubt that he's created a protein. I'm just not all the way there to agreeing that he's created meat.
thumbnail
. Jake ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 698 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Here's his site:

http://beyondmeat.com/

It's more like, imagine a giant turtle eats sand and water and a few other things and makes a shell out of concrete. And we kill the turtles for thousands of years to take their shells and build houses. And now this guy comes along and says, hang on, 'shells' are really just a mixture of sand, water and these other things which the turtle's metabolism puts together into the form of a 'shell'.

But with this new machine, we can actually make 'shells' by combining those ingredients and out the other end of the machine pops 'shells' that you can build a house with exactly like you can with the shells that turtles make metabolically. So now we can make 'shells' for building without having to grow them on turtles.

We can just make them right out of the *exact same ingredients* that turtles ingest to make them, by running those ingredients through a *different process than turtle metabolism* but one which *produces the exact same thing*- 'shells'. Shells which work just as well as turtle-shells for building houses. Just, now we can make them directly instead of *growing them on turtles*. Which is much nicer for the turtles ;)

His thinking seems very clear to me, but as with any re-definition (or clarification) of terms, it is bound to be controversial.

ETA: so to clarify, he didn't make a 'protein' he basically extracts all those ingredients out of plants and then recombines them into a pattern that is functionally identical to 'meat' grown on animals. So the raw materials are the same and the end product is nutritionally and sensually the same but the intervening process of transformation is of a different kind- it's technological, not metabolic. One of the examples was a burger which the host ate and said it tasted good and texturally was like meat, and the inventor said, yes, the protein in that is from yellow peas. But the burger didn't look or taste anything like yellow peas. This is not the plant-burger you can make at home with a blender and a crockpot. The processing he is doing is on another level entirely.
Scott Kinney, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 112 Join Date: 4/7/15 Recent Posts
Thanks for the link.

Based on what I've seen there, I might go with nutrionally equivalent, the low fat content notwithstanding. I can only go with "functionally equivalent" within the bounds of their product offerings, which are pre-made, pre-seasoned 'heat and eat' type products.

My frame of reference is that of someone who cooks. None of the "beyond meat" products are things that I can approach the same way I approach raw fish, or raw chicken, beef, venison, etc. for cooking. They are not broadly functionally equivalent, only equivalent within a narrow range.

To borrow your shell analogy; I can make 4 x 3 x 9 bricks, so that should replace all of the building materials and objects you currently get from shells. If that suits your needs, rock on with your bad self.
thumbnail
. Jake ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 698 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Scott, totes magotes, I feel you there. They talked about it on the show-- they want to be very approachable. I like to cook too! Hopefully they will eventually offer more raw-esque offerings. 
thumbnail
Chris J Macie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 863 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
re: Scott Kinney (5/20/15 10:26 AM as a reply to . Jake ..)

"So, the person's argument is that "meat" is the part of the stuff that muscle is composed of, some sort of undifferentiated cell (?). It's sort of like pointing to a pile of sand and saying it's essentially identical to building composed of cinder blocks because sand is a great part of what's in cinder blocks."

Subtle but crucial point.

AND a central theme in a book relevant to this thread:
Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition by T. Colin Campbell and Howard Jacobson (May 6, 2014)
 (see wikipedia on credentials of  T. Colin Campbell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Colin_Campbell)

A big chunk of the book is a critique of 'reductionist' science (which he was a master of, in his earlier career). Specicially, (for this thread), that if you take things apart (divide and conquer reductionism) – oh, food essentially consists of simply this or that chemical components. All we have todo is figure that out, then synthetically create (pseudo-) food out of analagous components, and we've got control of the situation (we are GOD), and, btw, can make an unlimited amount of profit along the way (and our friends in the medical-industrial complex will also profit hugely off the pandemic chronic disease guaranteed by feeding people this junk.).

That came to mind from Scott Kinney's critique of what .Jake. brought up. In a similar vein, anyone here seen that "Soylent Green" product that's all the rage among millennials, that's similarly constituted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29

(Anyone heard of the book or movie "Soylent Green"?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
C P M, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 219 Join Date: 5/23/13 Recent Posts
I worked in a soils and plant nutrition lab as an ongoing summer job. One of my tasks was to perform nutrient deficiency experiments on tobacco plants. For the experiment, plants were deprived of either one macro or micro nutrient.

If a plant was deficient in a particular nutrient, it would show characteristic growth and development problems.

The nutrients were mixed from various compounds (salts) in the concentrations needed by the plants (minus one nutrient). The controls that received all nutrients did fine.

In this case, it was possible to reduce the nutrient needs of a plant to it's base components. It's true that tobacco plants aren't people (spoiler, soylent green is people).
thumbnail
Chris J Macie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 863 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
re: C P M (5/21/15 8:57 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"If a plant was deficient in a particular nutrient, it would show characteristic growth and development problems.

The nutrients were mixed from various compounds (salts) in the concentrations needed by the plants (minus one nutrient). The controls that received all nutrients did fine.

In this case, it was possible to reduce the nutrient needs of a plant to it's base components."


This shows how such research provides valid insights into nutritional processes. It's more difficult to determine if what's so discovered is the complete story.

In the case of nutrition for humans, it's more complex, as new aspects – new nutrients, varying needs, etc. – are constantly being discovered. The problem is that science, or rather, commercial enterprises using the science, make practical decisions without recognizing the limits of "what they know". The result has been the trial-and-error history over the last decades. Oh, this is good; that is bad – based on this or that research. Then using this (actually provisional) knowledge to constitute "food", sell and consume it large-scale, it often turns out to have unexpected, often undesirable (from the POV of health) effects.

What T. Colin Campbell discovered in his research (that has been widely collaborated) is that the human body picks and chooses various nutrients from its food, according to a wide range of dynamic criteria – time of year, climate, bodily constitution (both genetically and developmentally conditioned), work/life-style, health condition, etc. To try to micro-program exactly adequate nutrition in this flux of variables would be practically impossible.

So his thesis is that eating whole foods (rich in all possible nutrients), plant-based (mostly), etc. provides the body with what it needs to select from according to momentary needs.

He also notes that attempts to micro-program nutrition from reductionist science, as well as many aspects of bio-medical reductionist based diagnostic and treatment strategies have been, on the whole dismal failures. (At least relative to the hype and expectations.)
thumbnail
. Jake ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 698 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
In a similar vein, anyone here seen that "Soylent Green" product that's all the rage among millennials, that's similarly constituted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29

(Anyone heard of the book or movie "Soylent Green"?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
Ha! My girlfriend, who was born and raised a vegetarian and now eats fish ocassionally, sent me a link to that stuff and I was like "Umm don't you know what Soylent Green is? I can't beleive they named it that!!' But she was like "Wait what?' because kids these days don't get cultural references from the 70's I guess lol. Oh well.

Also, your points about wholeness and reductionism are well taken, as a matter of principle i am very sympathetic to them. I'm also excited about the possibility of a relatively cruelty free 'meat'. Because meanwhile I am still eating steaks and burgers and from one point of view, sure, there is no excuse for that.

here's one other thing that i wonder about vegetarianism (leaving veganism aside because from my point of view it's so extreme that it's absurd, as animals are harmed in farming plants etc. as has been pointed out above).

The question I have has to do with hunting. I live in rural Vermont. Hunting is big. But more importantly it's ecologically necessary. Deer  cannot exist in balance without a predator preying on them. Without a predator in their environment, deer populations boom and bust because they over-graze, kill off plants, and then starve, and that becomes their cycle. This obviously has ecological effects on plants that are their food which then also boom and bust, which effects birds and squireels which use the plants for habitats and food, etc etc etc throughout the web of life here. Meanwhile during boom phases deer tick populations spike causing more lyme for people and animals. So i wonder how ethical vegetarians who would advocate no meat eating and no human hunting feel about this-- are they comfortable with reintroducing wolves and mountain lions back into the ecosystem in order to acheive this ecological balance?

And if they are comfortable with that-- what, from the deers' point of view, is the preferable way to be predated-- by tooth and claw, or by bullet and arrow? If this is an ethical question and if the ethics of it are grounded in the deers' experience (an arguable point, I grant) then how do we weigh the relative suffering of being predated by wolf vs. by human? Is it possible that being preyed on by humans is more humane than by wolves? Or if this line of thinking is irrelevant, then what are you basing your ethicality on here if not on the expereince and feelings of the deer?

ETA "you" refers in general to the reader in this final paragraph, not to chris.
thumbnail
Chris J Macie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 863 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
re: . Jake . (5/21/15 9:49 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"And if they are comfortable with that-- what, from the deers' point of view, is the preferable way to be predated-- by tooth and claw, or by bullet and arrow? If this is an ethical question and if the ethics of it are grounded in the deers' experience (an arguable point, I grant) then how do we weigh the relative suffering of being predated by wolf vs. by human? Is it possible that being preyed on by humans is more humane than by wolves? Or if this line of thinking is irrelevant, then what are you basing your ethicality on here if not on the expereince and feelings of the deer?"

This context is most apropos here. A key element is (similar to the arenas of nutrition and medicine): given a vastly complex system, conditioned over eons, how do we know we fully understand it sufficiently to change it? Particularly to "improve on it"?

"Vastly complex system" – to put in another way, as a former teacher of mine (he's dead now), Sun Bear, used to say, from a Native American perspective: All living beings give their lives so that other beings can live. That's clearly valid in terms of the macrosystem of the food chain.

But let me turn in another direction, to note that in the Buddha's teaching he focused less on universal ethical dictums, and more on individual intention. He did not say all living beings should not kill (e.g. for food) other beings (animals, grasses, bacteria,  yeasts,…). He said that human beings, on the path to liberation, should intend harmlessness. An instructive example was the story of some arahat monk, who was blind, being complained about to the Buddha because the guy was stepping on, killing bugs. The Buddha answered that the monk was blameless by virtue of his intentions – he couldn't see where he was stepping, didn't intend harm.

Now there are other dimensions of belief and teaching across the range of "Buddhisms", more so in later, e.g. Mahayana variants, which adopted more universal abstractions, where earlier (Pali Canon) teachings reflect more a focus on specific, individual action. The Boddhisattva vow being an example. (To over-simplify: earlier Buddhism's virtue-concentration-wisdom became later more wisdom-compassion.)

This historical development parallels the contemporaneous development of Christianity from Judaism (in the early centuries BCE, same time as Mahayana took shape). Judaism has to do with a particular group of people. Christianity extended notions from Judaism to apply to all people, all times, mirroring the extent of the Roman empire.

I read once a provocative article hypothesizing that St. Paul (Paul of Tarsus) shaped his teachings along these lines, extracting comparatively minor teachings of Jesus of Nazarath about brotherly love (which are not really that prominent in the Gospels), to make this a major, central teaching, and universalizing it to all peoples (at least of the Roman Empire). The author took this as an especially astute insight on Paul's part, linking into and taking advantage of the historical context. Sure enough, Rome collapsed after another 300 or so years, but out of it's ashes arose a religious empire that's still going -- the Roman Catholic Church. (Where the word 'catholic' is Greek 'kata-holos',"according to the whole", i.e. universal.)

Back to Buddhism. An interesting example of Mahayana-type universalism being the Parable of the Banyan Deer – a myth of a Buddha-like deer teaching a king to abolish, out of compassion, all hunting of animals, birds, fish, etc. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/jt/jt14.htm)

Another parallel, in Western modernist Buddhism, is extending Buddha's ethics in the direction of instigating social change, social activism; e.g. B.Bodhi's Buddhist Global Relief organization. (Arguably transferring a Judeo-Christian evangelical impulse into Buddhism.)

So, this discussion (mine here and this DhO thread) lies somewhere on the continuum between shaping the individual's ethics of intentionality, on the one hand, and a crusade to save the planet and abolish samsara, on the other hand.
thumbnail
Chris J Macie, modified 5 Years ago.

killing animals to keep the garden beautiful (in England)

Posts: 863 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: killing animals to keep the garden beautiful (in England)

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
I again want to say i really recommand  pepople here watch the full speech from start to finish :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ

About grass fed cows  (and like the link says chickens are fed grains - and dont forget milk cows - pepole dont forget its not all about beef thats just a small part of the problem)  

48 . In Australia, grass-fed beef is more ethical than eating wheat
First of all, do you live in Australia? Because if you don't then this argument is entirely irrelevant to your situation.


Secondly, hi Australians who are still reading!


Thirdly, the whole argument being made here is that more animals
die specifically in wheat harvesting than if you just ate grass-fed
beef. The argument ignores the fact that there are other things to eat
besides wheat on a plant-based diet. You could indeed not eat any wheat
at all if you wanted, there are many people who already do that for
whatever reason, health, allergies or indeed ethics. But on top of this,
it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that you'd just be eating grass-fed
beef and nothing else. Chickens, turkeys, pigs etc are fed on grains,
not on grass, so you'd be just eating beef and no other animal products,
and you'd not be eating wheat. Nobody does this in reality, so the
claim falls flat. You don't need to eat wheat if you really are
concerned with the practices. You can eat anything else, it doesn't have
to be beef.
http://www.vegansidekick.com/guide
http://www.vegansidekick.com/guide




 grass fed beef usually gets killed in the same industrialised slouther house regular cows are killed  :

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/this-is-what-humane-slaughter-looks-like-is-it-good-enough/
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/this-is-what-humane-slaughter-looks-like-is-it-good-enough/
 

How much animals really die in farming ? :

http://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Vegan-Mythbusting-1-Are-wild-animals-killed-when-grain-is-harvested-for-vegans
http://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Vegan-Mythbusting-1-Are-wild-animals-killed-when-grain-is-harvested-for-vegans


 
(Better to read at the link cause my quoting seems to damage the text a bit)

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-myths-about-grass-fed-beef.html

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-myths-about-grass-fed-beef.html


better read the links i gave above cause the quoting ditorts the text a little

  Five Myths About Grass-Fed Beef 
Myth #1: Grass-fed beef is good for the environment.False. Raising animals for food, especially
cattle, is one of the leading causes of global climate change. In 2006,
the UN release a study called Livestock’s Long Shadow which made the
point that raising animals for food is the largest contributor to global
climate change. The biggest environmental problem with raising animals
for food is the greenhouse gases that they produce–methane and carbon
dioxide. Feeding cattle grass instead of corn or soy is somewhat of a
reduction of resources, but does not address the issue of greenhouse
gases. It does not matter whether the cattle are located on a giant
mega-factory-farm or on a small farm in Central Massachusetts, each cow
still produce a huge amount of greenhouse gases.

Myth #2: Animals on grass-fed farms are happy.
False. There is certainly a gradient in the
ways in which animals are treated in the meat and dairy industry, but
even small operations are far from kind to animals. Cows are forcibly
impregnated–a grotesque and cruel procedure. Many calves are taken from
their mothers shortly after birth, to be sold to a veal farm or used as
dairy cows. Did you know that many small farms send their animals to the
exact same slaughterhouses as factory farms? In the slaughterhouse,
animals are shocked with electric prods, hung upside-down and are slowly
bleed to death.

Myth #3: Grass-fed beef is safer.
False. If you eat meat, you are increasing
your risk of developing E. Coli. There is no evidence to suggest that
grass-fed beef has a lower risk of contamination than factory-farmed
meat. E. Coli is transmitted through contact with fecal matter and all
meat has fecal matter contamination. Some prominent supporters of
grass-fed beef have said that the stomachs of cows who eat grass are
more resistant to E. Coli, which is a claim that has never been backed
up by facts. This myth seems to have started with Nina Plank and became commonly known because of Michael Pollan’s writing. Slate recently published a piece, Beware the Myth of Grass-Fed Beef, which explodes the myth that grass-fed beef is safer.

Myth #4: Grass-fed beef is good for your health.False. Grass-fed beef is still full of
saturated-fat, cholesterol and growth hormones. It may be true that beef
from cattle who are fed grass is somewhat better for your health than meat from animals who live their entire lives confined on feed-lots. However, eating a plant-based diet is even better for your health. 
We’ve known for years that beef consumption is linked to the major
killers: cancer and heart-attack. Furthermore, it’s a myth that beef
from grass-fed cattle does not contain hormones. It is common knowledge
that all animal products contain hormones, but you might be surprised to
hear that grass-fed beef can also contain added artificial hormones. A
short time before being slaughtered, grass-fed cattle are often
fatten-up with by being fed corn, soy, and given unnatural growth
hormones. If you eat meat, those hormones go right into your body.

Myth #5: If everyone ate grass-fed beef factory-farming would end.
False. Eating grass-fed beef does not
challenge factory-farming, because it is not a viable alternative. It is
expensive and there is not nearly enough grassland in America to raise
that many cattle. Every year in the United States, over 10 billion land animals are raised and killed for human consumption.
There is a reason why factory-farming persists: Americans continue to
eat meat. There simply is not enough grassland to raise that many
animals on pastures. Plus, ordinary people cannot afford the high
price-tag of grass-fed beef. A small operation based in Hardwick, MA
sells grass-fed ground beef for $9 per pound and $23 for rib-eye.
Working people cannot afford that.

So what can we do? 
Eating Vegan Helps Animals, the Planet, and is HealthyTrue. Eating vegetarian foods is
inexpensive and accessible. Eating vegan dramatically reduces your
carbon-footprint. It’s the best thing you can do to help animals, and it
is great for your health! Plus it’s easy. Every grocery store in
America now offers a selection of vegan foods–including vegetarian
analogs like mock meats and soy milks. So don’t buy the myth. Avoid
expensive grass-fed meats and opt for tasty vegan fare.

The grass fed cow industry also hurts many animals on the way (and of course add that number to the cows  killed)


The sobering reality is that cattle grazing in the U.S. is already
taking a tremendous toll on the environment.  Even with almost all U.S.
beef cattle spending much of their lives in feedlots, seventy percent of
the land area of the American West is currently used for grazing
livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area of Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho is used
for rangeland. In the American West, virtually every place that can be
grazed, is grazed. The results aren’t pretty. As one environmental
author put it, “Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water,
eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and
destroyed more vegetation than any other land use.”Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the
current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on
the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to
market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not
six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the damage
to western ecosystems.The USDA’s taxpayer-funded Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was
established in 1931 for a single purpose—to eradicate, suppress, and
control wildlife considered to be detrimental to the western livestock
industry. The program has not been popular with its opponents. They have
called the ADC by a variety of names, including, “All the Dead
Critters” and “Aid to Dependent Cowboys.”In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image
consultants, the federal government gave a new name to the ADC—“Wildlife
Services.” And they came up with a new motto—“Living with Wildlife.”But the agency does not exactly “live with” wildlife. What it
actually does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten
livestock. Its methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning,
shooting, and aerial gunning. In “denning” wildlife, government agents
pour kerosene into the den and then set it on fire, burning the young
alive in their nests.Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are
badgers, black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain
lions, opossum, raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines,
prairie dogs, black birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals
unintentionally killed by Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs
and cats, and several threatened and endangered species.All told, Wildlife Services intentionally kills more than 1.5 million

wild animals annually. This is done at public expense, to protect the
private financial interests of ranchers who graze their livestock on
public lands, and who pay almost nothing for the privilege.The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing
cattle is hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can
certainly reduce the damage, but widespread production of grassfed beef
would only multiply this already devastating toll.
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: killing animals to keep the garden beautiful (in England)

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Water Drop,

        That is at least the third time I've seen you post that video with that link. All your sources are from vegan websites, with names like "the flaming vegan". Why not just let people decide whether or not they want to view the video rather than reposting it? It feels like you are trying to force your feelings onto others. I find it hard to believe anyone would take such biased information seriously except for those waiting to be led. Also, it would be great if you could provide scientific journal articles or studies corroborating the claims made on the links. Can you? I am searching for something more balanced, and would actually appreciate it. I read the one link about farm animals killed. The language is clearly emotional propaganda and not objective or balanced. The article also makes no mention of how many mice are killed to harvest animals, but gives you a percentage. Anyone who has taken an introductory statistics course knows that percentages are often the language of propaganda and can be altered to reflect what the writer wants the reader to believe. Further, the article states that 1/17 mice in one study -any valid research method must be tested and retested with different variables to confirm its validity- were killed by farming. Ignoring the validity of the source and the study, this number means nothing but that in that one study most mice were not killed. However, if there are 33,000 mice in the field, that means 1,000 mice (and that ignores all other species) were killed to harvest the product. Further many rice die because they are poisoned by grain feeders ( Poisoning kills at least 80% of the mice.. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.). I've read more than one article from non-political sources suggesting a much higher number than the one given, but that's sort of a boring game of competing sources. Still, I am much more likely to be swayed if you can provide information from a study, and not a vegan website. I won't even respond to the copy and pasted portion because anyone with an eye for bullshit can see that it simply emotional pandering, confirming only what the the reader wants to hear.


But on top of this,
it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that you'd just be eating grass-fed 
beef and nothing else. Chickens, turkeys, pigs etc are fed on grains, 
not on grass, so you'd be just eating beef and no other animal products,
and you'd not be eating wheat. Nobody does this in reality, so the 
claim falls flat- Water Drop

This is actually my diet. The diet above that you claim no one eats in reality. I eat grass fed beef and lamb, raised and slaughtered in local farms. I don't eat chicken, turkey or pigs. I don't eat grains. For starches I eat sweet potatoes, yuca, or taro. Again, what does it suggest about your beliefs that you affirm "nobody does this in reality", and yet here I am, and this is how I eat? Clearly you are wrong, and have strong beliefs that are wrong, but what else is implied?

I'll leave you with the following from Lierre Keith, vegan activist for 20 years who decided to honestly explore her feelings about veganism and research food supply:

This book is written to further those passions, that hunger. It is not an attempt to mock the concept of animal rights or to sneer at the people who want a gentler world. Instead, this book is an effort to honor our deepest longings for a just world. And those longings—for compassion, for sustainability, for an equitable distribution of resources—are not served by the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism. We have been led astray. The vegetarian Pied Pipers have the best of intentions. I’ll state right now what I’ll be repeating later: everything they say about factory farming is true. It is cruel, wasteful, and destructive. Nothing in this book is meant to excuse or promote the practices of industrial food production on any level.But the first mistake is in assuming that factory farming—a practice that is barely fifty years old—is the only way to raise animals. Their calculations on energy used, calories consumed, humans unfed, are all based on the notion that animals eat grain.

This misunderstanding is born of ignorance, an ignorance that runs the length and breadth of the vegetarian myth, through the nature of agriculture and ending in the nature of life. We are urban industrialists, and we don’t know the origins of our food. This includes vegetarians, despite their claims to the truth. It included me, too, for twenty years. Anyone who ate meat was in denial; only I had faced the facts. Certainly, most people who consume factory-farmed meat have never asked what died and how it died. But frankly, neither have most vegetarians.

The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.I want a full accounting, an accounting that goes way beyond what’s dead on your plate. I’m asking about everything that died in the process, everything that was killed to get that food onto your plate. That’s the more radical question, and it’s the only question that will produce the truth. How many rivers were dammed and drained, how many prairies plowed and forests pulled down, how much topsoil turned to dust and blown into ghosts? I want to know about all the species—not just the individuals, but the entire species—the chinook, the bison, the grasshopper sparrows, the grey wolves. And I want more than just the number of dead and gone. I want them back.

In his book Long Life, Honey in the Heart, Martin Pretchel writes of the Mayan people and their concept of kas-limaal, which translates roughly as “mutual indebtedness, mutual insparkedness.” “The knowledge that every animal, plant, person, wind, and season is indebted to the fruit of everything else is an adult knowledge. To get out of debt means you don’t want to be part of life, and you don’t want to grow into an adult,” one of the elders explains to Pretchel.

The only way out of the vegetarian myth is through the pursuit of kas-limaal, of adult knowledge. This is a concept we need, especially those of us who are impassioned by injustice. I know I needed it. In the narrative of my life, the first bite of meat after my twenty year hiatus marks the end of my youth, the moment when I assumed the responsibilities of adulthood. It was the moment I stopped fighting the basic algebra of embodiment: for someone to live, someone else has to die. In that acceptance, with all its suffering and sorrow, is the ability to choose a different way, a better way.

The activist-farmers have a very different plan then the polemicist-writers to carry us from destruction to sustainability. The farmers are starting with completely different information. I’ve heard vegetarian activists claims that an acre of land can only support two chickens. Joel Salatin, one of the High Priests of sustainable farming and someone who actually raises chickens, puts that figure at 250 an acre. Who do you believe? How many of us know enough to even have an opinion? Frances Moore Lappe says it takes twelve to sixteen pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Meanwhile, Salatin raises cattle with no grain at all, rotating ruminants on perennial polycultures, building topsoil year by year. Inhabitants of urban industrial cultures have no point of contact with grain, chickens, cows, or, for that matter, with topsoil. We have no basis of experience to outweigh the arguments of political vegetarians.
We have no idea what plants, animals, or soil eat, or how much. Which means we have no idea what we ourselves are eating.Confronting the truth about factory farming—its torturous treatment of animals, its environmental toll—was for me at age sixteen an act of profound importance. I knew the earth was dying.

It was a daily emergency I had lived against forever. I was born in 1964. “Silent” and “spring” were inseparable: three syllables, not two words. Hell was here, in the oil refineries of northern New Jersey , the asphalt inferno of suburban sprawl, in the swelling tide of humans drowning the planet. I cried with Iron Eyes Cody, longed for his silent canoe and an unmolested continent of rivers and marshes, birds and fish. My brother and I would climb an ancient crabapple tree at the local park and dream about somehow buying a whole mountain. No people allowed, no discussion needed. Who would live there? Squirrels, was all I could come up with. Reader, don’t laugh. Besides Bobby, our pet hamster, squirrels were the only animals I ever saw. My brother, well-socialized into masculinity, went on to torture insects and aim slingshots at sparrows. I became a vegan.

Okay, it’s funny. But I can’t laugh at the pain I felt over my powerless witnessing of the destruction of my planet. That was real and it overwhelmed me. And the political vegetarians offered a compelling salve. With no understanding of the nature of agriculture, the nature of nature, or ultimately the nature of life, I had no way to know that however honorable their impulses, their prescription was a dead end into the same destruction I burned to stop.

Those impulses and ignorances are inherent to the vegetarian myth. For two years after I returned to eating meat, I was compelled to read vegan message boards online. I don’t know why. I wasn’t looking for a fight. I never posted anything myself. Lots of small, intense subcultures have cult-like elements, and veganism is no exception. Maybe the compulsion had to do with my own confusion, spiritual, political, personal. Maybe I was revisiting the sight of an accident: this was where I had destroyed my body.

Maybe I had questions and I wanted to see if I could hold my own against the answers that I had once held tight, answers that had felt righteous, but now felt empty. Maybe I don’t know why. It left me anxious, angry, and desperate each time.
But one post marked a turning point.

A vegan flushed out his idea to keep animals from being killed—not by humans, but by other animals. Someone should build a fence down the middle of the Serengeti, and divide the predators from the prey. Killing is wrong and no animals should ever have to die, so the big cats and wild canines would go on one side, while the wildebeests and zebras would live on the other. He knew the carnivores would be okay because they didn’t need to be carnivores. That was a lie the meat industry told. He’d seen his dog eat grass: therefore, dogs could live on grass.
No one objected. In fact, others chimed in. My cat eats grass, too, one woman added, all enthusiasm. So does mine! someone else posted. Everyone agreed that fencing was the solution to animal death.

Note well that the site for this liberatory project was Africa. No one mentioned the North American prairie, where carnivores and ruminants alike have been extirpated for the annual grains that vegetarians embrace. But I’ll return to that in Chapter 3.I knew enough to know that this was insane. But no one else on the message board could see anything wrong with the scheme.

So, on the theory that many readers lack the knowledge to judge this plan, I’m going to walk you through this.
Carnivores cannot survive on cellulose. They may on occasion eat grass, but they use it medicinally, usually as a purgative to clear their digestive tracts of parasites. Ruminants, on the other hand, have evolved to eat grass. They have a rumen (hence, ruminant), the first in a series of multiple stomachs that acts as a fermentative vat. What’s actually happening inside a cow or a wildebeest is that bacteria eat the grass, and the animals eat the bacteria.Lions and hyenas and humans don’t have a ruminant’s digestive system. Literally from our teeth to our rectums we are designed for meat. We have no mechanism to digest cellulose.So on the carnivore side of the fence, starvation will take every animal. Some will last longer than others, and those some will end their days as cannibals. The scavengers will have a Fat Tuesday party, but when the bones are picked clean, they’ll starve as well. The graveyard won’t end there. Without grazers to eat the grass, the land will eventually turn to desert.Why? Because without grazers to literally level the playing field, the perennial plants mature, and shade out the basal growth point at the plant’s base. In a brittle environment like the Serengeti, decay is mostly physical (weathering) and chemical (oxidative), not bacterial and biological as in a moist environment. In fact, the ruminants take over most of the biological functions of soil by digesting the cellulose and returning the nutrients, once again available, in the form of urine and feces.But without ruminants, the plant matter will pile up, reducing growth, and begin killing the plants. The bare earth is now exposed to wind, sun, and rain, the minerals leech away, and the soil structure is destroyed. In our attempt to save animals, we’ve killed everything.On the ruminant side of the fence, the wildebeests and friends will reproduce as effectively as ever. But without the check of predators, there will quickly be more grazers than grass. The animals will outstrip their food source, eat the plants down to the ground, and then starve to death, leaving behind a seriously degraded landscape.

The lesson here is obvious, though it is profound enough to inspire a religion: we need to be eaten as much as we need to eat. The grazers need their daily cellulose, but the grass also needs the animals. It needs the manure, with its nitrogen, minerals, and bacteria; it needs the mechanical check of grazing activity; and it needs the resources stored in animal bodies and freed up by degraders when animals die.The grass and the grazers need each other as much as predators and prey.

These are not one-way relationships, not arrangements of dominance and subordination. We aren’t exploiting each other by eating. We are only taking turns.That was my last visit to the vegan message boards.

I realized then that people so deeply ignorant of the nature of life, with its mineral cycle and carbon trade, its balance points around an ancient circle of producers, consumers, and degraders, weren’t going to be able to guide me or, indeed, make any useful decisions about sustainable human culture. By turning from adult knowledge, the knowledge that death is embedded in every creature’s sustenance, from bacteria to grizzly bears, they would never be able to feed the emotional and spiritual hunger that ached in me from accepting that knowledge. Maybe in the end this book is an attempt to soothe that ache myself.

thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
This is actually my diet. The diet above
that you claim no one eats in reality. I eat grass fed beef and lamb,
raised and slaughtered in local farms. I don't eat chicken, turkey or
pigs. I don't eat grains. For starches I eat sweet potatoes, yuca, or
taro. Again, what does it suggest about your beliefs that you affirm
"nobody does this in reality", and yet here I am, and this is how I eat?
Clearly you are wrong, and have strong beliefs that are wrong, but what
else is implied?


 1 . Bill i dont aim my words spesifcally for you or your spesifc exact diet or lifestyle - many people read this threads and the posts have a lot of impact - they create a lot of kamma  ( i wouldnt type so much just to debate ) lots of the grass fed are killed in regular industirialized slaughterhouse  where the cows are moved while hearing other cows scream(dont know the correct word is) they see the blood and when they are killed they are not always killed in a fast manner (cause of the nature of the industry) sometimes there are malfunctions and the cows are alive for some time after sloughter - while im against killing in general -  lets say you found some nice tiny farm where cows graze peacfully they can grow thier offsprings ect ect and one day someone shots them in the head and does it perfectly .... that doesnt mean all grass fed cows are living like this - and many people who read your words think that where you get your meat is the same as theirs and that the fact their meat is labeld "grass fed" it means its ok   - and again i still say that eating meat is not moral  not wholsome 

  2 . and i never said that "nobody does this in reality" - thats a quote from an article and honestly not even the reason i posted that quote thats just an extra - and even the author of that put it there made to make a point - that people look for excuses - its about the fact that many people can debate on the fact that eating grass fed cows saves lives (which it dont) cause animals are killed in grain felids - while eating chickens that are grain fed - so clearly they dont really care about the animals who lives in the grain fields but its just an excuse for them -  obviusly its not connected to you and not talking about you and i didnt say you make excuses

its a small part of a quote not meant for you spesifcally and that exmaple was given by the article just to make a point - and like i said before dont focus on some single part cause everything can be find as a fault if you look close enoguh  

It doesnt matter what waterdrop thinks or says or how he says it - look at the substance - most people eat meat that is labeld "grass fed" and the animals are getting abused and treated badly most people here do eat chicken and do drink milk and do eat eggs most people didnt watch the speech or really care about being moral (yes that "reason" to eat meat was even given in this thread)  so you found some great grass fed animal farm and you dont drink milk or eat eggs but most people  do and they think that the"grass fed" marking means its ok to eat that meat

they didnt put the effort to watch the video "animals and the buddha" :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923    
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923  

Or the "best speech you will ever hear" :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ

 
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Water Drop,

       I would like you to honestly answer the following questions. When I have posed them to you before you have evaded by saying things like "I don't like to debate" but then endlessly reposting propaganda after that. So, here goes:

You wrote: and again i still say that eating meat is not moral  not wholsome  

I imagine that you are aware that some animals were killed to bring you food. If you eat grains I would estimate many more animals die to feed you than me, but that's debatable and I don't know that for certain. Since we agree that some animals were killed so you could eat, and since you spend your money for the food that continues this process, you are responsible for the deaths of more animals. Your choice to buy the food reinforces the process through which more animals will die so you can eat. I am assuming that up to this point we are good. Continuing, since animals are killed to bring you food, why is that food wholesome while meat is unwholesome? In both cases of food production, animals died for human nourishment. In one case the animal that died was sustenance, while in the other it was not. Since in both cases animals are killed so that humans may eat, the difference is one of sustenance. In this case veganism is not actually about not killing animals, since everyone agrees (I assume) that animals are killed to bring us vegan food, but about eating animals rather than eating the product the processing of which killed animals. I find nothing above that could be debatable. I think it also demonstrates pretty clearly that veganism is arbitrary as an ethical diet. I invite any vegans to challenge any of the above in a coherent way that does not become a game of moral relativism in which you are just over the dividing line that makes you an ethical eater despite the fact that animals died that you might eat.

You've also posted the same video again. I guess that was a response to my pointing out that you already posted it three times, now three in this thread alone. That strikes me as immature. And it strikes me that such immature behavior comes from a man who believes so firmly he is ethical.
thumbnail
cian, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 62 Join Date: 5/22/15 Recent Posts
Just to add a spanner into a seemingly already flaming debate ;)  ...

Anyone checked out this sort of stuff about the sentience of plants?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primary-Perception-Biocommunication-Cleve-Backster/dp/0966435435/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1432579488&sr=8-2&keywords=primary+perception


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Life-Plants-Peter-Tompkins/dp/0060915870/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432579509&sr=8-1&keywords=secret+life+of+plants

seems to me that with a lot of the ethical reasons people go veggie the logical conclusion would be to not eat plants either.
(which would leave one in quite a bind)
How come nobody ever considers the poor plants in these debates!?
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Water Drop,

       Please answer the questions I posed. I take your refusal to do as a lack of valid answer, the evasion I referenced earlier. And I mean in your own words. It is not a question that requires research since the facts are agreed upon.

Bill
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
Im not a a native english speaker so its hard for me to explain in a convincing way - thats another reason i use links


We kill over 7.7 billion land animals each year for our food - thats a very conservative estimate



numbers are, the larger scandal is not in how many animals we eat but in
how much suffering we impose
on them during their lives and during slaughter. On factory farms for
chickens and pigs and on factory farms for fish, the animals live a
dreary existence weighted by both physical and mental suffering. The
vegetarian, by withdrawing her contribution to this grim industry, saves
her conscience too.
!!!  A vegetarian saves between 371 and 582 animals per year !!!


http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/
http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/

Bill i just want some points to to be clear :  i have nothing against you and im not looking to make you look bad or find somewhere you are mistaken and im not saying your an un-moral person (cause there is no such thing there are only unmoral actions)  and by reading your dog thread you do seem to care and i dont think your trolling
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Haha. It's not a language issue. You are clearly able to express yourself, and the question is rather straightforward.

Since we agree that some animals were killed so you could eat, and since you spend your money for the food that continues this process, you are responsible for the deaths of more animals. Your choice to buy the food reinforces the process through which more animals will die so you can eat. I am assuming that up to this point we are good. Continuing, since animals are killed to bring you food, why is that food wholesome while meat is unwholesome? 

You have still not answered that simple question upon which your diet, and sense of being an ethical eater rests.

Also, I found a link that says vegans kill 25x more animals than grass fed beef eaters. We could each post those things. Some sources are more reputable. Ignoring sources please answer the above question in your own words, based on your personal thoughts and feelings.
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
The language issue is that i dont enjoy writing this posts and i dont think that im clear in convaying the messages im trying to say :

Clear answer : i kill less animals with a vegan diet - i cause  less suffering on a vegan diet than other diets 

i dont know if i save 371-582 animals a year   or 1 animal -  even 1 animal life is worth me changing my diet - more than that even reducing the amount of suffering in the world is worth changing my diet

reducing suffering is one of the main points of buddhism - reducing the suffering of yourself and others

and note this from  the link i gave   :

http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/
http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/
The table does not include cows used for dairy, hens used for their eggs or the male chicks killed by the egg industry because we are trying to find the number of animals saved by a vegetarian, not a vegan

So a vegan diet (which is what im talking about not a vegeterian diet) is even better at reducing suffering  - note that maybe a vegeterian who eats milk and eggs causes more damage than someone who eat tiny amounts of meat - avoiding animal products completly does reduce animal deaths 

Im out of this disscusion for some days  cause i belive my posts do more harm than good - i will just post the usual links for the general public  : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923  
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9EzlDT4WLQ

 and "animals and the buddha" with the highly respected scholar and monk ven.bikkhu bodhi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923     
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923


I will give this spesific referens to you bill F: put aside all the disliking you have for me and how annoying i am : its a question you should ask yourself i dont want an answer (rhetorical question) its a very very deep question which is much bigger than the question itself (its deep in the snese it has different levels to it)  : bill F would you really be vegan if you come to the conclusion that its better for the animals ? 
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
I think from here it's going to just be a source war so I'll just let it die. And yes, totally, if I thought a vegan diet were healthy and ethical I would definitely adapt it. I've already radically altered my diet.
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
I think your a good person bill F

I am sure you will make an honest choice - when your kamma will be ripe

(OK im out for now)
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Peace bro.
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
cian:
Just to add a spanner into a seemingly already flaming debate ;)  ...

Anyone checked out this sort of stuff about the sentience of plants?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primary-Perception-Biocommunication-Cleve-Backster/dp/0966435435/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1432579488&sr=8-2&keywords=primary+perception
Yes, some very interesting data on sentience of plants and some of it has been around since the 70s or earlier.  I heard it when I was a wee tot and it caused me to change my behavior and be more respectful of plants.  Morally, fruit is probably the best for eating since the plant creates those for the sole purpose of getting them eaten, as long as you spit out or poop out the seeds, then the plant has accomplished its desired mission.  Fruit is actually the thing I feel the most comfortable about eating.   Whenever I look at something like an onion, I can't help but think I could  easily 'save' it by sticking it back in the ground and letting it grow..  ;-P  When I grow garden crops, I only grow fruit, tomatoes, etc. I think it's because I enjoy the harvest much more with those.   
-Eva
thumbnail
chris ., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 52 Join Date: 5/31/12 Recent Posts
I'm surprised at the amount of generalization in this thread, on this message board, which I thought was an open-minded and rational place.

> The body just can not handle an excess of meat all the time, if you eat meat alot, and want to be healthy, you will have to fast also to clear out all the grease.

This is just incorrect, it could be correct for some people, but who are any of us to say that it's the case for everyone? 

I can't handle grains, legumes (lentils, soy), and garlic/onions, I tried a vegetarian diet and it simply didn't work for me, for my physiological makeup.  I eat a lot of meat and veggies, along with other saturated fats like coconut oils and my blood lipid numbers are excellent, my cholesterol/HDL ratio is 2.5 (doctor says anything under 5.3 is great.)  But somehow you think I'm not healthy?

My ancestors grew up getting most of their calories from meat.  Why would they have evolved to a point where the main staple of their diet caused them harm?  Sugar and grains, not meat, are the main causes of disease and health problems for most of us.

I eat grass-fed pasture raised chicken, and wild fish.  (And bacon.)  I have compassion for the animals that I eat, but shit happens, millions of moles and rats are slaughtered in commercial corn and wheat production, I read a paper that suggested that a vegetarian diet - using commercial products - is almost as harmful to animals as a balanced omnivore diet is.
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
chris .:
I'm surprised at the amount of generalization in this thread, on this message board, which I thought was an open-minded and rational place.

> The body just can not handle an excess of meat all the time, if you eat meat alot, and want to be healthy, you will have to fast also to clear out all the grease.

This is just incorrect, it could be correct for some people, but who are any of us to say that it's the case for everyone? 
There are numerous tribes like inuit and Masai that are very healthy eating a meat heavy diet, Masai eat only milk, meat and blood from cows for a large portion of their lives.  When the get older, they are then allowed to eat other foods.  Interesting data suggest they are very healthy up until other foods are allowed in: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/masai-and-atherosclerosis.html (although still very healthy compared to Americans).  Lots of data I have seen suggest the main culprits of disease are recent western foods like grains and processed foods.  Whereas I have yet to find any groups with a lot of these diseases if they are eating traditional omnivorous diets of meats, vegetables, and fruits, or even of almost pure meat diets like the Masai and Inuit.  (there are no natural eating tribes that are vegetarian so no comparisons available there)
I can't handle grains, legumes (lentils, soy), and garlic/onions, I tried a vegetarian diet and it simply didn't work for me, for my physiological makeup.  I eat a lot of meat and veggies, along with other saturated fats like coconut oils and my blood lipid numbers are excellent, my cholesterol/HDL ratio is 2.5 (doctor says anything under 5.3 is great.)  But somehow you think I'm not healthy?

My ancestors grew up getting most of their calories from meat.  Why would they have evolved to a point where the main staple of their diet caused them harm?  Sugar and grains, not meat, are the main causes of disease and health problems for most of us.

I eat grass-fed pasture raised chicken, and wild fish.  (And bacon.)  I have compassion for the animals that I eat, but shit happens, millions of moles and rats are slaughtered in commercial corn and wheat production, I read a paper that suggested that a vegetarian diet - using commercial products - is almost as harmful to animals as a balanced omnivore diet is.
So far, I don't think anyone has either mentioned the mass hoards of pesticides and chemicals used in modern crop production.  Hawaii is trying to ban GMO crops.  Ironically, they are not against the plants themselves but the tons and tons of chemical run off that is poisoning streams and lakes.  Hawaii is a favorite testing ground for GMO crops due to the warm weather allowing faster growth and harvest cycles.  The amount of chemicals used on all these GMO crops is particularly intense in Hawaii.  How many animals die from the poison runoff?  How many bees die, they suspect now from pesticides and GMOs?  The GMO pollen goes on to contaminate the natural plants as well.  Some GMOs product their own pesticide, that is how they are bug resistant, the poison is made by the plant itself, if that genetics mixes with natural plants, those new seedlings will make their own poison as well, in many cases totally novel poisons that did not exist in nature previously.  When an area is prepared for crops, the ground is flattened and every living thing on it is either killed or driven off, it's obviously not just one or two mice.  Once the water is piped in, the many poisons applied and the plants grow, the illegal immigrants are then brought in to work the poisoned land in the heat for wages too low for the legal residents to tolerate and potentially get cancer from the poisons later.  Even so called 'organic' foods can be legally grown using a wide variety of chemicals and have a wide variety of chemicals added: http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/OrganicWatergateWhitePaper.pdf .  Both meat production and vegetable production have serious current issues for the environment and human health. 
-Eva 
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Eva,

Most grain production goes to feed cattle, chicken, and pigs.  The reason they need so much of it (and thus, need to genetically modify it to create higher yeilds and resist the poisonous chemicals) is because people eat so much meat.  The argument I was making against Bill's argument is that you guys are simply ignoring the big picture, and you're saying your specific diet kills less animals.  The truth is that consumption of animal products is the reason factory farming has to exist.  The world will never be able to eat meat on a mass scale without factory farming (or humanity cuts its population way down).

@Bill: I did read a bit of the book you posted, but I wasn't very convinced. I skimmed the rest of it and didn't think I was going to find anything to change my mind.  I think the main place we're butting heads is that I'm looking for a more pragmatic, societal solution, and you are arguing for your diet in particular.
thumbnail
Bill F., modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
 The truth is that consumption of animal products is the reason factory farming has to exist.  The world will never be able to eat meat on a mass scale without factory farming (or humanity cuts its population way down).

Factory farming is a recent invention beginning about fifty years ago. This statement is not true since we know that humans ate meat before fifty years ago. The diet I am suggesting, and eat, is as much a response to the cruelty of factory farming as yours. I would add in the large scale industrial production of grains as being equally terrible. I think research supports that it is more ethical, and less harmful, than the typically carb (grain) heavy vegan diet. But most people aren't ready to go there, which is fine. I respect the intention behind veganism/vegetarianism. I think the decision to go vegan/vegetarian is rooted in compassion, but the diet itself is actually not ethical to the extent the vegan relies on industrially processed agriculture, and harms their own body.

@Bill: I did read a bit of the book you posted, but I wasn't very convinced. I skimmed the rest of it and didn't think I was going to find anything to change my mind.  I think the main place we're butting heads is that I'm looking for a more pragmatic, societal solution, and you are arguing for your diet in particular.

What didn't you find convincing, and why? There's a plethora of sources at the back that informed the book. If you want to discuss, discuss and support, but this sort of criticism is not useful. 



thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
1 . Its important to note that this is about grass fed animals which i say is wrong also - people who eat milk dairy and eggs from factory farming have no excuse 

also note that many "Free range eggs" also get their chickens from places who grind male chicks or choke them in a bag --- some chicks survive the grinding machine and die from their wounds - and from the bags - which chicks die from chocking or juse pressure from chicks on the top -- many survive as well and they die very very slowly from hunger thirst heat and cold

and again this is on top of farm animal killed - and because most agricultre today is grown purley to feed farm animals moving to a vegan diet will save also many field animals as well  - very good kamma (karma)

2 .  and about grass fed i ran into this article and its nice so i wanted to add it here :

http://www.bitesizevegan.com/environmental-societal-impact/do-vegans-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters/
thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
water drop:
Why is a puppy mill and dog fighting considered to be bad, and even illegal, yet a slaughterhouse so accepted, and legal?  Rhetorical question, of course.
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Psi:
water drop:
Why is a puppy mill and dog fighting considered to be bad, and even illegal, yet a slaughterhouse so accepted, and legal?  Rhetorical question, of course.
If you wanted to know the answer, it is logical and obvious.  There is a diff between dog fighting and slaughter house because  the slaughter house is supposed to try to keep suffering to a minimum whereas dog fighting is the reverse and revels in the fighting with no benefits as a food source.  One is basic survival, the other is sport.  Do people call the bobcat immoral when it eats the rabbit?  If you have 300 ants in your kitchen with more on the way, do you carry each one outside carefully so as not to kill any of them?  Even as you ask the question, you must know that although both involve death, they have differences and are not the same thing, just as euthanasia is often considered humane,  yet still is illegal in America for humans even if some humans desperately want it.  Euthanasia, killing to eat and killing for sport, all involve death, 2 are illegal in the United States (but not elsewhere) and one is not.  Legality is really a moot point as law can never replicate any system of justice or morality and laws also change over time and geography, just as morality does.  If you are really being honest, then you already know the answer if you choose to try, but if your goal is to impose your version of morality on others by pretending you don't know the difference and/or implying there isn't one, then that is another issue altogether.

Anyway, taken from a different perspect even then that, your body is not you and the dog's body is not the dog.  And the cow's body is not the cow.  None of them really die.  Dieing is an illusion. Each creature sets its own path.  You choose if you want to get sucked into the drama or not.  The Earth game is designed such that creatures eat other creatures. Better get used to it because nature is probably not going to change any.  That's the way this Earth game is designed.  A better question might be why is it designed the way it is designed?  If you play Dungeons and Dragons, do you have your character run around with a 'Save the Dragons' sign?   Why not?   It's because there is no real death, you can resurrect the dragon at any time with your mind or you can let it go back to where it came from.  Dieing in the Dungeons and Dragons is an illusion.  But dieing in the Earth game is also an illusion.
-Eva
thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Psi:
water drop:
Why is a puppy mill and dog fighting considered to be bad, and even illegal, yet a slaughterhouse so accepted, and legal?  Rhetorical question, of course.
 If you are really being honest, then you already know the answer if you choose to try, but if your goal is to impose your version of morality on others by pretending you don't know the difference and/or implying there isn't one, then that is another issue altogether.
Maybe I eat puppies and go to cock fights, maybe. :-P  Are you trying to impose your own moral values?


Anyway, taken from a different perspect even then that, your body is not you and the dog's body is not the dog.  And the cow's body is not the cow.  None of them really die.  Dieing is an illusion. Each creature sets its own path.  You choose if you want to get sucked into the drama or not.  The Earth game is designed such that creatures eat other creatures. Better get used to it because nature is probably not going to change any.  That's the way this Earth game is designed.  A better question might be why is it designed the way it is designed? 
Why is it designed, uh, because we do what comes up in our thoughts.  We can just as well eat oatmeal, fruits, nuts and vegetables, take a Vegan Vitamin supplement in case anyone is worried. 9 cents a day and your B12 and all that is covered.

http://smile.amazon.com/Deva-Vegan-Multivitamin-Mineral-Supplement/dp/B002F86LNK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437578719&sr=8-1&keywords=vegan+vitamin




If you play Dungeons and Dragons, do you have your character run around with a 'Save the Dragons' sign?   Why not?   It's because there is no real death, you can resurrect the dragon at any time with your mind or you can let it go back to where it came from.  Dieing in the Dungeons and Dragons is an illusion.  But dieing in the Earth game is also an illusion.
-Eva

I only kill Evil Dragons, then heap the piles of silver upon the peasants, the gold I keep to by a Ring of Three Wishes that I keep hearing rumours about.  

Alternately, I like to subdue the Dragons, yeah old school player here, but subduing Dragons gives one that little edge when arriving in a new town, the General shop usually gives a discount.  Plus, Dragons are great for pulling my Warships, for instance, when the Seas Winds have calmed.

As for Death being an illusion, hmmm, it looks more like a fact.  But, I do get what you are saying about Death being an illusion.

Suffering seems real, it seems we can suffer, and cause suffering.  So, why cause suffering?  Of course there is always suffering on some level or another, plow a field and kill some worms and all that.  But, I gernerally do not eat worms.

 Now, eating worms, there is a good example of eating for survival.  Eating Orange Chicken is not relly survival oriented, that is eating for taste.  Like eating bait.  There is a difference between being caught and eating food as bait, and eating food for nutrition to keep the body and mind going.

Bait or Nutrition.  So, what does meat have, protein, maybe some, iron, B12. But zero Vitamin C, zero carbs , zero fiber, zero alot of stuff.  Cholesterol, it has that.

Anyone is welcome to eat what they want, I am not here to impose any Moral values, or try to get anyone to get defensive of being a eat eater, I have eaten my fair share of animals.  There is a fairly long chain of dead left in the wake of my passing through this Earthly Realm.  I have devoured many a sentinent being , mostly just to satisfy my  greedy craving for taste sensations and for the temprorary  alleviation of the hunger sensation.

But, I do not really eat meat anymore, and less and less do thoughts arise about eating fleshy substances.

 But, it used to, I remember craving a good burger and fries, a sizzling steak, fried chicken, Bacon at the Shoney's Breakfast Bar, All You can Eat !!!!  Oinky Oink

Guess things change, some cravings just fade away with time....

No Big Deal

Eva , you will probably serve this post up on your BBQ pit, and roast me alive!!  You are smart like that, I do enjoy your posts.

Hope you enjoy your day, and eat what you want, I know I do, it is all good....

Psi
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Psi:
Eva M Nie:
Psi:

Maybe I eat puppies and go to cock fights, maybe. :-P  Are you trying to impose your own moral values?
I think realistically, such a thing probably can't be done much or well.  IMO, people will in the end do what they feel a strong urge to do, regardless of what my opinions of it may be and even regardless of what society's opinions at large may be about it.  Either in light of day or in the dark of night when no one is looking, people will follow their desires, be in in an honest way or via uses excuses even to hide the activity from themselves, they will tend to follow it. Finger wagging, IMO does not work very well.  Although rarely, exposing someone do different perspectives may cause them to think about things in new ways, but what happens after that is hard to predict.  

Anyway, taken from a different perspect even then that, your body is not you and the dog's body is not the dog.  And the cow's body is not the cow.  None of them really die.  Dieing is an illusion. Each creature sets its own path.  You choose if you want to get sucked into the drama or not.  The Earth game is designed such that creatures eat other creatures. Better get used to it because nature is probably not going to change any.  That's the way this Earth game is designed.  A better question might be why is it designed the way it is designed? 
Why is it designed, uh, because we do what comes up in our thoughts. 
Who knew it was so simple that the answer could be stated in just one sentence!  Glad we got that all cleared up. 


Eva , you will probably serve this post up on your BBQ pit, and roast me alive!!  You are smart like that, I do enjoy your posts.
People tend to make assumptions about others but the map is not the territory and the internet is a poor conductor of nuance.  I would not do as you suggest.  I don't know for sure what is right or how it works or why we are the way we are.  I do question when others think they are sure as to how they know.  Most of the creatures on this Earth have urges that lead to competition and often to consumption of others.  When they follow their urges, we call it 'natural.'  We on the other hand have conflicting urges.  If we are not supposed to eat meat, then why does it taste good to so many?  Why do we have a protein taste receptor on your tongue?  (recently discovered and named umame).  Why do we have urges to question our urges and conflict with other urges in us?  The urge to eat meat, the urge to not eat meat, etc. 

All creatures on this Earth have taste buds that encourage them to eat certain things and those are the things they naturally eat and their bodies are designed to process those things.  A spider does not go down to the flower and try to eat the nectar and a honey bee does not try to steal the spider's trapped fly while the spider is away.  Yet some imply that humans are not supposed to eat things they find taste good and that eating things according to taste is bad.  From one perspective, that is obviously highly illogical.  If a food is not natural for us then why do we like the taste?  If it is natural for us, then why is it bad?  Why are some urges labeled bad and some good and why is the labeling different for us than for all the other creatures?  In creatures of the Earth, taste bud reward mechanisms are strongly canted towards the very foods that the body is designed to eat.  We call that 'natural,' except apparently when humans do it.   

Anyway if reality is empty and not us and temporary, then what is it that we are attempting to impose our morality on in the first place?  Just doesn't seem that simple to me.  And since it's not simple, it does not surpirse me that people pick different paths and answers for themselves.  What does surprise me is that so many people feel so sure about what they picked.  When what I see when I look at it is that none of the arguments on any of the sides are without holes.  People just seem to pick one side or the other and not see the logic holes of that side that they picked, that may be what amazes me the most really, that people can feel so sure of their side without seeing the logical holes and shifting inconsistancies.  It does not surprise me when people choose a diff path than me, there are so many jillions of paths and it all seems so much dependent on perspective, but what does surprise me is why so many people feel so sure their path and perspective is the one best path. (by the way, not saying that is you specifically, I don't even know you enough to make such a judgement either way, just saying in general that seems to be how it is with a lot of people)
-Eva 
thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
[quote=  When they follow their urges, we call it 'natural.'  We on the other hand have conflicting urges.  If we are not supposed to eat meat, then why does it taste good to so many?  Why do we have a protein taste receptor on your tongue?  (recently discovered and named umame).  Why do we have urges to question our urges and conflict with other urges in us?  The urge to eat meat, the urge to not eat meat, etc.  
]
Okay, sure, then why do we not eat worms, worms have 76 percent  protein, mammal meat is 65 percent protein, and fish at 50 percent protein.  Why is not eating worms natural?

Why is eating a raw apple or a banana natural, but not eating raw flesh.  Nobody Iknow of naturally has an urge to eat raw flesh.  So, by that logic eating flesh is not natural, eating flesh is not an evolutionary byproduct.  Eating flesh is a thought creation by product, though was used to combine heat with meat, to create something new, cooked meat.  

Though it could be said that the brain and thoughts are part of evolution, that point I concede, but still does not answer why humans do not naturally or unaturally eat meat and flesh as it is found in the naturally in the environment, raw.  So, eating meat therefore, must be a product of thought formation, and therefore eating meat must then be part of some illusion that one should or has to eat meat.

This type of thinking all goes back to only knowing what has been known, past, history.  Take all of that away, look at raw meat on the plate, where is the urge to eat such a thing?

Put some grapes in a bowl, wait until you are hungry, do you naturally have an urge to eat the grapes?


These are just suggestions, to investigate this meat eating phenomenon with an open , lucid objective mind.




All creatures on this Earth have taste buds that encourage them to eat certain things and those are the things they naturally eat and their bodies are designed to process those things.  A spider does not go down to the flower and try to eat the nectar and a honey bee does not try to steal the spider's trapped fly while the spider is away.  Yet some imply that humans are not supposed to eat things they find taste good and that eating things according to taste is bad.  From one perspective, that is obviously highly illogical.  If a food is not natural for us then why do we like the taste?  If it is natural for us, then why is it bad?  Why are some urges labeled bad and some good and why is the labeling different for us than for all the other creatures?  In creatures of the Earth, taste bud reward mechanisms are strongly canted towards the very foods that the body is designed to eat.  We call that 'natural,' except apparently when humans do it.   
We eat bad things for us because the thought system in humans, while good for survival as an apex predator, is also a delusion making machine.  Yes, the mind has flaws.  Think of it, the mind makes up symbols, such as the ones we are using now, letters, words, then the mind, in its delusion takes these words and symbols to be reality.  Think of it, the mind actually believes that words and symbols are reality itself!!
So, the mind takes up many things as good, what tastes good, what feels good, but that does not make the mind correct in following this natural sense pleasing path.  For example the mind likes to flow naturally towards many harmful things, ice crem makes us fat, heroin kills us, meth destroys us, alcohol scars our liver, cigarettes tar up lungs organs, bacon causes atheroscleosis, sugar causes diabetes.  We know all of these phenomenon, these are facts.  Fact on the table, yet the mind finds all of the above enjoyable.  So the mind is then, naturally deluded.
Once someone realizes this fact, then what is one going to do about it?  Most will do nothing.


Anyway if reality is empty and not us and temporary, then what is it that we are attempting to impose our morality on in the first place?  Just doesn't seem that simple to me.  And since it's not simple, it does not surpirse me that people pick different paths and answers for themselves.  What does surprise me is that so many people feel so sure about what they picked.  When what I see when I look at it is that none of the arguments on any of the sides are without holes.  People just seem to pick one side or the other and not see the logic holes of that side that they picked, that may be what amazes me the most really, that people can feel so sure of their side without seeing the logical holes and shifting inconsistancies.  It does not surprise me when people choose a diff path than me, there are so many jillions of paths and it all seems so much dependent on perspective, but what does surprise me is why so many people feel so sure their path and perspective is the one best path. (by the way, not saying that is you specifically, I don't even know you enough to make such a judgement either way, just saying in general that seems to be how it is with a lot of people)
-Eva 
Yes, yes, throw away all judgment, throw out ideas of morality , and all that nonsense, just look at the facts.  Strip all that judgenment and criticizing , blaming, moral codes, etc. cast it all aside.  Throw out perspectives, throw out sides, throw out ideas about feeling sure of things, or thinking people think they feel sure of things. 

Then what is left?  Compassion, maybe, compassion for you, Eva, compassion for other beings.  

But no judgement, no, no judgements.

Psi
thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
To all, 


I want to add, that , from an evolutionary and survival perspective, it does seem rather obvious that humans are omnivores.

But, an excess consumption of meat is harmful, as studies show.

Personally I will probably still eat meat on rare occasions. I still have some dairy products.  I am not trying to be a hypocrite.

I  want to add that not eating meat does not come so much from a conscious wish or moral consideration to not eat meat.

Not eating meat comes more from living in the present moment, sans thought.  And in this mode the desire to eat meat does not arise, therefore I do not eat meat.

A handful of peanuts usually does the trick. Not to mention eating just half a handful of nuts everyday lowers the risk of many illness, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/06/11/eating-nuts-peanuts-daily-could-lower-risk-death-study-finds/

These study titles always crack me up, you can not lower the risk of death, duh, death is inevitavble...

So, not eating meat is not from thinking about how bad it is to eat meat, but rather from not thinking about eating meat.  And I suppose, in my current view,  the other food choices out there provide a better variety of protein, amino acids, vitamins, fiber and minerals than meat.

 I do consciously steer away from anything with alot of sugar, zero fiber, high carb, and high sodium.

Personally this has not affected me physically in an adverse way, I have run two marathons, two half marathons,my current training goal is to hit a 5k PR early October, and I consistently do HIIT workouts, pullups, pushups, dips, squats, deadlifts, G2OH, T2B, running, row machines, situps, etc. Crossfit Style, but not Crossfit, I can not afford it... I am just adding this in here , in case anyone thinks cutting meat out of your diet will make you wimpy.

I am not saying,do not eat meat, eat meat if you want, that is up to each individual.  

What I am saying is no one HAS to eat meat, there are other alternatives.

And I am saying, just look at the whole thing objectively and fresh, new.  

We do not have to do things just because we are conditioned by culture, past history, family, society, religion, holidays, etc.

Pragmatism over Dogmatism.


On and on, sorry for the sheets of words.

Let us look at Bacon versus Peanuts, screw the morality crap for a second.

Bacon 12 slices cooked , 22.2 grams of protein , 1392 mg of sodium, 25.8 grams of fat,24 mg cholesterol,  no carbs, no fiber, no vitamins, no minerals. 6 hours to digest, and who knows how long to actually poop it out...

Peanuts, 3 oz, oil and salted to be fair, 24 g protein, 9g fiber, 3g sugar, 270 mg sodium, 12 g carbs, 6 percent iron and calcium, 45 grams fat, zero cholesterol, 2 to 3 hours to digest, poop factor good

One could scientifically compare any plant based food with any meat, and come up with similar types of results.

Meat just does not have much to bring to the table, lol

98 percent Vegan Pic

Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Psi:

Okay, sure, then why do we not eat worms, worms have 76 percent  protein, mammal meat is 65 percent protein, and fish at 50 percent protein.  Why is not eating worms natural?
It's cultural and IMO natural to eat worms, I had a Chinese friend when I was in school and the area he came from had large worms that where commonly cooked on a pan for breakfast.  He said they were yellow and tasted similar to scrambled eggs. Many tribes eat worms and grubs.  They ARE a good source of protein as well as fat.  Americans are just not raised that way.  

Why is eating a raw apple or a banana natural, but not eating raw flesh.  
Cultural again, some tribes did and do eat flesh, some of their enemies and some of loved ones that died.

Nobody Iknow of naturally has an urge to eat raw flesh.  
Cultural again, you were raised to believe that way, if you were raised in a different group or tribe, you might find raw flesh tasty.  I actually personally like sashimi, even though I was not raised to it.  Even a cat who eats canned food all it's life will often refuse fresh tuna, habit means a lot, that's why I look to the most natural of groups I can to try to understand 'natural' better.  Americans are the worse candidates for that kind of thing.  But if you take a baby and offer it a variety of things, it will like meat and sugary things, less likely to want the veggies as much though. 

So, by that logic eating flesh is not natural, eating flesh is not an evolutionary byproduct.  Eating flesh is a thought creation by product, though was used to combine heat with meat, to create something new, cooked meat.  
Not buying it for above reasons, I coud buy an argument for moral superiority above animals as having some kind of logic, but eating meat is clearly natural for humans, we are omnivores, if we were meant to be vegetarians, we'd be better at digesting bark and other crap food sources like the great apes are (although the great apes are canibals too).  But all tribes eat meat and digest it well, probably because calories and especially fat and protein are scare in most wild plant sources.  To feed the big brain, we need a lot of calories, but our digestion is set up only for nutrient dense foods like tubors, fruit and MEAT.  On the cavemen wall paintings, you see depictions of the hunt!

Though it could be said that the brain and thoughts are part of evolution, that point I concede, but still does not answer why humans do not naturally or unaturally eat meat and flesh as it is found in the naturally in the environment, raw.  
Cultural again.  Many tribes eat raw meat, especially fresh liver from a freshly killed animal.  Inuit eat a lot of raw and raw meat is easy to digest, much easier than most raw vegetable matter.  But cooking does cut way back on parasite transfer and also makes the food easier to digest, this is true for both meat and vegetable sources.  But for digestion purposes, vegetable matter is what more often must be cooked, much more than meat.  Ever tried eating natural raw rice seeds?  Ever get a taste for those?  They will pass through undigested, humans, unlike herbivores, do not produce enough phytase and other enzymes to break down tough cellulose.  The sashimi or raw oysters taste WAY better than raw wheat powder or raw potatoes.  Taste for raw in not a logical argument against meat because many plant sources suck worse or are even poisonous when raw. The only thing I can think of that really tastes good raw is fruit and the original fruits were super tiny and most tart and yucky compared to what is in the grocery store in modern times after a LOT of cultivated breeding.  

Put some grapes in a bowl, wait until you are hungry, do you naturally have an urge to eat the grapes?
Actually, I crave pastries when hungry, something I obviously have to not cave to often, especially since wheat gives me asthma.  But having fruit available all year is unnatural to most regions, what did people naturally eat the rest of the time?  Meat is available even in heavy snow, that is probably why adaptation to eating meat was beneficial to evolution of humans. 


These are just suggestions, to investigate this meat eating phenomenon with an open , lucid objective mind.
If openmindedness is to be the case, then you must apply the same standards to vegetarian foods as you do to meat.  Many of the vegetarian foods require cooking more than meat does. For instance raw potato contains natural poisons, fresh raw meat does not. 
-Eva


For example the mind likes to flow naturally towards many harmful things, ice crem makes us fat, heroin kills us, meth destroys us, alcohol scars our liver, cigarettes tar up lungs organs, bacon causes atheroscleosis, sugar causes diabetes.  We know all of these phenomenon, these are facts. 
Those are all unnatural foods recently invented, that's why they can more easily override the natural balances of the body.   


Anyway if reality is empty and not us and temporary, then what is it that we are attempting to impose our morality on in the first place?  Just doesn't seem that simple to me.  And since it's not simple, it does not surpirse me that people pick different paths and answers for themselves.  What does surprise me is that so many people feel so sure about what they picked.  When what I see when I look at it is that none of the arguments on any of the sides are without holes.  People just seem to pick one side or the other and not see the logic holes of that side that they picked, that may be what amazes me the most really, that people can feel so sure of their side without seeing the logical holes and shifting inconsistancies.  It does not surprise me when people choose a diff path than me, there are so many jillions of paths and it all seems so much dependent on perspective, but what does surprise me is why so many people feel so sure their path and perspective is the one best path. (by the way, not saying that is you specifically, I don't even know you enough to make such a judgement either way, just saying in general that seems to be how it is with a lot of people)
-Eva 
Yes, yes, throw away all judgment, throw out ideas of morality , and all that nonsense, just look at the facts.  Strip all that judgenment and criticizing , blaming, moral codes, etc. cast it all aside.  Throw out perspectives, throw out sides, throw out ideas about feeling sure of things, or thinking people think they feel sure of things. 
I didnt' say to do that, that is just where your mind took it.  But the one does not automatically lead to another.  I can look at things objectively and explore avenues of thought without taking that to mean something should, must, or will be thrown out. 
-Eva
thumbnail
Vuthy Ou, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 24 Join Date: 3/8/15 Recent Posts
First off - I do plenty of harm and am plenty deluded. This is how horrible a person I am:
  • I drive when I don't have to, could bike and/or take public trans. Global warming is because of me.
  • I use electronics - smart phones, computers, TVs, etc. - the components of which were almost certainly mined by child slaves, the production and disposal of which is certainly wrecking the planet.
  • I buy various consumer products made in countries with little to no regulation, employing slave labor and wrecking the environment.
  • I am well aware of human trafficking, sexual exploitation, human rights abuses, environmental destruction - and I do almost nothing about it. Literally almost nothing.
Moral of the story - I ain't no angel, no where near perfect. But why shouldn't I try to minimize the harm that I do? It's a tradeoff thing.

  • Benefit of driving. A major convenience. It takes me 15 minutes to drive to work/rehearsal - 40-60 minute bike ride - same for public trans. I do my best to reduce emissions in other ways - windmill power, small house. efficient car.
  • Benefit of electronics. I get to live/participate/conduct business in a first world country and modern society.
  • Benefits of participating in consumerism - I get to live/participate/conduct business in a first world country and modern society.
  • Benefits of not actively trying to save the world. - More time to try awake up, dance, make money, and love friends/family/all beings.
Now what would be the benefit of me consuming animal products?
  • Social acceptance (I guess?) - Everybody else buys leather and eats animal products, and I wouldn''t have to defend anything - except to vegans - and they're crackpots anyway.
  • Nutrition/protein (I guess?) - though there are plenty of very tasty/cheap/easy vegetable sources for all required nutrients.
  • Taste (I guess?) - though meat doesn't really taste like much. I find that most of the flavor is in the spices and the breading - which is always vegetable-based.
  • Style (I guess?) - Leather sure does look good. But I look good enough as is homie.
  • Human nature (I guess?) - But it's also in my nature to use violence and physical force to get what I want - hence all the war, rape, and genocide in our history. It's in my nature to see some lives/groups as being inferior to my own group. It's in my nature to fear/hate those diffeerent from me. It's also probably natural to believe there is a permanent, independent, abiding self - considering almost everyone does that too.
Now how about the cost of consuming animal products? Direct, knowing partcipation in the torture, rape, and slaughter of 56 bllion sentient beings each year - these beings have vairous levels of intelligence (most around the level of a cat/dog), but they are all fully capable of suffering. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a humane animal industry. The closest thing would be wild game that is hunted/killed instantly. Maybe local pasture-raised animals that are killed instantly. Seeing as the systematic torture and slaughter of these "lesser" beings is mostly about money - I would count these exeptions as extremely rare (and extremely expensive). Burden of proof goes to people making fantastic claims - find proof of food/leather/research animals raised, used, and slaugthered with less suffering than I experience by refraining from the use of animal products and I may start using them again. On the other hand, I have seen much much evidence of systematic torture. 

I can't reconcile the idea of compassion with the systematic torture of all these sentient beings in exchange for convenience, taste, and social acceptance. How can I show compassion to my greatest source of anguish (myself) when I can't muster up enough to show towards beings that have literally done me - literally zero - harm? The mental gymnastics are just too tiresome. I think most people are unaware of the IMMENSE amount of suffering that occurs, or just compartmentalize it out. 

I am not a "good" person. I have plenty of blood on my hands (all the mice that die from the production of grain/fruits/veggies, child slaves, etc.). Hell, I'm not even saying that there is such a thing as good and bad. There is, however, a physical/mental/emotional/spiritual price that we pay and consequence that we reap for any behavior -  whether we know it or not. (Willful) ignorance, love, apathy, kindness, cruelty, compassion, rationalization, selfishness, compartmentalization, righteousness, openess, whatever - they all have their consequences.

For sustinance, I'm willing to pay the price for being cruel and apathetic. I am not willing to pay that price for taste, convenience, and entertainment. 

I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Again, I'm not even sure good/bad and right/wrong are particularly useful as concepts. Kindness is kindness. Killing is killing. Love is love. Torture is torture. Things are what they are. No good or bad, right or wrong about it. Just pointing out that there are a lot of sentient beings suffering greatly for what is, essentially, our amusement and that all actions have consequences.

Just trying to reduce the amount of suffering experienced in the world - human and non-human alike.

Best to all.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
[quote=
]

Some very interesting knowledge you have brought to light in your previous post, thank you.

So, here we are today, humanity, we can cook vegetables and meat, we can synthesize vitamins.  We can survive on vegetables and on meat.
But, we do not have to eat meat, we are no longer cave dwellers scrabbling around tundras and hills.  For example, I am sure cave dwellers had inadequate ventilation in their caves when they made fires, bandages wounds with old furs, drank dirty water, and probably killed , raped, and stole from their neighbors.

 But, just because things are done a certain way in the past does not mean that is or was the best way.  I would hope we could all agree on that point.

So, sure, evolution has brought us to where we are today.  We can digest meat, we can all understand that.  We can also digest other foods.  We can cook foods to make it safe to eat , and to make food more digestible.

But is it necessary to eat meat, given the modern level of technology at our disposal?

Is it necessary to continue to be violent, to stay with the way our ancestors have done things?

Is there a better, saner way to live than by harvesting flesh?

Just some ideas to ponder. 

Psi
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
So, here we are today, humanity, we can cook vegetables and meat, we can synthesize vitamins.  We can survive on vegetables and on meat.
But, we do not have to eat meat, we are no longer cave dwellers scrabbling around tundras and hills.  

-Nutrition brings up issues that other aspects of cave dwelling in general does not. The main problem is the study on nutrition for anything other than coming up with new medications has been slow because there is no money in it.  For instance, not much research goes into the hunt for new vitamins tthat exist in foods and that our bodies may need and want.  It's not that we found them all, just that we mostly stopped looking and the ones that you will die from lack very quickly appear to have been found (maybe).  PLus I am sure you have heard about the latest frontier of gut bacteria research.  Much of the actual vitamins we need may even be synthesized by gut bacteria, there is good evidence that at least some of them are. It is also well researched that artificial foods yield very very differerent gut bacteria populations than do natural foods.  We may and probably are not yet at a point where we can synthesize foods to be as healthy as real foods.  Many vitamins come in forms that are not easily digested by all either.  For instance, a rusty nail has iron but eating one will not yield health as you can't digest it.  Vitamin manufacturers are not required to prove digestability so they typically use the cheapest source available, bioavailability can be as low as 3% in some cases.    It's not as simple as poppiong a pill, you may not be able to digest it in that synthetic form or it may disrupt ideal gut bacteria.  Research shows that more than half of many important hormones are produced in the gut and that natural tribal groups that eat all natural foods have a vastly different and more diverse gut bacteria than do us 1st worlders.  My advice from current evidence, which I think if fairly strong, is that nutrients should be gotten from real unprocessed whole foods as much as possible.  With the exception of a few extra pills, vegetarians could still do that for the most part, but only if they understand the need for it.  No, IMO, humans cannot currently synthesize what we need to eat.  We don't understand it well.  Vitamins and minerals and enzymes have a complex dance with eachother, interacting with eachother as well as gut bacteria in ways we mostly still do not understand.   

For example, I am sure cave dwellers had inadequate ventilation in their caves when they made fires, bandages wounds with old furs, drank dirty water, and probably killed , raped, and stole from their neighbors.

Sadly that's still true in many places or in America where we have all kinds of chemicals in the home and water and still kill rape and steal from neighbors.  ONly the bandaids have changed substantially.  ;-P 

 But, just because things are done a certain way in the past does not mean that is or was the best way.  I would hope we could all agree on that point.

Certainly.

But is it necessary to eat meat, given the modern level of technology at our disposal?

For most people, they could get by without it, but if it would be equally healthy is still hotly contended.  Certainly there are many that currently eat paleo style (more natural style and includes meat), that tried in the past to eat a very healthy vegetarian diet but could not find health or felt much better with healthy diet plus meat vs healthy diet minus meat.  Could be others feel better without meat, not sure, but you'd really have to try both diets to be sure.  As I mentioned, we still really don't understand nutrition well at all.  Asthma, metabolic syndrome, diabeties, weight probs, etc are skyrocketing and the exact mechanisms aren't understood.  Because sugar and animal fat were around in the 50s and 60s but they weren't killing us so much then so just blaming it on those does not make much sense. 

Is it necessary to continue to be violent, to stay with the way our ancestors have done things?

Is there a better, saner way to live than by harvesting flesh?

Just some ideas to ponder. 

I have no prob with people choosing a vegetarian lifestyle for moral reasons, that they think that being directly responsible for killing the larger animals is wrong, however, I will tend to argue if inaccurate other arguments are used to support it.  Many of the nutrition arguments for it are not that good.  And as we've already discussed, environmental damage also occurs with growing crops that in some cases (but not all cases) is worse than cows grazing on natural range for instance.  It's just not a cut and dry situation.  I think people tend to pick a side based on emotion and then dont' want to see any evidence that goes against what they want to believe.  It's a form of lieing to self by hiding from info that conflicts with current beliefs.  That is something I think is not good for people.  However, if people consider all evidence fairly and then still say they choose a particular way but are not lieing to self or others about the evidence to support it, then you will not hear any complaints from me.  ;-P 
-Eva

thumbnail
Psi, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Yet another interesting post, thank you.

Here is my solution, like it really matters.

Rather my wish.  I wish to be done with even using energy to have to consider and ponder about what to eat, what is healthy, or even moral, or best for future generations.  This wish is really not a a wish or a craving , but maybe could be seen as a plan to relieve one from using the burden of mental energy being used up to constantly decide what to eat or not to eat, what is going to make me fat, or cause cancer, or cause the body to lose hard earned muscle mass, etc, etc.

So, a solution, after all, what good is discussion with no solutions?

With modern science and all this technology, surely we can invent a tasty, nutritious health bar, or tube of paste, that will provide a human with all of necessary ingerdients to live a healthy lifestyle, precooked, prepackaged, environmetally safe, helps ones maintain weight, fight off cancer and diseases.  And if made correctly will even help clean the teeth, maintain bacterial balances,  comb through and clean out the intestines!  We could even add Strawberry Fart Scents, for those who like to crop dust their co workers and innocent bystanders!

Since we have mapped out the human DNA, and are working on individual genetic propensities for disease risks and prevention, and through the growing field of Functional Medicine, this all seems plausible and could even be designed on a case by case basis.  A Printout of a personalized nutribarpaste recipe, catered to your own DNA and Genetic Makeup, Caloric tracking on your Fit Watch, etc..

Further, this proposal, if and when finlly invented, a person could grab a bar of tasty food, eat it in a few minutes or less, feel fully satisfied, throw away the biodegradeable wrapper, and get on with their daily activities.

No trash, no dishes, no cooking, order it on the internet, or make at home, no shopping, no driving around, etc, etc.

So, all that may be Sci Fi, but, I have thought of making my own baking pan of power bar concoction for the present.  At least for some of the meals.  One Pan, Many Meals.

It just seems to me that , at least from my current view, alot of time and resources is spent on the daily food intake cycle, needlessly.

So, to sum up, Plan is,

Eat Healthy, Toss, and Go.

Then we could all get on to the real fun, Televised Pig Mud Wrestling!!!  

Where if the pig wins it gets a weeks stay on the banks of the Mississippi,  if the human wins it gets a week in the Bahamas...

Psi

Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Psi:


With modern science and all this technology, surely we can invent a tasty, nutritious health bar, or tube of paste, that will provide a human with all of necessary ingerdients to live a healthy lifestyle, precooked, prepackaged, environmetally safe, helps ones maintain weight, fight off cancer and diseases.  And if made correctly will even help clean the teeth, maintain bacterial balances,  comb through and clean out the intestines!  We could even add Strawberry Fart Scents, for those who like to crop dust their co workers and innocent bystanders!
IMO, we are nowhere close to that currently.  Most of the chemical reactions in cells are not understood, if we knew enough to know that, we'd probably also know what exactly caused diabetes, metabolic syndrome, heart disease and all that.  Some scientists may like to try to give the illusion they know but really they are still flailing pretty badly in all those quarters. Yes, humans often like to have one simple answer so as not to have to think too hard, but life is often not like that.  Very very complex systems like the human body and the weather are extremely hard to sort out and human cells can't be fully studied in their natural habitat.  Put them in a petri dish and they act differently.  Research and knowledge in those areas is still very rudimentary.  
Since we have mapped out the human DNA, and are working on individual genetic propensities for disease risks and prevention, and through the growing field of Functional Medicine, this all seems plausible and could even be designed on a case by case basis.  A Printout of a personalized nutribarpaste recipe, catered to your own DNA and Genetic Makeup, Caloric tracking on your Fit Watch, etc..
In the future possibly, but even identifying the components of the human DNA, we still don't know what each of them does in the body and how they interact, and what turns them on and off.  Even if you can observe all the ants in a colony, that does not tell you how they make decisions and operate as they do.  You still don't know how to control them. 

Further, this proposal, if and when finlly invented, a person could grab a bar of tasty food, eat it in a few minutes or less, feel fully satisfied, throw away the biodegradeable wrapper, and get on with their daily activities.
You are not the first to wish for it, but I don't think we are anywhere near to it.  The closest we might get in the near future would be a recipe or few recipes for a mix of natural whole foods. But we are nowhere near developing a healthy artificial food.  The artificial foods we have now may keep you from dieing of starvation in the near future, but are not exactly what you would call 'healthy' otherwise.  

It just seems to me that , at least from my current view, alot of time and resources is spent on the daily food intake cycle, needlessly.
Some months back, I transitioned to only eating one meal per day, that saves a lot of time and hassle!  ;-P

Where if the pig wins it gets a weeks stay on the banks of the Mississippi,  if the human wins it gets a week in the Bahamas...

Psi
I don't think pigs would enjoy wrestling, but monkeys or bears might. ;-P
-Eva 
thumbnail
Yash C, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 14 Join Date: 2/22/15 Recent Posts
I'm in no way well-read enough to get into this debate, but for those who want alternative and *somewhat* objective sources of information on meat eating, human nutritional requirements & ecological issues surrounding the whole issue, look up primalblueprint.com & robbwolf.com, the spearheads of the Primal/Paleo movement. They'll point you to other sources. 

A fair amount of vegans on those sites too, especially on primalblueprint.com & its forums.

Would you believe it, I'm a Primal vegetarian. emoticon

Love  & metta,
Yash
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Yash C:
I'm in no way well-read enough to get into this debate, but for those who want alternative and *somewhat* objective sources of information on meat eating, human nutritional requirements & ecological issues surrounding the whole issue, look up primalblueprint.com & robbwolf.com, the spearheads of the Primal/Paleo movement. They'll point you to other sources. 

A fair amount of vegans on those sites too, especially on primalblueprint.com & its forums.

Would you believe it, I'm a Primal vegetarian. emoticon

Love  & metta,
Yash
I don't think there is any such thing as a nutrition philosophy group that is not heavily biased!  ;-P  Part of the prob is that the science does not understand much about what happens in digestion and energy utilization in the body, gut bacteria and all that.  So we have theories but none of them are complete and most have a lot of assumptions that sound good but have not been thoroughly tested, there are always many people whose body does not respond as expected on any given diet.  I personally do like Robb Wolf quite a bit and he is smart enough and open minded enough to not be too dogmatic, he understands there is much we still need to learn.  And I actually do generally follow the paleo concepts overall, I think they may be closer than most other diets as to what is most healthy for most people.  But the paleo community in general can be extremely dogmatic at times too, as i think any community can. Some paleo eaters can be rather antifruit for instance, due to the glucose.  Perhaps humans just like to have simple answers but nutrition is just not a simple subject. 
-Eva
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts
A nice article that i think brings to awerness all the issue of the effect our actions have - and what are  deep  and true intentions really are

even if we dont kill the animal ourselvs (or we help the animal itself) 

http://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/rethinking-life-release

http://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/rethinking-life-release
thumbnail
water drop, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 91 Join Date: 1/16/15 Recent Posts


Anyway, taken from a different perspect even then that, your body is not you and the dog's body is not the dog.  And the cow's body is not the cow.  None of them really die.  Dieing is an illusion. Each creature sets its own path.  You choose if you want to get sucked into the drama or not.  The Earth game is designed such that creatures eat other creatures. Better get used to it because nature is probably not going to change any.  That's the way this Earth game is designed.  A better question might be why is it designed the way it is designed?  If you play Dungeons and Dragons, do you have your character run around with a 'Save the Dragons' sign?   Why not?   It's because there is no real death, you can resurrect the dragon at any time with your mind or you can let it go back to where it came from.  Dieing in the Dungeons and Dragons is an illusion.  But dieing in the Earth game is also an illusion.
-Eva
There is so much to write about this view and how it is wrong i even think the buddha has refuted  this view directly in the suttas

but all i can say in my words thats its just another excuse/justification to support financially the suffering of animals by buying meat,dairy products and eggs

and it reminds me of  this zen "joke" 



EMPTINESS

When Tesshu (1836-88), the famous Japanese samurai master of the sword,
was young and headstrong, he visited one Zen master after another. Once
he went to visit Master Dokuon and triumphantly announced to him the
classic Buddhist teaching that all that exists is empty, there is really
no you or me, and so on. The master listened to all this in silence.
Suddenly he snatched up his pipe and struck Tesshu’s head with it. The
infuriated young swordsman would have killed the master there and then,
but Dokuon said calmly, “Emptiness is sure quick to show anger, is it
not?” Tesshu left the room, realizing he still had much to learn about
Zen. He later became fully enlightened and founded the art of
“no-sword.”
Eva M Nie, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Eating animals

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
re: . Jake . (5/21/15 9:49 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

Another parallel, in Western modernist Buddhism, is extending Buddha's ethics in the direction of instigating social change, social activism; e.g. B.Bodhi's Buddhist Global Relief organization. (Arguably transferring a Judeo-Christian evangelical impulse into Buddhism.)
I suspect the main potential problem with an evangelical attitude, and certainly I have been guilty of this many many times myself, is that one gets the idea that he/she can and should know what is best for others and that they can and should be attempting to do only what you think they should do.  But the more time one spends analyzing the perceived faults in others, the less time and energy are spent understanding one's own perhaps not 100% pure issues and intentions.  Everything one decides and attempts to do is colored by the lens of that person.  My impression is that Bhuddism historically put the emphasis on cleaning and clearing the lens first before spending time attempting to control and pass judgement on others.  The most efficient way to inact change is to change oneself first and when that is done, all things around will automatically change with no additional effort.  Like attracts like.  If you bring an attitude of judgement, then you tend to attract that back to yourself as well.  If you instead spend your time looking back at the lens of self, you might find that some previous assumptions about your previous intent may not have been 100% accurate. It took me a long time to figure that out and it's still something I work on every day.  The habit of pointing fingers at others instead of fixing my own crap has been a very strong one.
-Eva