Adam:
Agreed entirely! Fortunately I think this is probably a very small problem, much smaller than the problem of carnist meditators avoiding thinking about the suffering that their actions and consumption causes (speaking from experience as a former carnist meditator here!), both to their own practice and the wider world. I think on balance it is much better that a thread like this focus more on considering the ideas of mindful eating and mindful living, than concentrating on theoretical delusional vegans - perhaps the best message is that we could all do well to be a bit more mindful of our desires and aversions when considering skillful consumption!
I would caution you not to overgeneralise based on your own experience. I stopped being a vegetarian, which I was for many years, shortly after Stream Entry, when the direct effects of my actions went into the background, and the interconnected, global, indirect effects of "my" actions went into the foreground. I know for others it has been the opposite, of course.
Adam:
I'm a bit confused about your other points - it's true that stopping hurting animals may not be the top priority for improving the world, I don't think anyone knows for sure. But it is certainly a good place to start, and easy way to spread a message of mindful living -
I agree with this, I must not have made my point clear above if you are telling me this. I agree that reducing animal suffering is one of the main priorities, perhaps
the main priority.
Adam:
alongside raising consciousness of climate change (don't forget that the animal industry is widely agreed to be one of the top contributors to climate change).
This is incorrect. Food production accounts for about 5-10% of global CO2 emissions depending on the source (these calculations are very complicated, hence the variance in the number). So if we all
stopped eating altogether, our carbon footprint would be reduced by 5-10%. It follows that the effect of the whole population stopping eating animal products would be a few percentage points tops. See for example:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions----
Take for example this link and let's do the maths:
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet* The average carbon footprint is 2.5 tons CO2 equivalent per year-person.
* The no-beef carbon footpring is 1.9 tons CO2 equivalent per year-person.
* The vegan carbon footprint is 1.5 tons CO2 equivalent per year-person.
* A U.S. American's average carbon footprint is 20 tons CO2 equivalent per year.
Putting these numbers together:
* By not eating beef (but eating chicken, eggs, milk, pork, and so on), you can reduce your carbon footprint by 3%.
* By becoming vegan, you can reduce it by another 2%.
So these are very small contributions, and there isn't much of a difference between a vegan and someone that only eats meat occasionally, maybe once a week. Perhaps a 1% difference? Not something to get very excited about.
----
Then, there is also the issue that not all environments can be farmed sustainably. Some environments do not lend themselves to agriculture, but can sustain livestock such as sheep or kangaroos indefinitely. See for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7222088/Kangatarians-emerge-in-Australia.htmlIn some environments, eating the animals is the most humane thing to do, rather than driving the animals away to farm a land that cannot be farmed sustainably, eventually turning it into a desert.
Adam:
It is also frustrating how threads on veganism online typically end up debating very fine distinctions or very abstract ideas, conveniently ignoring the central message that you can take simple steps to reduce the harm you cause to animals right now, and that it feels great!
I know about it, being a vegetarian was generating a lot of identification, attachment, and a feeling of superiority towards fellow human beings
for me.