[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[Monica]

The green ray is one which has been discussed extensively I think. Could you give your own thoughts on that chain of cause and effect and how say choosing to eat meat or plants from a factory farm/uncompassionate environment as opposed from more 'humane' sources?

(Not sure whom these questions were directed to.)

Quite simply, our choices matter, both holographically and literally. It makes No sense to talk about energetically transmuting suffering, while still physically contributing to it. That is like taking 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Due to the efforts of activists, as well as increased awareness about the detrimental effects of animal 'foods' (sic) on health, meat consumption has been plummeting (in the words of a NY Times blogger):

...considering the fairly steady climb in meat consumption over the last half-century, you might say the numbers are plummeting. The department of agriculture projects that our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.

...

I can add, anecdotally, that when I ask audiences I speak to, “How many of you are eating less meat than you were 10 years ago?” at least two-thirds raise their hands. A self-selecting group to be sure, but nevertheless one that exists.

In fact, let’s ask this: is anyone in this country eating more meat than they used to?

We still eat way more meat than is good for us or the environment, not to mention the animals. But a 12 percent reduction in just five years is significant, and if that decline were to continue for the next five years — well, that’s something few would have imagined five years ago. It’s something only the industry could get upset about. The rest of us should celebrate. Rice and beans, anyone?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-meat-why/

Specifically the idea of being the one to cause the  sufferings. Where does that causal chain start and how does it become linked to polarity?

I just showed that meat consumption has declined sharply in the last few years and is continuing to decline (despite the popularity of Paleo). This proves that our choices DO have an impact on the collective in a very literal sense. It doesn't matter who started the cycle of enslavement and violence. We all did, on some level. I think it's simply residue from our lower vibrational state. Well that is (presumably) changing, and we have to start with ourselves. We can't expect to just go Poof into 4D or back to a higher density, while merrily continuing to behave like cavemen! (and attempting to justify it based on the fact that cavemen did it!)

So how does it become linked to polarity? The same way any other choice does. When presented with a choice between serving ALL (which includes self AND other-self) vs serving ONLY self at the exclusion of other-selves or even harming other-selves, we will either polarize in the direction of STO or STS, respectively.

For one not yet awakened to the reality of where that meat/dairy came from, it isn't a polarizing decision. But for one who is aware, then choosing to support the continued enslavement/torture/rape/killing of other-selves, just because they like the taste, is obviously choosing to serve self at the expense of other-self. In fact, it is impossible to eat meat without harming other-selves (and very difficult to eat dairy/eggs without harming other-selves) for the simple, inescapable fact that animals must be killed (against their will) in order to produce meat, and animals are usually raped, tortured and killed in order to produce milk.

I don't really know how to make it any clearer as to why this choice is polarizing. I hope this clarifies.

...