01-22-2011, 11:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2011, 11:09 PM by rva_jeremy.)
It is my opinion that this Q'uo reading was helpful. The information on the responsibility inherent in consumption was particularly profound. As always, the focus is on how this experience is used, not on what the experience seems to be.
Monica, are you familiar with any of the work of Temple Grandin? She's an animal behaviorist who pioneered many improvements in cattle ranches and slaughterhouses to help make them more humane. Her view is that it's ok to eat meat but we owe the animals respect in exchange. This is similar to the native american view of thanking the animal once it has been killed.
What if there is a way to kill with love? I suspect there is, though it's difficult to imagine. I think Q'uo's comparison of second density vegetation's "right to life" as on par with mammalian "right to life" is on the money. There is no certainty on these matters; we can only do what we think is right.
The problem is that we occupy a society which in many ways operates as a big machine. It chews through life in all its forms and hides the violence from us. Whether it's slaughterhouses, or wars, or highways that kill countless animals, everything is designed to sacrifice consciousness to convenience and efficiency at every step of the way. To me, it's less about particular actions such as eating meat and more about having a better awareness and appreciation for how you fit in with your surroundings and your world.
We understand so little of how the basic systems work that make our consumerist society possible. It makes us dependent and willing to relinquish control and responsibility to others. If you raise and slaughter chickens that you eat, I can see the catalyst of that accruing much more readily that if your experience of chicken is unwrapping a pre-cut breast. I bet if more people knew the details, they'd be more willing to go back to simpler, more sustainable, more local ways of satisfying their needs. Willing ignorance is quite a difficult nut to crack!
Monica, are you familiar with any of the work of Temple Grandin? She's an animal behaviorist who pioneered many improvements in cattle ranches and slaughterhouses to help make them more humane. Her view is that it's ok to eat meat but we owe the animals respect in exchange. This is similar to the native american view of thanking the animal once it has been killed.
What if there is a way to kill with love? I suspect there is, though it's difficult to imagine. I think Q'uo's comparison of second density vegetation's "right to life" as on par with mammalian "right to life" is on the money. There is no certainty on these matters; we can only do what we think is right.
The problem is that we occupy a society which in many ways operates as a big machine. It chews through life in all its forms and hides the violence from us. Whether it's slaughterhouses, or wars, or highways that kill countless animals, everything is designed to sacrifice consciousness to convenience and efficiency at every step of the way. To me, it's less about particular actions such as eating meat and more about having a better awareness and appreciation for how you fit in with your surroundings and your world.
We understand so little of how the basic systems work that make our consumerist society possible. It makes us dependent and willing to relinquish control and responsibility to others. If you raise and slaughter chickens that you eat, I can see the catalyst of that accruing much more readily that if your experience of chicken is unwrapping a pre-cut breast. I bet if more people knew the details, they'd be more willing to go back to simpler, more sustainable, more local ways of satisfying their needs. Willing ignorance is quite a difficult nut to crack!
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)