In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

1) Herbivorous species like rabbits, antelope, deer, etc. need predators in order to maintain a healthy population. With many species, humans have played and continued to play the role of predator. This bothers many sensitive people, but I don't see anything inherently negative about it. In fact, I see it as positive in that humans are playing an important role in maintaining the health of those species. The situation is similar with domesticated animals. Animal-lovers don't want to see cows slaughtered, but if cows weren't slaughtered there would be no cows, or many fewer -- humans would stop keeping them, and they have died out in the wild.

This seems to be a Darwinian evolutionary view. From a Law of One viewpoint, the game is changed.

The number of cows and chickens on the planet is grossly out of balance, because of the unnatural conditions of factory farms.

Perpetuation of the physical species is important in Darwinian evolutionary theory, but not so much from a Law of One perspective.

I would be much more concerned about what kind of 3D entities those cows who were tortured, will be someday, than I would about preserving a high number of cows. Since we know that souls reincarnate, the numbers aren't important. Quality is what's important.

In other words, I would rather see fewer cows, living a natural life, than a huge number of cows being tortured. Those few happy cows will evolve into entities who will be more likely to inhabit a peaceful 3D planet, instead of the barbaric conditions on this school for juvenile delinquents.

2) There has been much research about the importance of nutrient-rich foods (meaning animal products, especially often-neglected items like kidneys, etc.) in an optimal diet. I'm not an expert in this area but I believe that, just as vegetarians and vegans can and do point to research that supports their diet choices, so can people who eat meat and other animal products point to research that supports theirs. One source I'm somewhat familiar with is Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Institute. Mostly I know about them because of their strong advocacy for fresh (raw) milk, which I'm also in favor of, because we have a Jersey cow.

It's true that research can be found to support whatever one wants to believe. I think that has to do with something called free will! And likely due to the simple fact that different people are at different stages and there are multiple factors in play.

But there is no question that there is far, far, far greater amount of research supporting the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and the detrimental effects of meat and dairy products, than there is supporting the opposite premise.

I am in favor of free-range eggs and raw goat's milk, if one feels they need animal foods. I drank raw goat's milk when I was pregnant, and it was wonderful! I would give it to a child too.

I have Sally Fallon's book Nourishing Traditions and, although I like the sections on fermented foods, I find her approach to be going backwards. We are supposed to be evolving to 4D, not going back to the hunter-gatherer-caveman days. I reject the notion that we should base our current diet on what our ancestors ate. This doesn't take into consideration spiritual evolution, much less mutation of cells into 4D.

This is purely subjective, but I also noticed that her skin lacks the glow seen in raw vegans, for what it's worth.

3) The idea that we should consider ecosystem health and long-term sustainability in our food choices doesn't seem at all ridiculous to me. And yes, petroleum plays into that. Grass-based animal husbandry is actually one of the most sustainable and fewest-input-requiring methods of food production available to us.

I'm all in favor of raising cattle humanely, for their milk, provided their calves aren't deprived and only the excess milk is used.

4) A lot of the arguments against eating meat seem to come down to "it's obvious that it's good to eat plants but not good to eat meat." I don't really know how to respond to those arguments other than to say, "it's not obvious to me."

Then I invite you to listen to Dr. Gabriel Cousens, and read The China Study.

Thank you for pointing out that what is obvious to someone who has been researching diet/nutrition for 30 years, isn't obvious to someone who hasn't done that.

5) The various ideas put forward to suggest that Ra implied that we shouldn't eat meat (plant vs animal individuation, 4D diet, etc.) are also not compelling to me.

Ra didn't imply anything. Ra's words were very clear, with no ambiguity: to the extent necessary.

6) The idea that it's a worthy goal to try to convince meat-eaters to stop eating meat reminds me of Ra's quote about those attempting to "improve" society: "Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration."

I think Ra was referring to those who try to change society to fit their preferences.

That's not what vegetarians are trying to do.

We're trying to end cruelty and champion the oppressed.

Very distinct difference.

---

Cousens is much easier to read than listen to. My wife loves the reading, but hates listening to him.

That's interesting. I've listened to him more than I've read. I like both.