A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Tenet Nosce]

Ethically, why do you suppose people tend to give up 'red' meat first? Is there an implication that cows are more evolved than chickens? Or is it just because of health considerations?

Honestly, I don't really know. But I can offer some speculations!

I would begin by saying that I believe that most (not all) people who give up red meat, or become vegetarians, or even vegan haven't really the slightest clue why they are doing it. They think they know why, and can even repeat a few reasons that they have heard other people say. But that's just the thing... they are merely mimicking other people's behavior, and repeating what they have heard. They aren't really making a choice, since they haven't thought through the issue on their own, and are relying on others to do their thinking for them.

I suspect that the main reason people give up meat (again most, not all) is because of social pressure from the people in their immediate circles, seeking acceptance from others, or because they want to be different or project an anti-establishment image to others. The rest are truly appalled at what goes on in the meat industry.

I actually have little doubt that, throughout the ages, as individual people legitimately grew in spiritual awareness, they lost the taste for red meat and other land animals, then eventually sea animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, people do lose the need to eat altogether. This is because they are evolving beyond the human stage of consciousness.

Therefore, this change in food preference is a result of their spiritual evolution, and not the cause of it.

To be frank, I don't so much see it as a result of having more compassion, although compassion and spiritual growth certainly go hand-in-hand. I see it as a totally natural loss of the craving. In other words, it isn't "I am compassionate, and therefore won't participate in cruelty to animals by eating them." but simply "I no longer care to eat animals." or in the case of people such as yourself "I never cared to eat them in the first place."

Think about it this way... cannibalism is inherently repulsive to all but the basest of people. We don't need a reason, or compassion, to not eat other humans. We just don't. It offends our most basic instincts.

As with so many things in this world, when the throngs of followers viewed these spiritually advanced people, they tended to zero in on their outer behaviors, rather than the inner self, and falsely concluded that if they mimicked these same behaviors, it would bring them to the same level of enlightenment.

Fortunately, spiritual growth is the result of real inner work, not merely taking a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude as to certain behaviors and rituals. Unfortunately, human history is littered with examples of people willing to kill each other over conflicts in what supposed behaviors and rituals will bring them spiritual growth. And the "STS controllers" have played upon this faulty perception to the hilt. And the people, by and large, have fallen for this manipulation hook, line and sinker. Even to this day.

I mean, really, it would be quite humorous if it weren't for all the death and destruction which has come as a result. All of these monkey-brained people running around thinking if they eat this way, dress that way, talk this way, move their bodies that way, pray this way, and on and on, that it will somehow result in spiritual growth. It really is absurd.

Now... WHY does it happen such that the taste for meat tends to progressively move backwards down the food chain, until it disappears altogether? I'm not really sure. That still remains somewhat of a mystery to me. Although at the same time, it just sort of makes intuitive sense.

Ounce for ounce, chicken has as much cholesterol as beef (actually a bit more). I did it that way too, but only because a nutritionist told me to avoid red meat. Just wondering what your take is on that.

In my opinion, the whole cholesterol thing is a red herring. We must realize that when this "research" was being done on high-cholesterol foods there wasn't any control for other important dietary factors, such as sugar or antioxidants. And much of it, again in my opinion, was pushed through and overplayed by those in the food industry who were eager to sell the Americans chemically-produced fats like margarine and shortening. Of course, as it turns out, we would have been better off cooking with lard the whole time.

(The obvious Note: Cholesterol isn't found in plant foods.)

Well, that is true. Almost- some plants produce tiny amounts. But plants have phytosterols, which are very similar to cholesterol, and perform many of the same functions that cholesterol does in animals. Fungi also produce a similar molecule, called ergosterol.

Sterols, which is the blanket term for all of these molecules, are very important to all forms of advanced life. Their first (evolutionarily speaking) function was to allow large protein complexes to move freely within the cell membrane which added to the complexity of biological functions which were possible for the cell, and allowed for greater cell specialization. Later, these sterols were adapted to make steroid hormones, which are essential for long-distance communication in a large organism.

So sterols, including cholesterol are very important. And the fact of the matter is that the majority of cholesterol found in the human body is produced internally. And it has never been proved- at least to my satisfaction- that dietary cholesterol has much of an impact on blood cholesterol levels. After all, the primary mechanism by which the body gets rid of excess cholesterol is by dumping it into the GI tract.

The pink elephant in the cholesterol "debate" is why smoking increases blood cholesterol levels. IMO it should be fairly obvious why this is- because smoking induces oxidative damage to the arterial walls, and so the body attempts to patch the microtears with cholesterol.

I realize cholesterol isn't the only factor, but I'm wondering why people tend to avoid 'red' meat.

For health reasons, because they are told to. And because people, especially Americans, are prone to falling for argumentum ad populum which is the logical fallacy that states, since the majority of people (or specialized subgroup like doctors) believe something to be true, it must actually be true.