Its murder.

[Namaste]

You can't think like that can you?

An uncharacteristically judgemental comment from yourself, brother. Yes, one can, and one does. It appears I have uncovered an area of catalyst for yourself to contemplate.

If you take tomatoes of the land, to feed hungry children you're acting both STS and STO... Because not only do you feed the hungry, you also take food away from insects, worms and bacteria. When you choose to let fleas bite you, not only do you choose to feed the flea, you also allow diseases to spread more easily.

Consider that vegetables and fruit are both 'designed' to be eaten. In order to spread their seeds, two methods are employed. Firstly, the fruit is brightly coloured in which to grab attention, and secondly they are very flavoursome, as to encourage consumption. Once consumed, the seeds are distributed across the earth via the natural digestive/excretive system of the consumer. A natural process.

Hence when you eat fruit, you are literally eating as close to culinary perfection nature can provide, and hence fruit and vegetables are so delicious :¬)

On the latter point, a flea biting me in my house will not spread disease. You have taken a personal point and used it in another (extreme) context altogether. I am of the notion that as cultures develop, both consciously and technically, problems such as disease spread through fleas becomes negligible. In the context of an underdeveloped, starving culture, killing fleas is an entirely different circumstance.

Context is absolutely key in discussions such as these.

If you willingly destroy the land so no crops will grow there... That's evil right? What if not doing it caused your villagers to die of starvation? If you willingly cut down forests for money. That's evil right? What if without that money your family would die? Isn't it equally evil to let people die by not acting to provide for them?

If you could kill a specific man using a timemachine by giving his mother contraceptives, not only did you stop a life from existing, you prevented the second world war. So killing is right if the person is a bad person? What if he'd incidentally start a war but is firmly opposed to wars himself?

I tend to lean away from 'what if' scenarios as their initial intention holds another's perspective, i.e. "justify your beliefs with my criteria". Each of your circumstances are large, and valid, questions for discussion, one's I do not have the time to commit to.

It is only the meaning that we personally ascribe to it that defines whether the action is positive or negative. This judgment is in the mind. And separate from the judgment are the causal consequences of an action. Which are in fact tied into the action.

My point entirely. And this judgement counts. Everything we experience is catalyst, not just the odd argument, or the random large-event that shakes your foundation. Everything is catalyst. Simply weighted differently (so I would assume).

Mother earth gives and takes. Meaning sometimes I feel warm in the sun, sometimes I feel wet and miserable in the rain.

You are letting external circumstances dictate your internal emotional balance, and hence, attempting to label an external entity STS or STO. Both Bashar and Abraham talk extensively on this, their advice is invaluable and can help one remain in a positive state during 'non optimal' times.

Is mother earth STS or STO?

Gaia is STO; she provides all material in which life uses to gain experience. She is allowing great darkness to fall upon her as humanity scrabbles for the light, and is in the painful throws of childbirth, the ascent of humanity being the child.

STS and STO are very broad catagories. Helpful in every day decision making. And I do believe polarizing yourself to STO and thus being a conduit to light is not only noble but necessary. I believe choosing not to kill a flea is inherently noble as a motive. But I doubt the world truly is divided into STS or STO...

I think the question is. What are the likely consequences of your actions and are they in line with your goals?

Indeed.

As turtledude mentioned; man is also of nature and killing in which to survice is part of a natural process. I hold no qualms with that, at all. The key, in today's society, is that we have a choice. This is a liberty many do not have, and hence are locked into survival patterns.

As with Peregrinus's point, we had a similar circumstance. With great sorrow we had to remove a wasps nest from above our front door, as our neighbour suffers from anaphylactic shock (a wasp sting can be fatal). The choice to us was clear, and we made that choice consciously.

What each of us considers ethical, in terms of killing lower density life, is entirely personal and subjective. Some kill rats as they consider them vermin, others consider them pets.

I am not implying one must become a Buddhist and wear a mask (to prevent the inhalation of bacteria etc.) and sweep the floor before each step.

The crux of the point is simple; lower density life are also other Selves, consider them an aspect of Oneness.