In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

Concerning the individuation of entities:

1) Does being 2D mean that it's okay for humans to take its life, or inflict pain and suffering on it?

2) If, for argument's sake, all 2D entities are the same regarding awareness, then what to eat?

3) It boils down to: now, do I take the life of plants and/or animals to survive.

4) There is no need to take animal life.

5) Plant life is needed.

6) Why take animal life?

I would like to hear from meat-eaters why they take animal life, not just as an argument against what the vegetarians are saying. I did hear one point that it keeps things in balance, which, doesn't make sense to me. Forgive me if I have missed someone's points on this. May I hear them again?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Concerning the individuation of entities:

1) Does being 2D mean that it's okay for humans to take its life, or inflict pain and suffering on it?

Inflict suffering or pain, probably not. To take its life, it might not be okay, but necessary for survival.

2) If, for argument's sake, all 2D entities are the same regarding awareness, then what to eat?

Well we can't just eat sand and air, so we eat what nourishes us.

3) It boils down to: now, do I take the life of plants and/or animals to survive.

Right.

4) There is no need to take animal life.

From which point of view? From a sustainability point of view, the only way we're going to feed 7 billion people without destroying the Earth is through use of efficient sustainable and permaculture techniques which employ the cultivation of both crops and livestock. There is a ton of energy and motivation going in to studying the most efficient and sustainable systems for producing quantities of food. Just growing crop is not a sustainable system.

On top of that, without soy, a vegetarian diet is nearly impossible. The cultivation of soy in the quantities it would require for 7 billion people to be vegetarian are not nearly possible. A huge field of soy cannot support an ecosystem, where as a sustainable dynamic system growing a variety of crops and producing a variety of meats will output more protein and nutrition, all while supporting a natural ecosystem. Using the same amount of space, higher quantities of more nutritious food are produced, land is preserved, and life flourishes (where if you follow the source of the tofu you eat, you'd likely find a barren field with only one thing living there: soy).

In parts of the world where this isn't possible, the biggest saving grace would be aquaculture systems, where a greenhouse environment is created producing both vegetables as well as fish meats in a nearly closed, low-energy, low-water system.

I'm not trying to say the decision to be vegetarian is irresponsible. It's a personal decision and is possible for many people in the world if they wish to not eat meat. But what I am saying is the feasibility of producing enough food to feed the world is only going to come from mixed farming systems which practice sustainable husbandry and crop cultivation as integrated systems.

5) Plant life is needed.

Very true.

6) Why take animal life?

See number 4.

[βαθμιαίος]

I would like to hear from meat-eaters why they take animal life, not just as an argument against what the vegetarians are saying. I did hear one point that it keeps things in balance, which, doesn't make sense to me. Forgive me if I have missed someone's points on this. May I hear them again?

I have found that I am healthier when I eat meat. I have tried both veganism and vegetarianism, but I didn't flourish. I understand that there are various "superfoods" that are recommended, but I've never found the idea of health out of a can or a bottle very appealing.

Since I live in a temperate climate, local, fresh vegetables are not available year-round. I find that eating local meat together with the garden produce that we have frozen or canned gives us a balanced, nutritious diet all winter long. In the spring, summer, and fall we tend to eat a higher proportion of fruits and vegetables and often use meat as a supplement rather than a main course.

I also believe that grass-based husbandry, for reasons similar to the ones Austin gave above and that I have mentioned in other posts, is one of the healthiest agricultural models available to us, so I feel that my diet choices help support the environment.

[Monica]

Inflict suffering or pain, probably not. To take its life, it might not be okay, but necessary for survival.

This is what we keep coming back to. For the vast majority of humans, it's not necessary to eat animals.

Well we can't just eat sand and air, so we eat what nourishes us.

Plants nourish us. Even in excess, plants just keep making us healthier. There's no such thing as eating too many veggies!

Animal products, on the other hand, cause disease. That's well documented.

From which point of view? From a sustainability point of view, the only way we're going to feed 7 billion people without destroying the Earth is through use of efficient sustainable and permaculture techniques which employ the cultivation of both crops and livestock. There is a ton of energy and motivation going in to studying the most efficient and sustainable systems for producing quantities of food. Just growing crop is not a sustainable system.

1. The 7 billion people cannot be sustained with a heavy meat diet. I think we're in agreement on this.
2. A sustainable/permaculture approach can be accomplished by utilizing cows and chickens for milk and eggs. They don't have to be killed for meat.
3. Based on what you've taught me about sustainable agriculture, I agree that a vegan diet might not work long-term for the whole planet. I can see the need for some animals. Thus, I'd say that a plant-based diet, with moderate milk products and eggs, is the ideal.

On top of that, without soy, a vegetarian diet is nearly impossible.

I don't understand. Are you basing this on the assumption that most vegetarians rely heavily on soy for their protein needs? If so, that's a myth. Yes, many do, but it's certainly not necessary. I rarely eat soy. I enjoy occasional tofu dishes but could live without it, easily.

Or is there some other purpose of soy that I'm missing?

---

I understand that there are various "superfoods" that are recommended, but I've never found the idea of health out of a can or a bottle very appealing.

I find eating chlorella, bee pollen and bluegreen algae powder by the spoonful much more appealing than contributing to the suffering of animals.

[βαθμιαίος]

I find eating chlorella, bee pollen and bluegreen algae powder by the spoonful much more appealing than contributing to the suffering of animals.

A humanely-raised animal flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a vegetable until the moment of death.

---

3. Based on what you've taught me about sustainable agriculture, I agree that a vegan diet might not work long-term for the whole planet. I can see the need for some animals. Thus, I'd say that a plant-based diet, with moderate milk products and eggs, is the ideal.

Woo-hoo, some agreement! How cool!

[3DMonkey]

Either the animals forgive me, or they don't. They're choice.

Jeevs, poor me another....

Ask yourself, 'What would John Coffey do?'

[Monica]

I'm pretty sure that PETA is not about that--only caring about the cute and furry. PETA has "chosen their battle" so to speak. PETA is helping animals being tested on especially, which does not occur so much with insects.

Yes. It's, quite frankly, absurd to criticize an activist group for not doing everything. No one can be expected to do everything. They are doing way more than most of us do, so they should be commended.

As for me, I respect all life. I kill nothing, not even cockroaches. I carried a scorpion outside (in a jar) that had bitten me in bed. Every opportunity I get I try and save a life (someone "just because" killing a spider for instance; I don't lecture the person, I just carry it outside).

Wow. You are way ahead of me, Diana! I want to be like you when I grow up!

About the microbes: what I meant about the size was, how would microbes get around the fact that because of their microscopic size they get smushed easily, hence, the effects of such a happening would be accepted as it is inevitable. Not so with larger beings.

Yes, good point.

---

A humanely-raised animal flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a vegetable until the moment of death.

Try substituting human for animal:

A humanely-treated person flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a cow until the moment it is murdered.

Woo-hoo, some agreement! How cool!

Austin and I have agreed on a great deal. I have great respect for his views, even though we disagree on the ultimate action of killing those animals for meat. I see Austin as part of the solution, not part of the problem. So yes, agreement is always cool. Finding common ground and working together is always cool.

I have never argued for everyone being totally vegan, though I personally am gravitating towards raw vegan. Eggs and dairy can be produced without any cruelty. (Although the commercially produced eggs and dairy definitely are done so cruelly.) My argument is specifically about eating animals...meat.

[βαθμιαίος]

A humanely-treated person flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a cow until the moment it is murdered.

We've been around and around about this. Animals are not human any more than plants are.

You could just as easily complain about saying, "It doesn't suffer any more than a plant does until it's ripped untimely from mother earth's womb."

[Monica]

We've been around and around about this. Animals are not human any more than plants are.

The point is that comparing a being who is tortured then killed, to a being who is treated well then killed, doesn't hold any water when applied to humans.

Why does it when applied to animals?

You could just as easily complain about saying, "It doesn't suffer any more than a plant does until it's ripped untimely from mother earth's womb."

Address in post #1442.

[βαθμιαίος]

The point is that comparing a being who is tortured then killed, to a being who is treated well then killed, doesn't hold any water when applied to humans.

Why does it when applied to animals?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Address in post #1442.

What in particular?

[3DMonkey]

It seems to me that it has been argued that animals should be given more 3D treatment than 2d treatment before slaughter.

I think the mentality has been swerving all over the road.

[Monica]

The point is that comparing a being who is tortured then killed, to a being who is treated well then killed, doesn't hold any water when applied to humans.

Why does it when applied to animals?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

For the record, I'm not saying that killing animals = killing humans. So let me establish that clearly right now. (That has been exhaustively explained in the early months of this thread.)

I am referring on the logic, the thought process.

If a human is murdered, we don't accept it as 'ok' because, well, at least s/he wasn't tortured before s/he was killed.

Killing a human is either wrong or it isn't. If the victim was tortured before getting murdered, then the crime is even more heinous. But it was a crime already, with or without the torture.

Why, then, is the same logic applied to animals as though a justification?

Address in post #1442.

What in particular?

The whole post, but particularly this:

If grass is individuated, then how many entities are in a lawn? Does it writhe in pain when you mow your lawn? If so, isn't that a very cruel design? A wild deer has a good life until the wolf kills it. But what sort of Creator would design a planet in which the entire plant kingdom, which is being torn apart by higher beings on a daily basis, lives in constant pain?

Think about it. Is this even remotely reasonable? Every time we walk outside, we are crushing blades of grass. Every time an elephant walks on an African prairie, it is inflicting severe torment on the grass beneath its feet? Every time a chimp climbs a tree and accidentally breaks a limb, the tree is experiencing severe pain with no relief? Every time any animal, anywhere on the planet, eats a plant, the plant is experiencing terror and pain? Every time a chimp tears off a lettuce leaf, it is torturous as when a dear is mauled by a lion?

What kind of hell is that?

Further: Can anyone explain to me how many entities are in a strawberry plant? If I tear off a cutting and plant it, that 'entity' has just been torn in 2. Is it now 2 entities? What if I tear that single plant into 5 separate cuttings, to help it spread in my garden? Did I just torture it? How many entities are there now? It was a strawberry plant. I separated it into 5 cuttings which can each now turn into a separate plant. By what mechanism is what used to be just a body part of Entity A (the original plant) now a new, individuated entity (the cutting)? That would be like saying that when a human loses a leg, the leg is now a new human!

If this is how strawberry plants reproduce, then at what point does each little cutting become a self-aware entity? And, what kind of cruel design is that, in which normal reproduction inflicts extreme pain?

This doesn't fit the pattern of other lifeforms. Other entities (animals and humans) generally enjoy the mating process. Why is reproduction so painful for plants?

I don't think it's painful. Why? Because they have no pain receptors.

Why is it experiencing pain when I am obviously trying to help it spread? Why is spreading and growing, which are normal activities for a plant, subjecting the plant to extreme pain? is it reasonable or logical to assume that such a normal activity is subjecting extreme pain?

Are you suggesting that the normal, everyday events in a plant's life are akin to the torture endured by a cow on a factory farm?

---

A humanely-treated person flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a cow until the moment it is murdered.

We've been around and around about this. Animals are not human any more than plants are.

Why should compassion be extended to only humans?

A question for the meat-eaters:

What if you found a dog on the side of the road, who had just been hit by a car, and was injured, bleeding and in pain? Would you feel compassion for the dog? Would you try to help relieve the pain and take the dog to the vet? Or would you leave it by the side of the road to die a slow, agonizing death?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Inflict suffering or pain, probably not. To take its life, it might not be okay, but necessary for survival.

This is what we keep coming back to. For the vast majority of humans, it's not necessary to eat animals.

I would strongly disagree with the "vast majority." The vast majority of humans don't have access to the wide range of foods we have available.

Well we can't just eat sand and air, so we eat what nourishes us.

Plants nourish us. Even in excess, plants just keep making us healthier. There's no such thing as eating too many veggies!

Animal products, on the other hand, cause disease. That's well documented.

Eaten in excess. I've yet to see any study based on humanely raised, pasture-based, naturally produced moderate meat coupled with everything else that is good and healthy. These studies all seem to be based off of American diets, eating meat 2 or 3 times a day, rather than 2 or 3 times a week, which is really all that is necessary for protein input.

2. A sustainable/permaculture approach can be accomplished by utilizing cows and chickens for milk and eggs. They don't have to be killed for meat.

I've never addressed this so I guess now is as good a time as ever. There's more to milk and egg production than just raising chickens for eggs and milking the cows/goats every day, and I don't think you'll be particularly happy to hear this information.

Egg laying chickens lay for 2-3 years, and may live for more than 10. In a system which is maximizing efficiency of food production (or simply a farm in general), it would make no sense to continue to feed and raise a chicken for 5 times longer than it lays eggs for. From the standpoint of a farm business, every bit of revenue that chicken helped create would disappear incredibly fast. From the standpoint of a hungry village trying to sustain, the food which is fed to the chicken could either be used to feed another chicken which produces eggs or a person. From a general sustainability/permaculture standpoint, while the chicken may be adding to your ecosystem, the role that chicken plays could be filled by a chicken which IS producing eggs, adding nutritional output to the system. Egg laying hens are generally processed and eaten at 2 years of age and replaced. It just isn't feasible for any system, business, village, or sustainable/permaculture system, to feed a hen for 8 years after it stops outputting food. To a vegetarian, this may seem like a vain loss, but to hungry people, this hen could make stew and feed a family for a week.

As far as milk production goes, whatever animal is being milked must be bred and produce babies in order to continue producing milk. Most dairy breeds sit at around 1 year for this requirement. At first glance this seems like an okay deal...more cows/goats, more milk, right? Well, only the females produce milk (obviously) and you can't use every single male you get to breed (to maintain strong genetics), so what do you do with the other males? You could feed them and maintain them in your ecosystem, like the chicken who doesn't lay eggs, but from a realistic and efficient standpoint, this is illogical. Again, the food or area required to keep the animal in a natural state could be used to keep an animal which produced nutrient output. Even further, once your system reaches an equilibrium, you can't just keep adding cows or goats to it. It's totally possible to maintain an ecosystem and feed these animals completely on pasture without any inputs, but only if you practice diligent balanced stewardship. Then, what to do with all these new animals? Again, to a vegetarian, this seems to be a vain situation, however, to a hungry family (or simply someone trying to maximize sustainable efficient food production), the cows which can't be kept within the system could provide an amazing amount of food and nourishment (compare how much meat American's eat to the amount required for healthy inputs of protein, iron, vitamins, etc.)
So keeping animals for eggs/milk in a sustainable system is only logical if there is culling and consumption of livestock. Otherwise, the system will cease to be productive.

3. Based on what you've taught me about sustainable agriculture, I agree that a vegan diet might not work long-term for the whole planet. I can see the need for some animals. Thus, I'd say that a plant-based diet, with moderate milk products and eggs, is the ideal.

It may be ideal if it would work. But like I just pointed out, even for vegetarians these systems would not work.

On top of that, without soy, a vegetarian diet is nearly impossible.

I don't understand. Are you basing this on the assumption that most vegetarians rely heavily on soy for their protein needs? If so, that's a myth. Yes, many do, but it's certainly not necessary. I rarely eat soy. I enjoy occasional tofu dishes but could live without it, easily.

Or is there some other purpose of soy that I'm missing?

There's a couple things. Of the foods which vegetarians can eat for protein, soy (tofu especially) is one of the most efficient, and it still is harmful to produce in such large quantities. What it would take to get the world the amount of protein needed in other foods would require more cultivation of land for single-system use (for example, row crop farms), rather than integrated sustainable systems, which could use the same amount of land (less, even) to produce not only protein through meats, but all other nutrients one may need which the single-systems will not provide.





I'll get around to responding to other discussions in this thread when I find time.

---

A question for the meat-eaters:

What if you found a dog on the side of the road, who had just been hit by a car, and was injured, bleeding and in pain? Would you feel compassion for the dog? Would you try to help relieve the pain and take the dog to the vet? Or would you leave it by the side of the road to die a slow, agonizing death?

...

[BrownEye]

Of the foods which vegetarians can eat for protein, soy (tofu especially) is one of the most efficient, and it still is harmful to produce in such large quantities.

Soy is not a healthy food to ingest. It is just another substance that is gov subsidized for a reason.


It seems only fitting to begin this series near the bottom of the food chain. That is, after all, the foundation upon which the survival of all other species rests – including our own.

Krill feed on phytoplankton. Like plants, phytoplankton obtain energy directly from the sun via photosynthesis. Krill are the intermediary step required to convert that energy into a usable form for larger species. The remarkable fact here is the brevity of the food chain: near-microscopic phytoplankton feeds krill; krill, in turn, feed 200-ton whales. This represents one of the most efficient conversions of sunlight to protein on earth.

Chlorophyll is essential for healthy blood and the creation of healthy protein. Just like the in the elephant, the rhinoceros and the gorilla, healthy protein is made from healthy blood which is made from chlorophyll. It is also very anti-fungal.

It was little more than a century ago that chemists isolated a green pigment from the green leaves of plants that they called chlorophyll. It wasn't until 1913 that a German chemist, Dr. Richard Willstatter, correctly identified the true function of chlorophyll. Dr. Willstatter pointed out that all energy comes from the sun and that green plants alone possess the secret of how to capture this solar energy. Out of this process stems much of what we know as life and growth. Man and animals consume this energy from plants as food.

.....we are told that chlorophyll and green vegetables control the calcium levels in our body. He suggests that women replenish their calcium by consuming more green vegetables and supplementing with chlorophyll since menstrual blood contains up to 40 times more calcium than our normal blood. He also noted that vitamin K was originally discovered in alfalfa juice and that chlorophyll is one of the richest known sources of this vitamin.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011010.htm

PROPERTIES AND USES

Chlorophyll is the green pigment of plants which initiates photosynthesis by absorbing energy from sunlight and transferring this energy to other molecules. Chlorophyll causes carbon dioxide and water to combine into glucose. Chlorophyll contains enzymes and superoxide dismutase, a copper-containing protein found in mature red blood cells. This enzyme decomposes superoxide radicals in the body into a more manageable form, thereby helping to slow down the aging process. http://www.springboard4health.com/notebo...phyll.html

Chlorella is a complete protein source. It is also packed with calories, fat, and vitamins. At its onset, Chlorella was suggested as a "dirt-cheap" protein supplement to the human diet. Chlorella advocates sometimes focus on other supposed health benefits of the algae, such as claims of weight control, cancer prevention, and immune system support.

Under certain growing conditions, Chlorella yields oils high in polyunsaturated fats—Chlorella minutissima has yielded EPA at 39.9% of total lipids.

Several studies suggest that Chlorella supplementation has a positive effect on the reduction of dioxin levels in breast milk and it may also have beneficial effects on nursing infants by increasing the IgA levels in breast milk.

Both NASA (CELSS) and the European Space Agency (MELISSA) proposed Spirulina as one of the primary foods to be cultivated during long-term space missions.







Animals just seem like a completely roundabout way to get these nutrients. All the talk about "killing" plants. I mainly eat fruits, nuts, and seeds. The leaves I eat do not kill the plant if I go out back and take 2 or 3 from each plant.

[Monica]

I would strongly disagree with the "vast majority." The vast majority of humans don't have access to the wide range of foods we have available.

They don't need access to the wide range of foods. Most of those foods are mere shadows of their former selves. Did you know that it takes 75 bowls of spinach to equal the iron content of spinach circa 1948?

Due to chemical farming methods, the 'wide range' of foods commonly found in grocery stores are mostly empty.

A much smaller range of foods can easily satisfy basic human requirements, if the foods are nutritious, ie. grown without chemicals, in mineral-rich soil.

It can be done.

To fill in any gaps, there is sprouting. Simple, cheap and easy. It just requires some education.

Eaten in excess. I've yet to see any study based on humanely raised, pasture-based, naturally produced moderate meat coupled with everything else that is good and healthy. These studies all seem to be based off of American diets, eating meat 2 or 3 times a day, rather than 2 or 3 times a week, which is really all that is necessary for protein input.

No, actually, the most comprehensive study was done in China. See The China Study. It shows a direct correlation between meat consumption and disease.

Egg laying chickens lay for 2-3 years, and may live for more than 10. In a system which is maximizing efficiency of food production (or simply a farm in general), it would make no sense to continue to feed and raise a chicken for 5 times longer than it lays eggs for. From the standpoint of a farm business, every bit of revenue that chicken helped create would disappear incredibly fast. From the standpoint of a hungry village trying to sustain, the food which is fed to the chicken could either be used to feed another chicken which produces eggs or a person. From a general sustainability/permaculture standpoint, while the chicken may be adding to your ecosystem, the role that chicken plays could be filled by a chicken which IS producing eggs, adding nutritional output to the system. Egg laying hens are generally processed and eaten at 2 years of age and replaced. It just isn't feasible for any system, business, village, or sustainable/permaculture system, to feed a hen for 8 years after it stops outputting food. To a vegetarian, this may seem like a vain loss, but to hungry people, this hen could make stew and feed a family for a week.

As far as milk production goes, whatever animal is being milked must be bred and produce babies in order to continue producing milk. Most dairy breeds sit at around 1 year for this requirement. At first glance this seems like an okay deal...more cows/goats, more milk, right? Well, only the females produce milk (obviously) and you can't use every single male you get to breed (to maintain strong genetics), so what do you do with the other males? You could feed them and maintain them in your ecosystem, like the chicken who doesn't lay eggs, but from a realistic and efficient standpoint, this is illogical. Again, the food or area required to keep the animal in a natural state could be used to keep an animal which produced nutrient output. Even further, once your system reaches an equilibrium, you can't just keep adding cows or goats to it. It's totally possible to maintain an ecosystem and feed these animals completely on pasture without any inputs, but only if you practice diligent balanced stewardship. Then, what to do with all these new animals? Again, to a vegetarian, this seems to be a vain situation, however, to a hungry family (or simply someone trying to maximize sustainable efficient food production), the cows which can't be kept within the system could provide an amazing amount of food and nourishment (compare how much meat American's eat to the amount required for healthy inputs of protein, iron, vitamins, etc.)
So keeping animals for eggs/milk in a sustainable system is only logical if there is culling and consumption of livestock. Otherwise, the system will cease to be productive.

Thank you; that was very educational! I didn't know any of that. Are you saying that it's impossible to have a sustainable farm without animals? That if I compost regularly, I cannot grow fruits and vegetables, without animal input?

I don't have all the answers. What I do know is that, once we start making choices in alignment with our spiritual principles, the UniVerse will align itself to accommodate our choices.

What you just described might be true of the reality we've lived in thus far. But it needn't necessarily be true in the reality we're creating.

If we decide to create a reality based on compassion, and the desire to reduce or eliminate animal cruelty, then a method for sustainable living will manifest.

There's a couple things. Of the foods which vegetarians can eat for protein,

This is a myth. Vegetarians don't need to eat soy to get enough protein. It's a myth that we must consume 'protein-rich' foods at all. Any well-balanced diet supplying sufficient calories, will meet protein requirements.

Protein isn't the problem. The only nutrient that is challenging in a veg diet is B12. And that is easily remedied by supplementation.

---

Animals just seem like a completely roundabout way to get these nutrients. All the talk about "killing" plants. I mainly eat fruits, nuts, and seeds. The leaves I eat do not kill the plant if I go out back and take 2 or 3 from each plant.

I am currently growing kale, spinach, chard, beets and several varieties of lettuce. Every day, I gratefully pull a few leaves from each plant, to use in my smoothies and juicing.

The next day, uncannily, it seems as if the plants had all grown many leaves overnight! It's weird! They just seem to be growing and growing and growing, so prolifically! It seems like the more I harvest, the more the plants offer to me!

[BrownEye]

A much smaller range of foods can easily satisfy basic human requirements, if the foods are nutritious, ie. grown without chemicals, in mineral-rich soil.

It can be done.

There are a small amount of AG folks using sea water to make Ormus, using it to water their plants.

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/ormusplants.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ORMUS/tw/quick.htm
http://www.sea-crop.com/

[βαθμιαίος]

Killing a human is either wrong or it isn't. If the victim was tortured before getting murdered, then the crime is even more heinous. But it was a crime already, with or without the torture.

Why, then, is the same logic applied to animals as though a justification?

So you're saying that killing an animal is wrong no matter what? If so, are you still basing that on the idea that animals are individuating while plants are not?

The whole post, but particularly this:

That was mostly about plants not having pain receptors. Whether or not they do, they still have consciousness, right? Are you suggesting that a carrot that is pulled from the earth doesn't realize it?

What if you found a dog on the side of the road, who had just been hit by a car, and was injured, bleeding and in pain? Would you feel compassion for the dog? Would you try to help relieve the pain and take the dog to the vet? Or would you leave it by the side of the road to die a slow, agonizing death?

I guess you're referring to kosher slaughter here. Like you, I don't consider that humane.

I don't have all the answers. What I do know is that, once we start making choices in alignment with our spiritual principles, the UniVerse will align itself to accommodate our choices.

...

If we decide to create a reality based on compassion, and the desire to reduce or eliminate animal cruelty, then a method for sustainable living will manifest.

I agree. For me, a method of sustainable living that is in line with my spiritual principles has manifested itself and is as I've been describing in this thread.

[Namaste]

Spirulina as one of the primary foods to be cultivated during long-term space missions.

Animals just seem like a completely roundabout way to get these nutrients. All the talk about "killing" plants. I mainly eat fruits, nuts, and seeds. The leaves I eat do not kill the plant if I go out back and take 2 or 3 from each plant.

My sentiments exactly :¬)

[3DMonkey]

Those are ACTUALLY your sentiments

[Namaste]

Those are ACTUALLY your sentiments

Actually is actually more accurate that exactly :¬)

[3DMonkey]

You quoted yourself.

[Namaste]

You quoted yourself.

Oh I see! LOL

It should read Pickle. Updated :¬)

[samith]

Awesome sharing all of you. all participation is well and i really appreciate to all of you. agree with all of you. thanks man

[Diana]

From a sustainability point of view, the only way we're going to feed 7 billion people without destroying the Earth is through use of efficient sustainable and permaculture techniques which employ the cultivation of both crops and livestock. There is a ton of energy and motivation going in to studying the most efficient and sustainable systems for producing quantities of food. Just growing crop is not a sustainable system.

On top of that, without soy, a vegetarian diet is nearly impossible. The cultivation of soy in the quantities it would require for 7 billion people to be vegetarian are not nearly possible. A huge field of soy cannot support an ecosystem, where as a sustainable dynamic system growing a variety of crops and producing a variety of meats will output more protein and nutrition, all while supporting a natural ecosystem. Using the same amount of space, higher quantities of more nutritious food are produced, land is preserved, and life flourishes (where if you follow the source of the tofu you eat, you'd likely find a barren field with only one thing living there: soy).

In parts of the world where this isn't possible, the biggest saving grace would be aquaculture systems, where a greenhouse environment is created producing both vegetables as well as fish meats in a nearly closed, low-energy, low-water system.

I'm not trying to say the decision to be vegetarian is irresponsible. It's a personal decision and is possible for many people in the world if they wish to not eat meat. But what I am saying is the feasibility of producing enough food to feed the world is only going to come from mixed farming systems which practice sustainable husbandry and crop cultivation as integrated systems.

This is interesting. And I am not educated on the subject, so I will look into it. I would suggest that the animals are not slaughtered however, and produce milk and eggs. Caveat: not factory farming for milk and eggs; private individuals doing so that care for the animals.

I don't eat soy. Soy is not necessary to a vegetarian diet. Quinoa, for example, is a complete protein. There are trace amounts of protein in almost everything.

---

Regarding the humane raising of animals for meat:

There is the issue of freedom. Plants don't move around. Animals do, including fish. So, no matter how humane, they are being forced into an unnatural environment. Free range cattle would have it the best in this regard, as they roam over large areas.

---

Pickle, thank you for post 1514 on chlorophyl. You are an inspiration.

---

Are you saying that it's impossible to have a sustainable farm without animals? That if I compost regularly, I cannot grow fruits and vegetables, without animal input?

I don't have all the answers. What I do know is that, once we start making choices in alignment with our spiritual principles, the UniVerse will align itself to accommodate our choices.

I so agree with this. Thank you Monica.

[Monica]

So you're saying that killing an animal is wrong no matter what?

Yes. Just as I think killing a human (or a dolphin) is wrong, no matter what. (Except in extreme case of self-defense, as a last resort.)

If so, are you still basing that on the idea that animals are individuating while plants are not?

To be honest, my belief that killing animals is wrong isn't based on any particular idea, but on simple knowing. I didn't decide killing animals was wrong after rationally thinking about it based on concepts from the Law of One or any other spiritual book. I didn't need that. It was already obvious to me, even as a child, when I was forced to help my father butcher chickens, ducks and pigeons. It was obvious to me when my father killed 3 of the 5 kittens born. Even before that, I knew. No one had to tell me.

I never ate meat at all until I was 10. At that time, due to a variety of factors I won't go into here, including pressure from family, I 'overcame' my aversion and started eating meat. This lasted until I was 21, when I read The Essene Gospel of Peace and Survival into the 21st Century.

I read the books. I quit eating animals overnight. Instantly. The idea that eating animals was wrong was not something that the books convinced me of. I already knew it. The books just reminded me of what I already knew.

Simply looking into the eyes of a cow or chicken is enough for me. I don't need to intellectualize or rationalize it.

The only reason I'm doing that here, is because what is obvious to me, isn't obvious to others. So I am trying to find ways to explain what is a given to me.

That was mostly about plants not having pain receptors. Whether or not they do, they still have consciousness, right? Are you suggesting that a carrot that is pulled from the earth doesn't realize it?

I think the oversoul of the entire carrot population certainly knows it, but I don't think the individual carrot knows it.

I guess you're referring to kosher slaughter here. Like you, I don't consider that humane.

What I'm saying is, I think most of us here would help that dog, right? Why? Why not just leave him to suffer and die?

I don't need to explain to anyone why they should help that dog. They just know.

Why is it any different with cows, pigs and chickens?

Cows, pigs and chickens are 'dying by the side of the road' by the millions, every single day, and each person who buys meat has the power to put a stop to it.

Why are people letting all those millions of animals suffer and die by the side of the road?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Thank you; that was very educational! I didn't know any of that. Are you saying that it's impossible to have a sustainable farm without animals? That if I compost regularly, I cannot grow fruits and vegetables, without animal input?

Compost will only go so far, and it isn't a long term solution. Systems shown using only compost as their sole amendment have worked for perhaps a generation, but ultimately have toxicity and salt problems with the soil. Also, in an ideal closed system, we would not produce as much compost as would be needed to continue to grow food. Plus think about how much compost one would need to cover an acre of crops, especially on land that has been cultivated for 2 years in a row...there's just no way to do with without compost input. This is bringing in material from other systems which ultimately isn't sustainable.

For some time, livestock being included in a sustainable system wasn't thought of as necessary. For a while, there was a system called cover cropping, growing different varieties of plants which pull nitrogen from the air and return it to the soil after being tilled in, which seemed to work just fine. That coupled with a small amount of compost and some very rare rock mineral amendments seemed to work fine. But over time, people noticed a few things wrong, mainly highly increased pests, highly increased disease (both resulting in very decreased yields), and a loss of symbiotic ecosystems (sacrificing the viability of the land). It was discovered that the act of tilling, turning the organic material from the cover crops into the soil, was destroying habitats for beneficial bugs. It was also found that doing this would choke out other organisms which thrived on diversity. Tilling can also cause erosion. Cover crops only promote certain types of micro-organisms in the soil, and the live going on under the soil is more important than anything you see above the soil. There have been different experiments, like just flattening cover-crops instead of turning them in, but this cannot return near the amount of nitrogen to the soil as a new season of crops would require, since there is hardly any contact of the organic material with the soil, and much of the nitrogen would escape to the air. Even if this system were sustainable without livestock, livestock would fit into the picture just perfectly with just a little extra stewardship, and nutrient output could be massively increased with meat consumption.

The key is a balanced ecosystem. Having a rotational system which includes all elements possible...cultivated crops, cover crops, animal forage time, and a rest period, the ecosystem will thrive and soil will be healthy indefinitely. On top of that, livestock control weeds, pests, and can help make soil workable.

Sure, it's possible to put animals into the system without eating them, but what we need is efficient food production systems. Maximum output with no impact. Asking people to be vegetarian would be asking them to sacrifice this efficiency, which ultimately means less food for less people on more land.

I don't have all the answers. What I do know is that, once we start making choices in alignment with our spiritual principles, the UniVerse will align itself to accommodate our choices.

Our spiritual principles, or your spiritual principles?

What you just described might be true of the reality we've lived in thus far. But it needn't necessarily be true in the reality we're creating.

If we decide to create a reality based on compassion, and the desire to reduce or eliminate animal cruelty, then a method for sustainable living will manifest.

It's nice to talk about, but using and spreading the knowledge we have now to help the world become sustainable is the goal. I won't withhold practices and knowledge from hungry people based on the opinion that eating plants is more spiritual than eating animals, especially when 1) not everyone believes this, and 2) we're killing plants too!

There's a couple things. Of the foods which vegetarians can eat for protein,

This is a myth. Vegetarians don't need to eat soy to get enough protein. It's a myth that we must consume 'protein-rich' foods at all. Any well-balanced diet supplying sufficient calories, will meet protein requirements.

Well, I know that it isn't simply that easy, because I've had 1 vegan friend and 1 vegetarian friend have issues because of lack of protein (and other nutrients) consumption. And I don't know a single vegetarian/vegan who doesn't drink soymilk.

But that's beyond the point. When you talk about a "balanced diet," you could use more land growing all the plants you need for a balanced diet, or you could refrain from growing the plants which would give you the same nutrition as meat, and significantly increase your food output.

Animals just seem like a completely roundabout way to get these nutrients. All the talk about "killing" plants. I mainly eat fruits, nuts, and seeds. The leaves I eat do not kill the plant if I go out back and take 2 or 3 from each plant.

I am currently growing kale, spinach, chard, beets and several varieties of lettuce. Every day, I gratefully pull a few leaves from each plant, to use in my smoothies and juicing.

The next day, uncannily, it seems as if the plants had all grown many leaves overnight! It's weird! They just seem to be growing and growing and growing, so prolifically! It seems like the more I harvest, the more the plants offer to me!

The problem is that these things won't grow in every season, in every climate. Off-season veggie demand is hard enough to fill in milder climates. And I don't think that you'll convince a village in Africa which relies on goats as a major source of food that they can make up for that by growing kale in their backyard.

---

Regarding the humane raising of animals for meat:

There is the issue of freedom. Plants don't move around. Animals do, including fish. So, no matter how humane, they are being forced into an unnatural environment. Free range cattle would have it the best in this regard, as they roam over large areas.

We are not allowing the plants to be free by cultivating them for food. The lettuce wants to grow up big and bolt...do we let it? The carrot, the beet, the radish, all want to send seed out and multiply...do we let it? The fruit tree is producing fruit for only one reason: to spread it's seed. Do you plant every seed from every fruit you eat?

Most plants get too bitter to eat after they reach maturity. Growing vegetables for consumption means stunting and cutting off that maturity. If the plants didn't want to do these things, then why are they trying? And why are we stopping them? Plants grown for consumption are not any bit as free as a free-range cow. They're cared for and looked after, but ultimately, we are not allowing it to act naturally. These plants are striving to survive and multiply. If you give them the chance to send out seed, they'll do it, but we don't.

[βαθμιαίος]

The only reason I'm doing that here, is because what is obvious to me, isn't obvious to others. So I am trying to find ways to explain what is a given to me.

Yeah. Just like what's obvious to me isn't obvious to you, and I've been trying to find ways to explain.

Why are people letting all those millions of animals suffer and die by the side of the road?

I was talking about a humanely-raised and humanely-slaughtered animal. It's not suffering or dying by the side of the road.

[Bring4th_Austin]

This is interesting. And I am not educated on the subject, so I will look into it. I would suggest that the animals are not slaughtered however, and produce milk and eggs. Caveat: not factory farming for milk and eggs; private individuals doing so that care for the animals.

I addressed this a few posts back. These systems fall flat for vegetarians.

[Monica]

Sure, it's possible to put animals into the system without eating them, but what we need is efficient food production systems. Maximum output with no impact. Asking people to be vegetarian would be asking them to sacrifice this efficiency, which ultimately means less food for less people on more land.

Thank you for the info! Very educational.

It's a moot point, really, because the entire human population isn't going vegetarian any time soon. If factory farms were replaced by the kind of sustainable farms you describe, that would be a huge improvement! If that were to happen in our lifetime, I would consider it a success.

Meanwhile, while conscientious farmers like you are working on improving the farming situation, people like me are working to grow our own food as much as possible, so that there's less demand put on farmers like you. There is a huge movement to grow a lot of food in tiny backyards. A few dwarf fruit trees, an intensively planted raised bed garden, many more plants in pots, a sprouting system...Some people are even removing their driveways to make more room to grow food!

There is a huge crop of books on this subject, with titles like Food not Lawns, Edible Landscaping, etc.

I don't see everyone doing all this any time soon, but before much longer, they might not have any choice. If more and more families grow at least a good portion of their own food, then that would take a huge load off the farmers.

I see all of this as a positive transition away from the horrible factory farms and towards a plant-based diet.

Our spiritual principles, or your spiritual principles?

Well clearly we don't all have the same spiritual principles. But I hope you can understand that, from the point of view of someone who considers the meat industry to be oppression, obviously they will hope that others will realize this too. Whether you agree with that or not, I hope the premise behind it is at least reasonable and understandable.

It's nice to talk about, but using and spreading the knowledge we have now to help the world become sustainable is the goal. I won't withhold practices and knowledge from hungry people based on the opinion that eating plants is more spiritual than eating animals.

Your goal as a sustainable farmer is different from my goal as an activist for animals. However, there is a lot of overlap between our goals. As I've stated multiple times, I have no issues with what you are doing. I don't see it as the ultimate goal, but I see it as a very positive step in the right direction. I readily admit that my vision of the ultimate goal - everyone being vegetarian and finding a way to sustain that - is something I am working towards, but isn't likely to happen any time soon, and it can't happen at all without people like you.

Please understand that I am not, in any way, implying that I am 'more advanced' than you or that my goal is 'better' than your goal!!! I hope I am making this abundantly clear. For a vegetarian to show appreciation for a farmer who kills animals for meat is pretty extraordinary, I think. And I do have appreciation for you! I realize that my ultimate goal cannot happen without you, so I thank you for what you are doing and for the information you share. We must work together on this instead of having a contest of "who's the purest of us all."

Well, I know that it isn't simply that easy, because I've had 1 vegan friend and 1 vegetarian friend have issues because of lack of protein (and other nutrients) consumption.

These can be addressed without soy. It's very easy for vegetarians who eat eggs and moderate amount of dairy. It's true that it's a bit more challenging for vegans. Some vegans do need to supplement with superfoods, for the simple reason that the foods that are supposed to have high amounts of protein simply don't contain the protein they used to. Corn has about 20% of the protein it had a few generations ago (if I remember correctly). It takes 75 bowls of spinach to equal the iron content found in a single bowl of spinach in 1948. US wheat has been refused for export because it contained zero protein!

The foods people are eating are unnatural, and mere shadows of their former selves, due to chemical farming, GMO, erosion of mineral-rich, microbe-rich topsoil, etc. All of which you know better than I do.

So yes, meat has some concentrated nutrients. Yes, it requires more education to be a vegan.

But it's quite doable.

And I don't know a single vegetarian/vegan who doesn't drink soymilk.

You do now! I never drink soymilk. The last time I had soymilk was probably 20 years ago.

We are not allowing the plants to be free by cultivating them for food. The lettuce wants to grow up big and bolt...do we let it? The carrot, the beet, the radish, all want to send seed out and multiply...do we let it? The fruit tree is producing fruit for only one reason: to spread it's seed. Do you plant every seed from every fruit you eat?

Those are all assumptions. We really don't know what the oversoul of all those plants wants. The botany of Desire makes a good argument in favor of plants actually using humans to help them proliferate.

I go back to my previous post: What kind of cruel design would that be, if all plants writhe in agony when they're eaten?

When I pick some leaves from my kale plant, I perceive it as singing with joy. It eagerly starts replacing the leaves I harvested, so uncannily fast I sometimes wonder if there are little elves magically making more leaves! If I'm wrong in my perception, then I can't really trust anything I perceive.

Now the argument will surely come from someone, that they are perceiving animals as enjoying getting killed...

---

I was talking about a humanely-raised and humanely-slaughtered animal. It's not suffering or dying by the side of the road.

Is every meat-eater buying only 'humanely' raised meat? I don't think so. My comments are addressed to anyone and everyone, not you personally. I avoid making any judgments about anyone's personal choices. I am speaking in generalities.

The point of the analogy was to show that nearly every meat-eater would help that dog. This shows that it's intuitive, natural to feel compassion for an animal. Any animal.

How many people would stop the car to save the lawn from being mowed?

The very idea is absurd. Why? Because we don't have a natural inclination to save plants.

Surely there is a reason for that.

To take the analogy further, maybe some of those humans by the side of the road aren't in agony, but they're victims of sudden, swift, violent crime. Then what?

My point is that there's a reason we feel a natural inclination towards compassion, and by eating animals whom we would help if they were injured, we are suppressing that natural compassion.

[βαθμιαίος]

Is every meat-eater buying only 'humanely' raised meat? I don't think so. My comments are addressed to anyone and everyone, not you personally.

Well, you made them in response to my statement about humanely-raised animals.

This shows that it's intuitive, natural to feel compassion for an animal. Any animal.
....
we don't have a natural inclination to save plants.

Yes, I feel compassion when I butcher an animal. I also feel compassion when I pull a lettuce or a carrot from my garden. Don't you? I feel compassion when I kill bugs in the garden so that the plants will flourish.

---

Edit to add:

I feel compassion when I eat sunflower seeds that won't get to grow. I feel compassion when I grind wheat that won't get to sprout. I feel compassion when I pull a leaf off of a kale plant. I feel compassion when I eat an almond.

And at the same time that I feel compassion for all these creatures, I feel intense gratitude to them.