(11-21-2011, 06:52 PM)Diana Wrote: 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?

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

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

Quote:4) There is no need to take animal life.

Quote:5) Plant life is needed.

Quote:6) Why take animal life?

(11-21-2011, 06:52 PM)Diana Wrote: 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?

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Inflict suffering or pain, probably not. To take its life, it might not be okay, but necessary for survival.

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Well we can't just eat sand and air, so we eat what nourishes us.

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: On top of that, without soy, a vegetarian diet is nearly impossible.

(11-21-2011, 08:13 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2011, 09:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I find eating chlorella, bee pollen and bluegreen algae powder by the spoonful much more appealing than contributing to the suffering of animals.

(11-21-2011, 09:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-20-2011, 01:09 PM)Diana Wrote: 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.

(11-20-2011, 01:09 PM)Diana Wrote: 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).

(11-20-2011, 01:09 PM)Diana Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2011, 10:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: A humanely-raised animal flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a vegetable until the moment of death.

(11-21-2011, 10:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Woo-hoo, some agreement! How cool!

(11-21-2011, 10:15 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: A humanely-treated person flourishes throughout its life. It doesn't suffer any more than does a cow until the moment it is murdered.

(11-21-2011, 10:28 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: We've been around and around about this. Animals are not human any more than plants are.

(11-21-2011, 10:28 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 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."

(11-21-2011, 10:31 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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?

(11-21-2011, 10:31 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Address in post #1442.

(11-21-2011, 10:35 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(11-21-2011, 10:31 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2011, 10:35 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(11-21-2011, 10:31 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Address in post #1442.

What in particular?

Quote: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?

(11-21-2011, 10:28 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(11-21-2011, 10:15 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2011, 09:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

Quote:

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote:

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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?

Quote: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?

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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/notebook/herbs_chlorophyll.html

Quote: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.

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: There's a couple things. Of the foods which vegetarians can eat for protein,

(11-22-2011, 02:45 AM)Pickle Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 03:27 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 12:58 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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?

(11-22-2011, 12:58 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: The whole post, but particularly this:

(11-22-2011, 12:58 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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?

(11-22-2011, 03:27 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

Pickle Wrote: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.

(11-22-2011, 08:42 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Those are ACTUALLY your sentiments

(11-22-2011, 08:47 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: You quoted yourself.

(11-21-2011, 07:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 03:27 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 08:00 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: So you're saying that killing an animal is wrong no matter what?

(11-22-2011, 08:00 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: If so, are you still basing that on the idea that animals are individuating while plants are not?

(11-22-2011, 08:00 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 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?

(11-22-2011, 08:00 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I guess you're referring to kosher slaughter here. Like you, I don't consider that humane.

(11-22-2011, 03:27 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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?

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote:

(11-22-2011, 01:51 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

Quote:

(11-22-2011, 02:45 AM)Pickle Wrote: 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!

(11-22-2011, 11:39 AM)Diana Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 12:56 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 12:56 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Why are people letting all those millions of animals suffer and die by the side of the road?

(11-22-2011, 11:39 AM)Diana Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Our spiritual principles, or your spiritual principles?

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: And I don't know a single vegetarian/vegan who doesn't drink soymilk.

(11-22-2011, 01:00 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: 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?

(11-22-2011, 01:12 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I was talking about a humanely-raised and humanely-slaughtered animal. It's not suffering or dying by the side of the road.

(11-22-2011, 01:52 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.

(11-22-2011, 01:52 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: 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.