In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

I think it would be possible to work with an individual carrot and start the process of individuation, especially if you let it flower and didn't harvest it. That would give you two years to work with it, which might be enough to start the process. The point is, plants can be individuated, just as animals can.

Sure. Of course it's possible! Anything can be individuated. Even a locale. And after having worked with the old mainframe computers, I see no reason why awareness couldn't develop in the circuitry of a computer.

But realistically, how likely is it that someone will cherish a single carrot, among all the other carrots in his garden, to the point of raising its awareness to individuation?

I could see houseplants and office ivies developing self-awareness before carrots.

Sure, if you wanted to invest all that into a carrot, then it would be just as wrong (in my view) to kill it/eat it as it would to kill/eat a cow.

But that doesn't hold water in the present debate, because it's extremely remote that any single carrot on the grocery store shelf had been treated like that.

However, most chickens and cows aren't individuated any more than most garden plants

I strongly, emphatically disagree.

The catalyst itself - the cruel living conditions - are what triggers the self-awareness in cows and chickens.

But what an awful way to wake up.

Compare the loving, gentle awakening of a beloved dog or cat, to the horrible, cruel awakening of a cow at a factory farm. Then, once newly aware, the cow is brutally slaughtered.

Have you ever wondered what kind of humans those cows are going to be someday?

it's pets that get individuated, according to Ra.

Ra said especially pets. Ra didn't say only pets.

To miss the potential of extreme suffering to awaken sentience, is to miss the point of catalyst, rendering the suffering even more abhorrent because it's without any purpose at all.

That's why more animals get individuated than plants. There's no reason that people couldn't start to name and talk to their house plants and individuate them, too.

That's right. No reason. Except they don't. People might name and talk to their houseplants, or to trees, or to their entire garden, but they generally don't raise carrots as pets.

So unless/until pet carrots become popular as pet rocks once were, it's a moot point.

Regarding the symbiotic nature of the relationship between livestock and humans, I would invite you to visit some farms or families that keep, love, and respect animals. We have a family milk cow as well as laying hens, and I feel confident that the relationships are mutually beneficial.

I'm not one of those vegans who thinks we can never use anything from an animal. I have no issues whatsoever between keeping cows or goats for milk, or hens for eggs. What you describe is indeed symbiotic.

I was referring to factory farms. No way is that symbiotic.

Regarding slaughtering humans as akin to slaughtering animals, you continue to equate animals with humans while relegating plants to a seemingly secondary status of "OK to eat." I just don't agree with you that that distinction holds water.

Then maybe you aren't reading all my posts...? Because I have repeatedly stated that eventually, we wouldn't be eating plants either, but that we have to start someplace. I don't believe we're just gonna go poof into a reality where we consume only nectar.

I have elaborated on this numerous times in this thread. It's a very long thread.

Regarding the culling of weaker animals -- actually, many hunters do resist the urge to take the biggest buck and instead take does, thereby reducing overpopulation, and smaller males.

I live in Texas. All of the hunters I've met brag about their big trophies. Sure, they get the does too, but they still choose the buck with the big rack, over the buck with the small rack. Every time.

Nice to hear you've met hunters who don't do that. But I've never met any.

Similarly, farmers and ranchers manager their herds for health by culling weaker animals.

I would surmise that's for pragmatic reasons.

Regarding the importance of making the connection between what you buy at the store and where it came from and how it got there, I completely agree with you. That was my point about the blue-green algae.

I still don't get what the algae has to do with your point. Sorry, I guess I still don't get your point! Wild bluegreen algae from Klamath Lake is the single most sustainable food on the planet. Bar none. There just isn't any comparison.

Regarding compassion for plants and animals -- I don't see why we can't have both.

Of course! Why does it seem you think I think otherwise?