Bring4th

The term "plant-based diet" is essentially the same thing as being a vegan.  In that it doesn't include any animal-based products.  

I've been somewhat averse to calling or describing myself as a vegan/vegetarian because there are so many connotations attached to it, that it has a way of setting up an oppositional framework.  That is not me denying my habits, or being unwilling to acknowledge my choices; it's just that the terms themselves have emotional undercurrents that are vested with societal motion.  It is something bigger than any one individual.

That said, just browsing through r/vegan threads on reddit will reveal how much of a social shift is taking place.  People are becoming aware of things on a lightning-level, and through such available sources as "Cowspiracy" on Netflix, people are choosing a different way through the information being made presentable and accessible.

So the actual choices are being made.  And we have the current social labels/identifiers for those choices.  It's just that those labels are still charged.

If I could make an analogy.  We have stories that tell of good and evil, and the two different ways of approaching our reality.  Good and evil are perfectly descriptive, and emotionally resonant labels for those two differering choices.  And yet, to elevate the discussion, and have it on the terms where less condemnation and judgementalism are involved, shifting the terms to 'Positive Path' and 'Negative Path' does wonders.  There is still a bit of baggage to do with calling it the 'negative path', and some people get around it by referring to it as 'left hand path' etc.  But there's only so much you can do to remove the sting out of the choices of the 'other path'.  They do do destructive, controlling, and harmful things.

/ /

So perhaps using the term 'plant based diet' can also change the discussion, and elevate it a bit more.  This is in no way identifying the Plant-Based choice as 'more correct' or 'more right'.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm just offering that using this term in place of the traditional vegetarianism/vegan can shift the viewpoint to something different.

Of course, given wider social discourse, when talking with friends/family/acquaintances, then using the terms vegetarianism/veganism is a much quicker shorthand.  But internally, and in more focussed situations, I am finding that 'Plant Based Diet' works quite well in labelling the choice that I have made.

I just find it funny how one can accept society but avoid it simultaneously in self identification, how a label can be infused with connotation and negative/positive inferences just because it was observed and judged by a construct of people all agreeing on certain properties of some 'way' or 'thing'.

You're clearly a vegan.  Who desires to avoid the madness Society performs and attaches to such a personal label.

I too would love to be on a plant based diet.  I'm hoping to start at 4 out of 7 days Then go daily.

If only I could just eat bananas and nothing else.  Eating can be such a hassle as it is since I don't have ready access to growing my own food.  Expensive.  Typically GMO even despite a nongmo label.

Its really just those two things that make me wish I Could Just...Photosynthesis or something. (He said despite working And existing solely in the night)

I wonder why labels can be skewed with social bias...

You'd think we'd use labels more efficiently and not so loosely destroy them with 'beliefs' or 'judgments' about them.  Not criticizing you Plenum.  More sad at how you...and I too, can't just be y/ourself, needing to redefine the label of a 'way' of being to do so without falling into an area where arguments and disagreements ensue effortlessly.

(11-03-2015, 06:32 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: [ -> ]I just find it funny how one can accept society but avoid it simultaneously in self identification, how a label can be infused with connotation and negative/positive inferences just because it was observed and judged by a construct of people all agreeing on certain properties of some 'way' or 'thing'.

THIS. I really appreciate how you're trying to reframe this, Plenum. Essentially, it is taking the ideology out of diet, and with it all of the identification that we crave in order to separate self from self.

I personally don't feel any emotional charge with the word "vegan". I understand others do, and that's because what we eat is mostly unconscious catalyst for society today, so anything to make it conscious is jarring. I do try to avoid the word vegan more often though and when someone offers me something or asks a question, I usually just try to keep it simple like "I don't eat meat", "I don't eat cheese". People usually figure it out but I find that people are just put off by being confronted with the catalyst. So I suppose in the end we desire the same thing, giving others the comforts of sleep. ;p

There's a meme going around, about how you always know when a vegan/crossfitter/atheist walks into a room/conversation, because they tell you immediately. It's symbolic. Diet(mind), health(body), and religion(spirit) are big triggers. People get unconsciously offended when they see others excited and making a healthy transformation, because it's what we all desire.

(11-03-2015, 11:35 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't feel any emotional charge with the word "vegan". I understand others do, and that's because what we eat is mostly unconscious catalyst for society today, so anything to make it conscious is jarring. I do try to avoid the word vegan more often though and when someone offers me something or asks a question, I usually just try to keep it simple like "I don't eat meat", "I don't eat cheese". People usually figure it out but I find that people are just put off by being confronted with the catalyst. So I suppose in the end we desire the same thing, giving others the comforts of sleep. ;p

There's a meme going around, about how you always know when a vegan/crossfitter/atheist walks into a room/conversation, because they tell you immediately. It's symbolic. Diet(mind), health(body), and religion(spirit) are big triggers. People get unconsciously offended when they see others excited and making a healthy transformation, because it's what we all desire.

What catalyst are you speaking of? 

(11-03-2015, 11:35 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]People get unconsciously offended when they see others excited and making a healthy transformation, because it's what we all desire.

Personally, I think you are right that we all innately desire a healthy mind, body, and spirit.  But I disagree that seeing others achieve this is why anybody would get offended.  Rather I think people get offended by the notion that such is achieved in only one particular way.  This is not directed at anybody in particular, just an observation made in my personal life by watching vegan friends interact with non vegan friends.

(11-03-2015, 11:35 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't feel any emotional charge with the word "vegan". I understand others do, and that's because what we eat is mostly unconscious catalyst for society today, so anything to make it conscious is jarring. I do try to avoid the word vegan more often though and when someone offers me something or asks a question, I usually just try to keep it simple like "I don't eat meat", "I don't eat cheese". People usually figure it out but I find that people are just put off by being confronted with the catalyst. So I suppose in the end we desire the same thing, giving others the comforts of sleep. ;p

There's a meme going around, about how you always know when a vegan/crossfitter/atheist walks into a room/conversation, because they tell you immediately. It's symbolic. Diet(mind), health(body), and religion(spirit) are big triggers. People get unconsciously offended when they see others excited and making a healthy transformation, because it's what we all desire.

I appreciate your perspective.  Allow me to offer another, and perhaps it will be helpful.  You're definitely right about triggers, so I admit any triggering off the cuff.

If you have freely chosen an exotic diet as an adult, that perhaps comes with a bit of identity baggage--it is, after all, something that separates you from the masses.  You can charge that identity with pride, but it accepts other charges as well.  And when an identity is imposed upon you, it becomes the polar opposite, indeed.

My parents raised my brothers and I from when I was in first grade until I was in high school on a strict macrobiotic regimen.  This diet was exceedingly healthy.  I probably owe a great deal of my present constitution to eating this way for long during my formative years.  Macrobiotics essentially healed my youngest brother of an extremely serious kidney condition.  If I had seen that kind of turnaround in my children, I'd put everybody I could, let alone my own family, on the diet immediately.  Looking back, I can understand my parents actions.

Yet it was the source of intense catalyst for me, because it's important to remember how essentially social food is for humans.  Not being able to eat what my friends were eating made me other.  If I wasn't teased about it, I was definitely left out of a lot of parties and such.  Accommodations for different diets are much more widespread now than they used to be.  And kids are not usually into exotic, weird food--kids like simple tastes and textures.  Years later, once I was an adult, I also realized that my parents were not great cooks, either, and as much love as they tried to show through the choice of diet, their skills were not equal to the task.  

So this is all to say: I get the offense, unconscious or conscious, in the holding separate from others on diet.  Some of the most powerful interpersonal rituals are eating together, breaking bread together, drinking together, etc.  Eating is not simply about nutrition.  If we use food to hold ourselves apart from the mainstream, then I believe it is that much more incumbent on us to make the social connection.

None of this is intended as a criticism in any way, shape, or form of anybody else's words here; I just felt I had a different perspective.  I understand intimately why people are put off by these kinds of diets.  Nobody cares what you eat--what they care about is the way the choice of diet is charged in the conversation, the way it is used to create a special obligation on everybody else's part, the way it is used to say "oh, you eat THAT?!?!" (My mom used to lecture us on how "fallen" everybody else was).  

Of course, it's hard to imagine anybody interested in the Law of One behaving like that, let alone anybody participating in this conversation, but the more diet becomes an identitarian struggle, rather than a simple personal choice, the easier it is to see why those who haven't chosen thus react the way they do.

I want to clarify I wasn't speaking of unconscious catalyst about anyone here, I meant about other people in society. I meant to describe what happens when it casually comes up in conversation that I'm vegan (regardless if I use the emotionally charged word or not) and someone makes a snide remark or offensive joke, it's their response to their inability to process their catalyst consciously at that time. I think this is what plenum was talking about as "setting up an oppositional framework" and "emotional undercurrents vested with societal motion". It's the same reason people get so angry about gluten free - it's representative of the same thing. Of course veganism is not the only answer, that was not what I was implying at all. Just that those who are sleeping can feel as if someone is rubbing their transformation that they cannot achieve (I was speaking archetypically so in a very broad sense) in their face.

I understand what Plenum is saying and trying to do. This is analogous to what Christianity has done to the words God, prayer, faith. The connotations, after many centuries of use and abuse, have very much tainted the words themselves. 

Frankly though, religion is one thing, but being vegan is another. Responsibility to the planet which sustains us, other life forms, and compassion trump any bit of off-putting I might feel because someone judges me for being vegan. Actually, I don't mind it at all if I'm judged.  

I'm not proud to be vegan; I am relieved in the greatest sense to know I am not contributing to suffering with what I eat to survive. By relieved, I mean that no part of my being is engaged in conflict, because I know I am making compassionate choices as a matter of course. 

I do realize that we could be picky about what I have said, that one could point out "But do you buy any plastic, But do you know animal life forms are killed during plant harvest, But..." This is a thin argument. It's like saying, "Why try to quit smoking when even the air you breathe is contaminated?" And it's not a reason not to try to lessen the suffering the meat and dairy industries perpetuate.

My ego isn't involved in the idea of being vegan. There is no charge at all, only that sense of relief and "the correct path" for me. But one must ask what is involved in the defensiveness of those who do the judging against vegans/vegetarians. It seems a senseless waste of energy to me. The bigger picture is a planet in trouble who is a being herself, animal suffering on a huge scale, starvation, capitalism used for STS-style profiteering at the expense of human health and unsustainable rape of this planet. 

I honor everyone's free will. And if using the term "plant-based diet" makes it more comfortable for the general population, I'm all for it. I don't care about being right, or standing my ground. If there is a way to get humans on board with acting consciously and responsibly within this world ecosystem, great. 

I would like to add something about the reactions of others to my diet.

1. I have heard snide, cruel, ignorant remarks literally for decades because of being vegetarian. Most of those remarks, however, I don't think were meant in a mean way. The remarks about eating baby seals for lunch and the like, just come across as someone telling a joke. I have no problem at all being on the fringe, so it's easy just to blow it off. 

2. When it matters, in social settings with family and friends, everyone seems to be accommodating and kind about what I eat and don't eat. Perhaps this is because the people who know me have long accepted that I am "different." But I think there is a basic goodness in people. I have been vegetarian since 1993, and I have never had a problem in a social situation around food that I couldn't handle, and that others didn't try to accommodate.

It's simply not that difficult, folks. Family gatherings are not a problem. If nothing else, you can just eat the bread and not make an issue out of the cook making something special. You can still break bread. You can still enjoy the gathering, because it really isn't about the food, it's about the interaction and the love.

EMBRACE THE "V" WORD!!!!!!!

I like this article about it:

http://veganpublishers.com/in-defense-of...taft-ph-d/

Where it gets tough here is in the normative dimension of diet--in other words, where diet strays from a personal decision for oneself and into a political statement aimed at others. Yes, Plenum discussed this, and rightly so, but I think the problem with the V-word is the coupling of political and personal. Not that there's anything wrong with the coupling; only that for some people veganism is personal, for others it is a resolutely and intensely political movement of appealing to the masses, and for yet others it is both (and for some others it's probably neither, like children of vegan parents).

So I can understand the layperson's confusion, and if there are obnoxious non-vegans out there, trust me: veganism has it's share of holier-than-thou's as well. All sides could benefit from remembering Jesus's admonition that "a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it."

Why do people care so much about what an-other eats?

Meat eaters dislike vegans
Vegans dislike meat eaters
Omnivores don't care

I get the environmental impact being an issue, the moral issues I also get.

But its not your life, and forcing 'light' is no different from using darkness to bring about light.

Its a personal choice.  Just like How I need to accept I live in a terminally stupid country if Politics says anything...People need to accept they live in a world of different people who are apathetic, towards vegans, meat eaters, omnivores, veggie-munchers, and Life itself.

Supposed to accept but try to 'enlighten' (gently raise awareness) without condoning, condemning, or judging them for their ways.

Yet, so many of us just CARE about what others eat enough to disregard the person themself.

Its a weird world, things like this make no actual logical sense to me.  Just baffles me.

I think I'll go watch Idiocracy, see how many similarities exist in the current US political madness...

Feed plants Gatorade, fight off the Gators who want their Aid, save water, Murica the Smartypanties ain't got nothing on Georgy Ol Red-White-n-Blue Sam.

Just like people ain't got a clue on accepting cultural differences or basically, being this new awesome thingy called 'flexible'.  I hear Yoga helps with that though

But seriously, why we be tis way?

(11-03-2015, 02:28 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]My ego isn't involved in the idea of being vegan. There is no charge at all, only that sense of relief and "the correct path" for me. But one must ask what is involved in the defensiveness of those who do the judging against vegans/vegetarians. It seems a senseless waste of energy to me. The bigger picture is a planet in trouble who is a being herself, animal suffering on a huge scale, starvation, capitalism used for STS-style profiteering at the expense of human health and unsustainable rape of this planet. 

I honor everyone's free will. And if using the term "plant-based diet" makes it more comfortable for the general population, I'm all for it. I don't care about being right, or standing my ground. If there is a way to get humans on board with acting consciously and responsibly within this world ecosystem, great. 

(Bold and underline added.)

I appreciate and agree with this attitude.

It would be one thing if ones personal diet was strictly a personal choice that extended no further than the end of their rectum. Each could then go merrily about eating this thing or that, and no other person would need to make a fuss about whether they ate that thing, or this thing – even if their eating habits lead to the demise of their own health.

But so far as I understand, our individual, seemingly personal diets have impacts upon, and consequences for, the whole.

While I think individual rights are paramount, I also think they must be balanced against the the responsibility to the health/well-being of the whole.

If twenty people are on a boat together with limited food rations, their fates contingent upon each other, I don't think it a personal choice for a few people to go hog wild on the rations at the expense of everyone's survival.

Likewise, if a portion of the meat-crazy world is causing our global village to live in an unsustainable way upon the planet, I think it well and good to raise awareness strongly upon the issue.

That raising of awareness, however, to be most effective, especially when it is destined to be an uphill battle, needs effective tactics and strategy. Coming from a place of self-righteousness, ego, or over-identification with a tribal culture (i.e., "I am a vegan and you are not.") is probably not a very effective strategy, as it may trigger emotionally charged reactions that eclipse the information which needs communicated and heard.

(11-04-2015, 11:31 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]That raising of awareness, however, to be most effective, especially when it is destined to be an uphill battle, needs effective tactics and strategy. Coming from a place of self-righteousness, ego, or over-identification with a tribal culture (i.e., "I am a vegan and you are not.") is probably not a very effective strategy, as it may trigger emotionally charged reactions that eclipse the information which needs communicated and heard.

This is the essence of the point I was making. My intent is not to attack vegans at all, whatsoever. I've seen both sides of all that, and am utterly indifferent, and the last thing I want to do is reignite any bickering about veganism/vegetarianism.

I was rather attempting to give a reasonable, approachable explanation why there might be hostility or disdain towards vegans. I would bring up many of the points Gary did were I attempting to convey to meat eaters the sometimes negative attitudes of vegans towards them.

I am not attempting to justify any of that hostility and disdain, which is of course absurd and counterproductive. Gary summarized it all very well, thanks dude.

(11-04-2015, 01:31 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]This is the essence of the point I was making.  My intent is not to attack vegans at all, whatsoever.  I've seen both sides of all that, and am utterly indifferent, and the last thing I want to do is reignite any bickering about veganism/vegetarianism.  

I was rather attempting to give a reasonable, approachable explanation why there might be hostility or disdain towards vegans.  I would bring up many of the points Gary did were I attempting to convey to meat eaters the sometimes negative attitudes of vegans towards them.  

I am not attempting to justify any of that hostility and disdain, which is of course absurd and counterproductive.  Gary summarized it all very well, thanks dude.

And yet, you are bringing it up again. Many here have, in passive and aggressive ways, labeled "vegans" as being extremists, zealots, etc. It has happened in all the "meat" threads, and outside of them.

I would hope, that here, in a community of people who want to evolve consciously, who from the Ra material have some idea of oneness and compassion, judgments like this which are unnecessary would be above our conversations.

Let's stop labeling vegans. It's not the point anyway. 

(11-04-2015, 11:31 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]It would be one thing if ones personal diet was strictly a personal choice that extended no further than the end of their rectum. Each could then go merrily about eating this thing or that, and no other person would need to make a fuss about whether they ate that thing, or this thing – even if their eating habits lead to the demise of their own health.

But so far as I understand, our individual, seemingly personal diets have impacts upon, and consequences for, the whole.

While I think individual rights are paramount, I also think they must be balanced against the the responsibility to the health/well-being of the whole.

If twenty people are on a boat together with limited food rations, their fates contingent upon each other, I don't think it a personal choice for a few people to go hog wild on the rations at the expense of everyone's survival.

Likewise, if a portion of the meat-crazy world is causing our global village to live in an unsustainable way upon the planet, I think it well and good to raise awareness strongly upon the issue.

Very well said. 
 

(11-03-2015, 06:32 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: [ -> ]If only I could just eat bananas and nothing else.  

There is a growing trend of eating bananas as the main staple of the diet. (Patterned after our closest physical relative, the ape, who builds massive muscle on nothing but bananas, leafy greens, and a few bugs who happen to be on the greens.)

Some people are, apparently, doing quite well on 20-30 bananas per day, supplemented with a few veggies, nuts and seeds. The key is getting enough calories. You might want to check out 80/10/10 by Dr. Douglas Graham. I gotta warn you though: it's rather hardcore. But it definitely can be done! Some of these people are serious athletes, fueled mostly by bananas. There are a ton of videos showing them in action.

...

(11-03-2015, 11:20 AM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]Essentially, it is taking the ideology out of diet, and with it all of the identification that we crave in order to separate self from self.

This is precisely why some vegans insist on the term vegan. Others, like me, don't care about labels. What's important is what's actually happening. If we can better raise awareness and effect more change by calling it plant-based, then hey, go for it! I 100% support it.

A lot more people will go plant-based for their health or even for the environment, than for the animals. That's fine. Whatever works. The end result is the same!

...

(11-03-2015, 02:45 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to add something about the reactions of others to my diet.

1. I have heard snide, cruel, ignorant remarks literally for decades because of being vegetarian. Most of those remarks, however, I don't think were meant in a mean way. The remarks about eating baby seals for lunch and the like, just come across as someone telling a joke. I have no problem at all being on the fringe, so it's easy just to blow it off. 

2. When it matters, in social settings with family and friends, everyone seems to be accommodating and kind about what I eat and don't eat. Perhaps this is because the people who know me have long accepted that I am "different." But I think there is a basic goodness in people. I have been vegetarian since 1993, and I have never had a problem in a social situation around food that I couldn't handle, and that others didn't try to accommodate.

It's simply not that difficult, folks. Family gatherings are not a problem. If nothing else, you can just eat the bread and not make an issue out of the cook making something special. You can still break bread. You can still enjoy the gathering, because it really isn't about the food, it's about the interaction and the love.

I've had the exact same experience. All the snide remarks came from co-workers and acquaintances; never from those close to me. I live in Texas and my siblings are all big meat-eaters. It's never an issue at family gatherings. Maybe in the early days, but keep in mind that was in the early 80s! Not even my obnoxious brother ever says anything about it anymore; hasn't in about 30 years or so.

...

(11-04-2015, 11:31 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate and agree with this attitude.

It would be one thing if ones personal diet was strictly a personal choice that extended no further than the end of their rectum. Each could then go merrily about eating this thing or that, and no other person would need to make a fuss about whether they ate that thing, or this thing – even if their eating habits lead to the demise of their own health.

But so far as I understand, our individual, seemingly personal diets have impacts upon, and consequences for, the whole.

While I think individual rights are paramount, I also think they must be balanced against the the responsibility to the health/well-being of the whole.

If twenty people are on a boat together with limited food rations, their fates contingent upon each other, I don't think it a personal choice for a few people to go hog wild on the rations at the expense of everyone's survival.

Likewise, if a portion of the meat-crazy world is causing our global village to live in an unsustainable way upon the planet, I think it well and good to raise awareness strongly upon the issue.

That raising of awareness, however, to be most effective, especially when it is destined to be an uphill battle, needs effective tactics and strategy. Coming from a place of self-righteousness, ego, or over-identification with a tribal culture (i.e., "I am a vegan and you are not.") is probably not a very effective strategy, as it may trigger emotionally charged reactions that eclipse the information which needs communicated and heard.

Agreed. And you just (partially) answered TFF's question in #14.

...

(11-04-2015, 01:54 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, you are bringing it up again. Many here have, in passive and aggressive ways, labeled "vegans" as being extremists, zealots, etc. It has happened in all the "meat" threads, and outside of them.

I would hope, that here, in a community of people who want to evolve consciously, who from the Ra material have some idea of oneness and compassion, judgments like this which are unnecessary would be above our conversations.

Let's stop labeling vegans. It's not the point anyway. 

I didn't participate in any of those other threads I'm referencing, and only mentioned them in the hopes that my thoughts wouldn't simply be lumped in with others'. I sincerely apologize for any distress I have caused.

(11-04-2015, 11:31 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]While I think individual rights are paramount, I also think they must be balanced against the the responsibility to the health/well-being of the whole.

Yeah, my view is that it's not even necessarily about individual rights, but about top-down political distortion of the food market. If you look at all the subsidies, government-issue special privileges, price supports, intellectual property protections, etc. that are afforded big agribusiness, it's easy to conclude that the current system is manifestly not the result of what consumers want. It's actually what big business and government want, and if anybody's rights are being violated it's those who want clean, healthy food.

(11-05-2015, 03:36 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't participate in any of those other threads I'm referencing, and only mentioned them in the hopes that my thoughts wouldn't simply be lumped in with others'.  I sincerely apologize for any distress I have caused.

You didn't cause any distress. I was speaking generally aside from my first statement. I admit to frustration at times when communicating on the subject of vegetarian/omnivore, but that is on me. All of my reactions are my own responsibility. I hope to always be open to other's opinions and general truth. 

(11-04-2015, 01:31 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]This is the essence of the point I was making.  My intent is not to attack vegans at all, whatsoever.  I've seen both sides of all that, and am utterly indifferent, and the last thing I want to do is reignite any bickering about veganism/vegetarianism.  

I was rather attempting to give a reasonable, approachable explanation why there might be hostility or disdain towards vegans.  I would bring up many of the points Gary did were I attempting to convey to meat eaters the sometimes negative attitudes of vegans towards them.  

I am not attempting to justify any of that hostility and disdain, which is of course absurd and counterproductive.  Gary summarized it all very well, thanks dude.

Hey buddy, I'm surprised you saw a relationship between the content of my posting and your own. I thought all of your posts to this thread were positive, helpful, well-articulated contributions that stood on their own, with some overlap but otherwise not directly related to mine.

My own post arose independently of your thoughts in this thread. Some background: the meat/veg debate has been raging on this forum for years now - the most intensely, sometimes acrimoniously debated and discussed topic on the forums. It is beyond my abilities and familiarity to summarize here, especially as it is a very complex, often nuanced issue, especially as strong personalities (above and beyond the information being discussed) factor into the equation, but I can say that one of the major consistent contours running through the discussion is this:



So what realization prompted me to share a thought in my first post? After watching a recent documentary (Cowspiracy - a title of credibility if I ever heard one!), I became keenly aware that what seems like an intensely personal dietary choice is not so personal after all. Our meat-heavy diet is, according to thoroughly convincing empirical data, killing the planet, to be simplistic; it is one of, if not the most significant driver in the destruction of the biosphere, to be a little more accurate.

If our diet - and the current means of facilitating/providing for that diet - have such literally global ramifications, is it still a personal choice that, according to the precepts of free will interpreted through the lens of positive polarity, ought never be interfered with?

Here's how I am approaching thinking about that question recently:

Our fates are linked, we who live upon this planet. And if a portion of the planetary group is living or acting in a way which may bring down the whole system, shouldn't, at least, awareness be raised?

Thus my boat metaphor. In a finite situation with limited resources where everyone's survival is contingent upon the choices of everyone else, I'm not so sure that it is a personal choice for a sub-group on the boat to live in a way grossly out of balance with the whole by overeating the limited food rations; nor do I think that such a group (of which I am a partial member) should be immune from feedback in the process.

So how do those who are not overeating on the boat relate to those who are? Especially as the latter group's activity will likely jeopardize the food supplies and thus the survival of everyone on board?


For the positively polarizing entities, considerations of free will must come into play, of course.

I think back to Ra's orientation with respect to those upon their planet who were, as they said, sleeping:

[/url]

Quote:[url=http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=89]89.30 Questioner: Would Ra’s attitude toward the same unharvestable entities be different at this nexus than at the time of harvest of third density?

Ra: I am Ra. Not substantially. To those who wish to sleep we could only offer those comforts designed for the sleeping. Service is only possible to the extent it is requested. We were ready to serve in whatever way we could. This still seems satisfactory as a means of dealing with other-selves in third density. It is our feeling that to be each entity which one attempts to serve is to simplify the grasp of what service is necessary or possible.

That is an enlightened attitude that I both appreciate, and invoke when considering questions of free will and spiritual development.

But, so far as we know, the Ra group never faced an ecological crisis on their third-density planet. If the very survival of their third-density home world was at stake, would those of Ra have continued offering those "comforts" to those unknowingly principally responsible for the destruction? Or would Ra have taken action necessary to check the destruction of their world?

(EDIT: Not implying that those who eat meat are "asleep." Some of the brightest spiritual luminaries I've met do actually eat meat. I think that by and large meat eaters the world over are unaware of the consequences of the meat production and consumption system.)

I don't know what they would have done, nor do I know what action is most appropriate in this situation. I defaulted to "raising awareness strongly" as an activity which seeks to respect the free will choices of others, but opens the way for activist-oriented action.

There are of course other factors complicating the equation on Bring4th specifically, including and especially the needless suffering of mind/body entities (aka: animals) who can and do feel emotional/physical pain, but what tipped the scale for me came when learning how a certain way of living/eating upon this planet - from the consumer to the system of supply-finance-legislation you describe above - is sinking the ship that is Earth.

According to Ra, two of our three nearest neighbors in the solar system sunk their own ship, catastrophically so.

It's quite possible it could be repeated, here.

Don't know how interested you are in any of that. Just sharing in order to explain the prompting for my earlier post as you springboarded from my thoughts.

Quote:If our diet - and the current means of facilitating/providing for that diet - have such literally global ramifications, is it still a personal choice that, according to the precepts of free will interpreted through the lens of positive polarity, ought never be interfered with?

I offer no opinion on whether free will should be interfered with for this or that reason. But I do think the root of the crisis we're talking about is misidentified.

I don't really think the issue of ecological impact is about personal choice at all; it's about powerful interests who manipulate consumer information, tastes, and behaviors for their own purposes. Your individual decision not to eat meat may have great metaphysical and personal implications, I'll gladly acknowledge that. But the incredibly complex and politically connected system we've developed for food has a logic of its own and "opting out" amounts to a rounding error for them. I applaud advocacy to change our dietary norms to be more healthy and balanced, but turning diet into an ideology, let alone a revival religion, with strict black-and-white appeal seems such a bad way to accomplish that, and indeed those tactics contribute to the reactionary attitudes that have been discussed in this thread.

Plus, let's assume that veganism takes over the world, but capitalism is left in place. I find it hard to believe that the same corporations relating so abusively and rapaciously to the planet today would simply stop doing that; no, they'd find some way to push the limits for profit again, just without animal husbandry in the mix. Modern agriculture is plenty of hard on the land without even factoring animals in.

The problem in my opinion is not that eating meat is bad, but that we live in an system under highly centralized control that is exploitative by design. It's a system that works very well, but it's simply not designed with our interests in mind as its primary end. So the feedback mechanisms built into it--such as supply and demand in the marketplace, which is what anybody who boycotts meat is exercising--don't really correlate at all with our needs and therefore cannot be reliably used. No matter what diet prevails, this system would make its consequences awful because it doesn't care about what you and I care about.

No, ultimately this is a political problem. I can respect what groups like ELF are doing at least to the extent they are treating the crisis we're talking about as urgent enough to engage in pretty serious direct action. But just changing what you buy at the grocery store won't put a dent in these incredibly politically connected systems of plunder. And so I don't see any need to even get into the ethics of interfering with personal dietary decisions.

Just my $0.02.

Jeremy, have you seen Cowspiracy?

...

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]The problem in my opinion is not that eating meat is bad, but that we live in an system under highly centralized control that is exploitative by design.  It's a system that works very well, but it's simply not designed with our interests in mind as its primary end.  So the feedback mechanisms built into it--such as supply and demand in the marketplace, which is what anybody who boycotts meat is exercising--don't really correlate at all with our needs and therefore cannot be reliably used.  No matter what diet prevails, this system would make its consequences awful because it doesn't care about what you and I care about.

You only talk about us (humans) and our needs. What about the lifeforms (cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, lambs) who are suffering and dying to be unnecessary food?

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]But just changing what you buy at the grocery store won't put a dent in these incredibly politically connected systems of plunder.  
...
Just my $0.02.

Your opinions are welcome, as are everyone's.

I disagree about not putting a dent in the situation. 1+1+1+1+.......=1,000,000 and so on. What we do does matter, however small the impact seems.

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really think the issue of ecological impact is about personal choice at all;

As a starting disclaimer, I continue this conversation strictly as a conversation - not as advocating a position in order to change your thinking. I say that because I do have a position different than your own, insofar as I believe I understand what you're saying.

Though you go onto qualify that statement above, I want to stop here and examine it alone.

Generally-broadly speaking, how is ecology impacted whatsoever except by individuals? Great multitudes of individuals, but individuals nonetheless. What other agent is there besides individuals and collections of individuals?

We are the ecology.

Just as the people are the politics.


It almost sounds to me as if you're saying, "You're just one person and your actions, despite the ethical/metaphysical implications for your personal path of spiritual evolution, will not have any impact worth noting." Am I understanding you correctly?

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]. . . it's about powerful interests who manipulate consumer information, tastes, and behaviors for their own purposes.

Huge factors in the equation, yes. What percentage of the pie these institutions make, and how much of the pie's recipe and production they control, I don't know, but upon further examination wouldn't you think it a bit reductive to say "it's about powerful interests"? I mean, by what logic can the consumer base be excluded entirely from your analysis? Are consumers simply mindless pawns who choose and act according to these powerful interests?

Manipulated though we all at various levels may be, if there wasn't a consumptive force into whose mouths the industry could put its products, if there weren't dollars being spent upon its continuation, then those "powerful interests" would be interests sans power.

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]Your individual decision not to eat meat may have great metaphysical and personal implications, I'll gladly acknowledge that.  But the incredibly complex and politically connected system we've developed for food has a logic of its own and "opting out" amounts to a rounding error for them.

Why did you passionately devote yourself to Occupy?

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ] I applaud advocacy to change our dietary norms to be more healthy and balanced, but turning diet into an ideology, let alone a revival religion, with strict black-and-white appeal seems such a bad way to accomplish that, and indeed those tactics contribute to the reactionary attitudes that have been discussed in this thread.

Yes, yes, and yes.

(11-08-2015, 08:40 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, let's assume that veganism takes over the world, but capitalism is left in place.  I find it hard to believe that the same corporations relating so abusively and rapaciously to the planet today would simply stop doing that; no, they'd find some way to push the limits for profit again, just without animal husbandry in the mix.  Modern agriculture is plenty of hard on the land without even factoring animals in.

I have a feeling that if you got behind my keyboard to respond to your own thought above, you could provide your own counter-point to this point. : )

Planetary veganism = end of all world ills, or end of environmental abuse, is not a platform that I've adopted, or seen others adopt.

There are a variety of other Distortions in this illusion, including those that the capitalistic system breeds. The particular position that I am taking is not that veganism is the solution to all the world's troubles, only that broadly engaged veganism would curtail (and ideally eliminate) one of the greatest accelerants of planetary destruction, and give the planet some breathing room, so to speak.

Further I suspect that a switch-over to veganism would yield a host of other benefits to individuals and society in other areas as well, including physical health and acuity of consciousness. It might even serve as a general vibration raiser. The unanticipated benefits/consequences would spiral out from there. (Not to equate a particular activity with automatic results in consciousness.)

Again, no silver bullet, but if third density is to continue, and if the planet is to avert destruction, it seems a necessary measure just to quit eating so many animals, and to thus quit funding and supporting the institutions that are plundering with abandon.

GMO, pesticide-laden, monocultured, industrial farming of non-animal products is, so far as I understand, hard on the land as well. I agree. But comparatively speaking it is the system of animal agribusiness specifically that is by leaps and bounds the more ruinous.

Shanks for the conversation. = )