Bring4th

(10-08-2012, 09:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Ethically, why do you suppose people tend to give up 'red' meat first? Is there an implication that cows are more evolved than chickens? Or is it just because of health considerations?

Honestly, I don't really know. But I can offer some speculations!

I would begin by saying that I believe that most (not all) people who give up red meat, or become vegetarians, or even vegan haven't really the slightest clue why they are doing it. They think they know why, and can even repeat a few reasons that they have heard other people say. But that's just the thing... they are merely mimicking other people's behavior, and repeating what they have heard. They aren't really making a choice, since they haven't thought through the issue on their own, and are relying on others to do their thinking for them.

I suspect that the main reason people give up meat (again most, not all) is because of social pressure from the people in their immediate circles, seeking acceptance from others, or because they want to be different or project an anti-establishment image to others. The rest are truly appalled at what goes on in the meat industry.

I actually have little doubt that, throughout the ages, as individual people legitimately grew in spiritual awareness, they lost the taste for red meat and other land animals, then eventually sea animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, people do lose the need to eat altogether. This is because they are evolving beyond the human stage of consciousness.

Therefore, this change in food preference is a result of their spiritual evolution, and not the cause of it.

To be frank, I don't so much see it as a result of having more compassion, although compassion and spiritual growth certainly go hand-in-hand. I see it as a totally natural loss of the craving. In other words, it isn't "I am compassionate, and therefore won't participate in cruelty to animals by eating them." but simply "I no longer care to eat animals." or in the case of people such as yourself "I never cared to eat them in the first place."

Think about it this way... cannibalism is inherently repulsive to all but the basest of people. We don't need a reason, or compassion, to not eat other humans. We just don't. It offends our most basic instincts.

As with so many things in this world, when the throngs of followers viewed these spiritually advanced people, they tended to zero in on their outer behaviors, rather than the inner self, and falsely concluded that if they mimicked these same behaviors, it would bring them to the same level of enlightenment.

Fortunately, spiritual growth is the result of real inner work, not merely taking a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude as to certain behaviors and rituals. Unfortunately, human history is littered with examples of people willing to kill each other over conflicts in what supposed behaviors and rituals will bring them spiritual growth. And the "STS controllers" have played upon this faulty perception to the hilt. And the people, by and large, have fallen for this manipulation hook, line and sinker. Even to this day.

I mean, really, it would be quite humorous if it weren't for all the death and destruction which has come as a result. All of these monkey-brained people running around thinking if they eat this way, dress that way, talk this way, move their bodies that way, pray this way, and on and on, that it will somehow result in spiritual growth. It really is absurd.

Now... WHY does it happen such that the taste for meat tends to progressively move backwards down the food chain, until it disappears altogether? I'm not really sure. That still remains somewhat of a mystery to me. Although at the same time, it just sort of makes intuitive sense.

Quote:Ounce for ounce, chicken has as much cholesterol as beef (actually a bit more). I did it that way too, but only because a nutritionist told me to avoid red meat. Just wondering what your take is on that.

In my opinion, the whole cholesterol thing is a red herring. We must realize that when this "research" was being done on high-cholesterol foods there wasn't any control for other important dietary factors, such as sugar or antioxidants. And much of it, again in my opinion, was pushed through and overplayed by those in the food industry who were eager to sell the Americans chemically-produced fats like margarine and shortening. Of course, as it turns out, we would have been better off cooking with lard the whole time.

Quote:(The obvious Note: Cholesterol isn't found in plant foods.)

Well, that is true. Almost- some plants produce tiny amounts. But plants have phytosterols, which are very similar to cholesterol, and perform many of the same functions that cholesterol does in animals. Fungi also produce a similar molecule, called ergosterol.

Sterols, which is the blanket term for all of these molecules, are very important to all forms of advanced life. Their first (evolutionarily speaking) function was to allow large protein complexes to move freely within the cell membrane which added to the complexity of biological functions which were possible for the cell, and allowed for greater cell specialization. Later, these sterols were adapted to make steroid hormones, which are essential for long-distance communication in a large organism.

So sterols, including cholesterol are very important. And the fact of the matter is that the majority of cholesterol found in the human body is produced internally. And it has never been proved- at least to my satisfaction- that dietary cholesterol has much of an impact on blood cholesterol levels. After all, the primary mechanism by which the body gets rid of excess cholesterol is by dumping it into the GI tract.

The pink elephant in the cholesterol "debate" is why smoking increases blood cholesterol levels. IMO it should be fairly obvious why this is- because smoking induces oxidative damage to the arterial walls, and so the body attempts to patch the microtears with cholesterol.

Quote:I realize cholesterol isn't the only factor, but I'm wondering why people tend to avoid 'red' meat.

For health reasons, because they are told to. And because people, especially Americans, are prone to falling for argumentum ad populum which is the logical fallacy that states, since the majority of people (or specialized subgroup like doctors) believe something to be true, it must actually be true.

Hi Tenet.
I don't necessarily agree that most people don't really know why they convert to vegetarianism. Most are aware of basic research and many are health and ecologically aware. And even if people simply mimick others' behaviour, that's fine too because they will also benfit from the change and eventually realize the finer points of a plant-based diet.

Quote:Therefore, this change in food preference is a result of their spiritual evolution, and not the cause of it.

I agree with this. A meat eater can become enlightened (but he won't be a meat eater for long...)

I'm happy to see that we are closer in thought than I previously suspected. You're an intelligent person and it would be great to have you on 'our' side....

(10-09-2012, 09:23 PM)indolering Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Tenet.

Hi

Quote:I don't necessarily agree that most people don't really know why they convert to vegetarianism. Most are aware of basic research and many are health and ecologically aware.

There's probably no use in squabbling over the exact percentage. Who really knows? But speaking from my own experience out of those I have encountered personally, I would say about 1/3 had accurate information, and the other 2/3 didn't really know what they were talking about. Of course, your experience might have been totally different!

Quote:And even if people simply mimick others' behaviour, that's fine too because they will also benfit from the change and eventually realize the finer points of a plant-based diet.

Health-wise, yes. But spiritually speaking, no. I don't believe it serves people to run around doing XYZ while thinking that they are attending to their spiritual growth, meanwhile the real work gets ignored.

Quote:

Quote:Therefore, this change in food preference is a result of their spiritual evolution, and not the cause of it.

I agree with this. A meat eater can become enlightened (but he won't be a meat eater for long...)

Quote:I'm happy to see that we are closer in thought than I previously suspected. You're an intelligent person and it would be great to have you on 'our' side....

Thanks, though I'm not sure what would have led you to think otherwise. My views haven't changed all that much in my time here. Perhaps you had misinterpreted something? Oh well, no matter.

Happy to re-make your acquaintance, though I'm afraid I don't believe much in 'taking sides'. IMO- wherever there are two sides to an issue, neither is in possession of the truth.

Quote:About belief systems: I know individuals who continue to toxify their body - you know, Coca Cola and coffee and white flour and sugar - and actually believe that the more they consume the more immune they will be. Can one neutralize that belief system about being toxic and continue to toxify themselves without its affecting them?

Absolutely, yes. Again, it's all belief system. If you took a human body without a soul and nourished it, you would find that it responds to substances such as algae, things lower on the food chain, wheat grass, vegetables, fruits, etc. But as soon as you throw the soul in, you've got a belief system and you've got the choices that soul has made. For instance, Bob there may never have been sick a day in his life; he eats butter on everything and always feels wonderful, but his diet is atrocious. One day Bob dies of a heart attack at a young age, even though he has never been sick. Bob didn't really have a belief system about food; he ate the way he needed to eat so that he could fulfill what he wanted to do, which is die at an early age.

In that sense, everyone is doing what they need to do at any given moment. As you relinquish the judgment about this, you will all relinquish your judgment about yourself and your belief systems. Then you will come more into alignment with some of the more natural forms of food. If you're not there now, that's quite all right, because it's not going to affect you. Do you see what we mean by that? It's all your belief system.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_a...oyal03.htm

(10-09-2012, 09:23 PM)indolering Wrote: [ -> ]I don't necessarily agree that most people don't really know why they convert to vegetarianism. Most are aware of basic research and many are health and ecologically aware. And even if people simply mimick others' behaviour, that's fine too because they will also benfit from the change and eventually realize the finer points of a plant-based diet.

As witnessed by this forum, it is not easy apparently for most people to give up meat. Therefore, it would follow that there must be reasons to commit to such a lifestyle change . . .

I don't know any vegetarians who don't have clear reasons. But then again, I don't get out much.

Things are not always linear or simple. There could be many promptings to make a person consider a diet change: health, media information, friends' and peers' views, higher-self messages, and on and on. If you think of humanity as a soup, the soup is getting healthier, cleaner, more harmonious, lighter. As long as the diet change isn't forced by law or outside force, the diet change adds to the evolution of humankind.

Carla and Jim have been vegetarians for nearly a month now. Hope they still enjoy the switch.

(10-17-2012, 01:36 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012, 09:23 PM)indolering Wrote: [ -> ]I don't necessarily agree that most people don't really know why they convert to vegetarianism. Most are aware of basic research and many are health and ecologically aware. And even if people simply mimick others' behaviour, that's fine too because they will also benfit from the change and eventually realize the finer points of a plant-based diet.

As witnessed by this forum, it is not easy apparently for most people to give up meat. Therefore, it would follow that there must be reasons to commit to such a lifestyle change . . .

I don't know any vegetarians who don't have clear reasons. But then again, I don't get out much.

Things are not always linear or simple. There could be many promptings to make a person consider a diet change: health, media information, friends' and peers' views, higher-self messages, and on and on. If you think of humanity as a soup, the soup is getting healthier, cleaner, more harmonious, lighter. As long as the diet change isn't forced by law or outside force, the diet change adds to the evolution of humankind.

Good post, Diana.

Fishing or Gardening?

hopefully you all see this as amusing and funny as i do :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ubOaIhlRX0

and holy crap her teeth are sharp...lol

Outraged by Pink Slime? Actually, ... Could Be a Much Bigger Risk

Quote:The product is "so covered in bacteria that researchers at the University of Arizona found more fecal bacteria in the kitchen -- on sponges and dish towels, and in the sink drain -- than they found swabbing the toilet."

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what they're referring to? No, not dead cow. Guess again!

(06-27-2012, 03:04 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2012, 01:47 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]I am looking at it from the perspective of a vegan who would not have access to any supplements and who is pregnant. With what I listed, this mother and her baby should have all that is needed without any animals in the equation. I find this a bit surprising (a good surprise of course).

Pregnancy, Children, and the Vegan Diet by Dr. Michael Klaper MD

New Vegetarian Baby by Sharon K. Yntema (My story is quoted in this book, by the way)

The Vegetarian Mother and Baby Book: Completely Revised and Updated by Rose Elliot

Vegetarian Children: How to Raise a Happy, Healthy, Caring Child by Sharon Yntema

Baby Greens: A Live-Food Approach for Children of All Ages by Michaela Lynn

And this book looks great but dang it's expensive!

Evie's Kitchen: Raising an Ecstatic Child by Shazzie

Thanks for these resources! I came across this one last night:

http://wholesomebabyfood.momtastic.com/index.htm

[attachment=1108]

So true!

[attachment=1117]

What a photo, Monica, and I really love pigs too. they're such sweet intelligent animals, and have been so maligned...what's being done here is unconscionable. People who support this type of behavior will have hell to pay....

My standing theory on this is as follows.

First, make a basic diet consisting of fruits, nuts, non animal products in general in combination with snacks and a healthy total calorie and content intake.

Secondly, make animal protein cost correspond to required farmland in non animal protein (real stake is 15 times more expensive than soy stake for example)

Thirdly, try to produce as much of animal protein as possible from hunting/gathering/foraging activities.

In other words. Make sure everyone gets everything they want to eat thats healthy at all times. Then make sure that if they want to indulge they have stuff that is while unhealthy to them, not unhealthy to others. And then if neither of these makes the person content, then offer animal protein.

I estimate that this system would probably reduce animal protein use by 75-90%

---

Animal protein would be produced in a human way by:

1 all nature park actions that produce game. (Hunting bears that come too close to humans, herds of deer that are too large, etc.)
2 fishing that doesn't require nets.
3 all farms that have animals for secondary compost purposes (most organic farms would have a few cattle animals to eat all the non usable plant / etc)
4 foraging for dead insects (locust swarms for example)

These 4 sources of animal protein would be almost perfectly in balance with human intake requirements. Cattle cant live without caretakers and if taken care of in a good manner live quite well. Fishing is accetable unless it depopulates oceans in general, and most nature parks would produce a small but not insignificant amounts of meat if well tended.

All 4 would be symbiotic or semi-symbiotic and produce the required small amounts of animal protein to keep the option open and to require no large scale adjustements.

If all it would take to solve the eternal conflict between vegetarians and carnivores for all future generations is that we all agree to lower the price of non animal based food by 50% and increase animal based food cost by 1000% I would call it a win win. Probably would eliminate the whole discord that this situation generates.

(01-19-2013, 11:50 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]My standing theory on this is as follows.

That would surely be a vast improvement over what we have now! The only problem is: how to pull it off? There would be huge resistance.

Are you the one who suggested eating only meat from animals who had died of natural causes? Someone said that on another thread but I forgot who it was.

I had the dead animals and meat log towers and this discussion about this.

To pull it off you need to do 2 things. Convince states that their people will be well fed even if no farm subsidies are paid by the state. Which will be a hard arse thing to do, but possible.

Then, you need to convince the state that with farm subsidies gone, all involvement by the state into agriculture short of environmental and animal and hyigene standards etc should also be removed.

This will cause a natural balance shift where animal calorie intake will require about 4-8 times more money than plant calorie intake. While hopefully keeping the price of food itself relatively stable.

The only real way to do this is to convince states by a UN level law that they need to keep a stockpile of food that is sufficient to feed their population for 3 years on normal diets at all time. That will cause a moment of spike in the cost of food but after the current obligation of overproducing food to maintain the starvation possibility is taken care of by large scale storages and contracts at period intervals to renevew the storages. The overproduction will stop to a large extent but not entirely. It should, at least in theory, create a "food buffer" between the immediate market and its consumption usually very quickly or face it rotting.

Such a food stockpile would reduce the need for a buffer system of extra agricultural production. So, it would , in theory at least, work.

Hard to say what would happen for real, but most state scientists I read indicate that this is the outcome that would happen. New Zealand and its former farm subsidies and their removal are good examples of this.

Interesting idea! With the way things are going, in a few years the public might not have a choice. They'll have to drastically cut meat consumption, in order for the planet to be able to sustain the human population. There's just no way to continue what they're doing now.

To paraphrase Gene Brewer:
"I see plenty of folks crying about dolphins caught in tuna nets but who cries for the tuna?"

(01-20-2013, 08:09 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]To paraphrase Gene Brewer:
"I see plenty of folks crying about dolphins caught in tuna nets but who cries for the tuna?"

Exactly!!! But I assure you, there are plenty of us who do.

Thats why I recommend a total shift from net fishing to line fishing.

Line fishing would have a evolutionary pressure towards intelligence and avoidance of eating stuff that is unhealthy for the tuna, while net just has a evolutionary pressure towards being able to escape a net. Not as helpful.

Anyway. I have an odd view on these things anyway but I recommend a shift to long line fishing and then trying to get that to a dolphin non harmful state.

The worst is ocean floor trawlers, they just tear apart the ocean floor with huge nets looking for crabs or prawns or whatever and then just toss out the rest (smashed coral, starfish, etc.)

http://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/?tag=i...wl-fishery

(01-20-2013, 08:09 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]To paraphrase Gene Brewer:
"I see plenty of folks crying about dolphins caught in tuna nets but who cries for the tuna?"

This is testament to human ignorance and the sheep-like quality advertising and government control take advantage of so easily.

---

(01-20-2013, 02:38 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Thats why I recommend a total shift from net fishing to line fishing.

Line fishing would have a evolutionary pressure towards intelligence and avoidance of eating stuff that is unhealthy for the tuna, while net just has a evolutionary pressure towards being able to escape a net. Not as helpful.

Anyway. I have an odd view on these things anyway but I recommend a shift to long line fishing and then trying to get that to a dolphin non harmful state.

How about getting sea minerals and nutrition from seaweed--it's lower on the food chain and closer to light (photosynthesis)?

Dolphins caught in tuna nets, and whales beaching themselves, are trying to tell us something in the only way they have to speak to our hearts.

(01-27-2013, 04:38 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2013, 08:09 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]To paraphrase Gene Brewer:
"I see plenty of folks crying about dolphins caught in tuna nets but who cries for the tuna?"

This is testament to human ignorance and the sheep-like quality advertising and government control take advantage of so easily.

---

(01-20-2013, 02:38 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Thats why I recommend a total shift from net fishing to line fishing.

Line fishing would have a evolutionary pressure towards intelligence and avoidance of eating stuff that is unhealthy for the tuna, while net just has a evolutionary pressure towards being able to escape a net. Not as helpful.

Anyway. I have an odd view on these things anyway but I recommend a shift to long line fishing and then trying to get that to a dolphin non harmful state.

How about getting sea minerals and nutrition from seaweed--it's lower on the food chain and closer to light (photosynthesis)?

Dolphins caught in tuna nets, and whales beaching themselves, are trying to tell us something in the only way they have to speak to our hearts.

The message isnt that we should be perfect and never eat meat.

But rather that we should at least, individuals, make an honest effort to harm others as little as possible in the process of our own survival.

So, yes, seaweed would be natural increase in the diet.

(01-27-2013, 04:50 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]The message isnt that we should be perfect and never eat meat.

Why not? How can you be so sure that isn't the message they are trying to convey to us?

Vegetarians aren't perfect. But why not quit eating meat?

(01-27-2013, 04:50 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]But rather that we should at least, individuals, make an honest effort to harm others as little as possible in the process of our own survival.

Ra said "animal products to the extent necessary for individual metabolism."

So, being that most humans don't need meat for survival, then the "honest effort to harm others as little as possible in the process of their own survival" would mean to quit eating meat.

After all, if it's not necessary, then why do it?

I could make a point here about neccesity being subjective so that we can only go as far into public vegeratianism as people allow, which is only as much meat consumption we can remove from the public at large while providing healthy alterantives. That is to say, we can only eat more fruits and veggies and hope it inspires others to eat more fruits and veggies.

(01-27-2013, 06:38 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]I could make a point here about neccesity being subjective so that we can only go as far into public vegeratianism as people allow, which is only as much meat consumption we can remove from the public at large while providing healthy alterantives. That is to say, we can only eat more fruits and veggies and hope it inspires others to eat more fruits and veggies.

I agree with that. Maybe we aren't in disagreement but approaching it from different angles. I was referring to the personal choice of not eating meat at all...as in, why do it? whereas maybe you thought I was suggesting making it illegal or something...? And maybe I thought you were referring to a personal choice when you meant a collective choice...?

I start from the assumption that we are always dealing with how the collective might be best adviced on how to perform as I assume we all know how to handle our personal lives and choices perfectly unless otherwise queried.

So i approach this from a point of view of social issues as laws/rules etc. And how, for example, vegetarian groups actually perform in politics and how they should perform in politics. My standing argument is that any large scale social change should only be attempted by either a group you know directly or yourself, anything larger than that is meaningless.

From that stand point, I seek to advice the abstract (the forum where I do not know all readers/posters) for example. I say try to reduce price of fruit / veggies and increase price of meat / meat products but decrease calorie cost overall more than increase even if availability is increased.

I in general try to avoid getting too up and personal about lofty social issues.

My take on this is reduce cost for fruit, veggie / healthy and increase cost for meat / unhealthy and increase availability of stores that sell proper food and decrease fast food and snack availability and go from there.

(01-27-2013, 07:17 PM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]I start from the assumption that we are always dealing with how the collective might be best adviced on how to perform as I assume we all know how to handle our personal lives and choices perfectly unless otherwise queried.

So i approach this from a point of view of social issues as laws/rules etc. And how, for example, vegetarian groups actually perform in politics and how they should perform in politics. My standing argument is that any large scale social change should only be attempted by either a group you know directly or yourself, anything larger than that is meaningless.

From that stand point, I seek to advice the abstract (the forum where I do not know all readers/posters) for example. I say try to reduce price of fruit / veggies and increase price of meat / meat products but decrease calorie cost overall more than increase even if availability is increased.

I in general try to avoid getting too up and personal about lofty social issues.

My take on this is reduce cost for fruit, veggie / healthy and increase cost for meat / unhealthy and increase availability of stores that sell proper food and decrease fast food and snack availability and go from there.

Ah, then your views now make more sense to me. Thank you for the clarification!