Why vegetarianism?

[Vinayaka]

@Vinayaka also I'm way to much of a wuss about needles to give them to myself.

You are not alone with that. For me, it just seemed easier to do it myself rather than drive somewhere every day. The nurse trained me.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was just asking for my own edification.

Wasn't trying to make a point with the question.

Yes, I figured as much. Same for my question though. Lots of people from all diet types do take supplements. I'm torn as to whether its a bit of a capitalist swine sort of story of creating a need where there really isn't one. It's pretty big business in some circles.

 

[Valjean]

I think eating plants is no more climate-friendly than eating animals. Possibly it is the opposite. Plants grow on CO2 and they produce O2. Killing them is bad for environment, if we believe CO2 is a problem. I think it is not.

The harm has been well documented and demonstrated scientifically. It's not a matter of opinion.

I don't believe animals have souls. But, I believe they can suffer and that is why, if people kill animals, it should be done in a way that doesn't cause much suffering.

So, does it follow that you don't kill people because you do believe they have souls? Is it just ensoulment that imparts a right-to-life?

Biggest question for me in vegetarianism is, how to get B12 vitamin. It seems to be difficult to get it, without eating meat and by what I know, the vitamin is very important.

Here you have a good point. Our species survived the Pleistocene because we ate anything available, and learned to cook. Omnivory natural to us -- as a rare species of wandering plains-apes -- but, with our current numbers, the ecological effects of our carnivory becomes significant.
To exist as we do today, many of our natural behaviors and inclinations must be curbed.

 

[Left Coast]

You are not alone with that. For me, it just seemed easier to do it myself rather than drive somewhere every day. The nurse trained me.

Ah, yes every day would be an issue. The version I'm receiving are monthly injections.

 

[Left Coast]

Did you have any symptoms beforehand?

Some fatigue, low energy. Hard to parse how much of that is depression but I figured, eh, can't hurt to try.

 

[metis]

No. While most of the bulk of corn is used for feeding livestock, most of the reason it is grown is for human food consumption. Humans eat the corn kernels. But the vast majority of the plant is not its kernels. It is this remainder of the plant, the stalks, cobs, leaves, silk, etc., which is fed to livestock. Livestock doesn't need the corn to feed on. It could be fed on pasture lands. As is done in other countries and was in the U.S. before corn became so prevalent. The livestock are simply eating those parts humans can't eat. Thereby converting an otherwise waste product into a usable food supply. But the corn isn't grown for the animals. It is grown in order to feed people. Regardless of the proportions used by each.

That doesn't make what I said wrong, Shaul.

Secondly, humans eating corn is much more energy efficient and involves less water consumption that eating the cow that ate the corn.

 

[metis]

... and eat a lot of feed that takes a lot of water to grow.

Exactly, which is why growing corn out west was mostly stopped because it needs so much water. Instead, wheat, barley, oats need far less water.

 

[Valjean]

Just because animals can feel pain doesn't preclude eating meat. You could simply limit yourself to only eating an animal by methods that don't inflict any pain. For example only eating it after it has died of natural causes or by accident. Or eating non-invasive animal products, which don't hurt the animal, such as lactation (dairy) products or animal excretions such as eggs or honey.

In my opinion, there's more to it than just eschewing the infliction of pain. It would be wrong for me to kill a human, even humanely, because humans have self-interest and a right-to-life. Killing them would be a theft of life.
Do other animals lack these rights? Why?

I reject your assertion that it is more climate-friendly to not eat meat. Simply put there are many variables and eating meat isn't less climate-friendly per se. It entirely depends on how it is done. Indeed, depending on how you select the production methods vegetarianism could be far less climate-friendly than non-vegetarianism.

It's not just my assertion. It's the assertion of all relevant science. Our massive animal industry has significant, negative ecological effects. Google.

I am an omnivore. However I have been a vegetarian during periods of my life. I don't have anything against vegetarianism. Being a vegetarian can be a fine thing. However it is not inherently morally superior to non-vegetarianism. But it isn't required for it to be a valid personal choice. Having said that, I find it odd when vegetarians feel compelled to promote vegetarianism based on morality. There are sufficient valid reasons to promote it without trying to base a case for it on the false premise that it is morally superior.

I don't understand. Why is our moral duty toward animals different from our duty toward each other? What puts them in a separate moral category? Might-makes-right? Self-interest? Deontological moral (religious) 'permission'?

 

[Quintessence]

I suspect "spirit" is also a term nebulously defined.

I mean something fairly specific by it, but it can be.

I disagree. A relationship implies mutuality: I intentionally act in a certain way toward the one I'm in relationship with, and they intentionally respond and we react to one another. My emotional sentiments toward, say, my favorite beach are one-directional. The beach does not have feelings towards me. The beach is not aware of me. It has no intention in my regard.

Have you ever practiced connecting with the Spirits of Place, whether it is The Beach or somewhere else?

In any case, it is very apparent animism worldview or practices is probably not for you. That is OK. You do not need to learn about it, understand it, or agree with it unless you want to. It just mean you are not going to understand who I am and what I do. That is no big loss, really.

IThe thing is, inflict implies the recipients of our actions are aware of what we do and resent or suffer from it. A rock is not aware I'm sitting on it. The rock has no opinions as to whether it would like if I sat on it. My cat would, though. That's why our ethical considerations toward cats differ from rocks.

I smile and think about Great Rock. It's a special, sacred rock in my local area that I had the good fortune of crossing paths with in my journeys. Great Rock is... well, if you do not experience or know these things I will not bore you with stories about my experiences. You do not speak to or connect with the bone-stones of the earth. That is OK.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yep, and I am here in Michigan. Maybe I should walk around nude? Nah, as my ears are sensitive to screams.

Other peoples' eyes might be sensitive too

 

[Secret Chief]

You are not alone with that. For me, it just seemed easier to do it myself rather than drive somewhere every day. The nurse trained me.

Holy moly that's not happening!

 

[Quintessence]

I don't understand. Why is our moral duty toward animals different from our duty toward each other? What puts them in a separate moral category? Might-makes-right? Self-interest? Deontological moral (religious) 'permission'?

Relationships.

It seems to come down to that, one way or another. Relationships and the value judgements that emerge from different kinds of relationships.

If you do not treat something as a person - as an independent agent or actor with its own needs, sovereignty, and nature - by and large you will place less value on it. You may then stop considering it as an ethical subject and the ramifications of doing things to it. This, we do, at our own peril. It's all interconnected. Whether or not one regards the other-than-human world as persons, the consequences of acting within that web will follow. I find regarding the other-than-human world as persons helps tremendously in actually considering the consequences of actions across many, many dimensions of the whole. The plight of all things is seen instead of rendered invisible or irrelevant.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Just under half a cow's diet is grass, and hay has to be grown for them to consume it. Do you honestly believe that raising cattle doesn't involve feeding them? You think cows grow to the size they do purely on grass and hay?

Yes. That's what grass fed beef is.

 

[Left Coast]

I mean something fairly specific by it, but it can be.

Have you ever practiced connecting with the Spirits of Place, whether it is The Beach or somewhere else?

What do you mean by "spirit?"

In any case, it is very apparent animism worldview or practices is probably not for you. That is OK. You do not need to learn about it, understand it, or agree with it unless you want to. It just mean you are not going to understand who I am and what I do. That is no big loss, really.

Part of being in this community is learning from people who see things differently than me. I don't mind learning new things. But I also have a skeptical mind, so when people make religious claims that sound a little...out there, like plants being people...I tend to tilt my head sideways and raise an eyebrow.

 

[Valjean]

Relationships.

It seems to come down to that, one way or another. Relationships and the value judgements that emerge from different kinds of relationships.

If you do not treat something as a person - as an independent agent or actor with its own needs, sovereignty, and nature - by and large you will place less value on it. You may then stop considering it as an ethical subject and the ramifications of doing things to it. This, we do, at our own peril. It's all interconnected. Whether or not one regards the other-than-human world as persons, the consequences of acting within that web will follow. I find regarding the other-than-human world as persons helps tremendously in actually considering the consequences of actions across many, many dimensions of the whole. The plight of all things is seen instead of rendered invisible or irrelevant.

Excellent points.
I'd point out that might-makes-right, self-interest plus religious and traditional sanctions were, till recently, used to excuse slavery and exploitation of "non-us," human minorities, as well.

Beyond our own tribes, humans do not naturally extend moral consideration to others.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. That's what grass fed beef is.

Only in a few areas of the country can cattle be raised to prime market condition on pasture grasses alone.

 

[Vinayaka]

Some fatigue, low energy. Hard to parse how much of that is depression but I figured, eh, can't hurt to try.

Yeah, that's the thing. Nutritional deficiencies are hard to figure, and there is a wide range of what's a normal level within the medical community. For example, that varies by country. But if you do a search on various deficiencies, like iron, B12, Vitamin C, etc. etc. many of the listed symptoms are the same. I'm a trial and error sort of guy. Do you think your symptoms have improved since you started the injections? I do take Vit D occasionally but only in winter ... we're so far north. Mom forced fed me and my siblings cod liver oil as kids.

 

[Quintessence]

What do you mean by "spirit?"

In this context, I mean the totality of something's nature or identity. The all-encompassing whole of what something is, or it's very essence across all times, spaces, and knowings. It is also ineffable and obscured; one never knows the whole everything about something. But through exploring and experiencing in as many ways as our finite abilities as humans allow, we can deepen our connection or relationship to something.

Since a practical example might help, when I try to get to know the Spirit of something, I'll try to learn about in many different ways. I love the sciences, so often I will start with what the sciences have revealed about something's nature. But book learning and sciences only take you so far. It is one thing to read about something. It is something else to spend a several minutes being fully present with someone - who does not have to be human - and experiencing what they have to teach directly through whatever senses and faculties you have. I like doing this with trees. Trees are great.

I know that mystical religion is miles outside of the typical frame of reference. I'm weird.

Part of being in this community is learning from people who see things differently than me. I don't mind learning new things. But I also have a skeptical mind, so when people make religious claims that sound a little...out there, like plants being people...I tend to tilt my head sideways and raise an eyebrow.

Yeah, I'm largely the same. The things I remark upon come largely from direct experience and practice. After so much direct experience and practice, your focus shifts to building relationships rather than wasting time on needless skepticism that just diminishes and naysays lived experiences. I have done way, way too much of that in my life in the past. I'm over it. I want to live, and live fully. That means telling my inner naysayer to shut the flip up and stop being such a depressing killjoy. Focus on what matters, which is lived experience and building relationships that matter. Listen, feel, experience, be in the moment. I can be discerning about what it all means later.

A focus on lived experience is part of why I don't ask others to accept my own as theirs. That would be stupid. My experiences are not yours, they are mine. What outsiders believe about what I do is irrelevant to my practice and I'm going to keep doing what I do regardless. But it can be fun to share and learn sometimes.

Excellent points.
I'd point out that might-makes-right, self-interest plus religious and traditional sanctions were, till recently, used to excuse slavery and exploitation of "non-us," human minorities, as well.

Beyond our own tribes, humans do not naturally extend moral consideration to others.

I dunno, I think that's some of our modern cultural biases speaking. Animism was widespread if not almost universal until more organized religions swooped in and various changes facilitated a fracturing of the human-nature relationship. There's reams of literature about this and I've only read a tiny portion of it, but it is really interesting to think about.

Modern humans are very... domesticated? Let's say domesticated. Because of that they don't have to maintain direct and personal connections with the land and its non-human denizens. That same distancing and isolation has been imposed on the "undesirables" and "thems" in human groups too, to more or less the same effect. The more you interrelate and get to know someone, human or not, the more you start seeing them as moral subjects or as persons.

 

[Vinayaka]

Only in a few areas of the country can cattle be raised to prime market condition on pasture grasses alone.

In the US, most grass fed beef is imported.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why do you eat meat?

Because I have a normal diet, and it's good for you. Plus, I love it. Plants are alive and sentient, too, so these moral arguments don't work for me.