Many creatures sadly die to provide our food.

[leth]

They stopped chasing the animals with spears and arrows.

After someone came up with the idea of raising animals for eating.

This is a good thing,well at least a Nuetral cause.

 

I disagree, the modern industrial way fo farming animals is far from caring of the animals, there are plenty of moveis about this if you are interested. But even the old less industrious and fankly speaking horrible ways of raising animals for meat could arguably be worse than leting animals live in the wild. (Do you know how mos modern meat is produced, how does life look for the average chicken that will become chicken meat?)

 

And mostly the farm animals are well cared for, yet there is sadness when they leave the farm.

Wild animals spared,well not really,at best diminished and displaced.

 

This is not really the case, it's a rather nuanced and glorfied picture of farm animals. Hunting of course takes the life of the animal which is arguable wrong but does not in anyway oppress it before that.

 

Maybe we could all try to become air airarian,haven't heard much about these practices for many years.

Return of Airarian Knights.

 

This is not practicable, we must seek to use pracitcable ways to live that are alingned with our ethical reasoning. And to stop eating or using animal products is in this modern age practicable as opposed to the idea that we can survive solely on air.

[leth]

And BTW, people are killing people for no good reason at all.  At least if we eat what is killed there was a purpose.

 

While it is true that people do kill people, I don't think this in any way speaks about how we should treat any living being or whether it is right or wrong to kill certain living beings for sustanance.

 

Surely if we kill an animal and the make use of it's remains that makes more sense that just killing it, but it doesn't really justify killing it. Especially so if there are other ways to do things which does not require us to kill an animal.

[leth]

It's easy to play victim and blame other people, governments etc for controlling and poisoning us...but that is not taking responsibility.

 

All of the suffering, animal suffering, human suffering, environmental destruction blah, blah blah repeater all comes down to one thing alone.

 

The choice of humanity to sleep.

 

We chose long ago to "take a rest" from responsibility. And responsibility is about response-ability, not about a set of righteous rules we must follow or we are not responsible.

 

Humanity chose to sleep because taking full responsibility became tiring for us, too much spiritual work to do, too much to feel and respond to.

 

So, yes many creatures sadly die - but they do so in service to humanity.

 

All of the animals (at the soul group level, and many at individual level) know that things changed due to this decision made by humanity.

 

And when that decision was made, it was answered by the universe in the from of compassion...

 

So how can compassion answer said call with such suffering - well, it does not have that choice - it is "in compassion" for our free will.

 

But, all is well - both suffering and awareness lead to compassion.

 

Humanity never said it wanted to do it forever, so there is coming a time where it reverts unto light once more.

 

No, not religious dogmatic bullshit - simple wisdom gleaned straight from the face of Source.

 

To be completely honest that sounded just like religious dogmatic bullshit.

 

And no i don't think humaity chose to sleep, if if we regard humanit as an entity which actually makes choices as a sort of superset of individuals, then it's choice is not to sleep, for we have moral and ethics in most of our cultures.

 

There is no right choice...vegan, vegetarian, omnivore...

 

So you do not consider yourself to have mad the right choice or decision in this regard?

 

There is just causation.

 

Are you to say that you are amoral?

 

Until then the animal holocaust will continue to make the human holocaust look insignificant.

 

I don't really like this comparison, mostly because it is offensive to many people who have been directly affected by the holocaust but also because the ethics behind it is not as sound as one might belive.

Sure animals can suffer and that is a good point to why we should not make them suffer, but to compare it to human suffering is not so easy. Assumedly we are capable of suffering on a different intellectual level than animals, as such any comparison between animal suffering and human suffering must take that into account. And this is not an easy thing to do. However the fact that animals are capable of suffering is enought to form ethical arguments against hurting them, which make this comparison with the holocaust unnecessary.

 

And without amoral, how are either of those events in any way more significant than the other?

 

Every drop of round-up that destroys ecosystems, poisons nervous systems and reduces vibrational frequency adds more dross to the system - but that is the underlying cause - sleep, so why is it bad?

 

 

It's not - it just is...

 

I disagree, but then again i am moral, while you seem to make an argument for amorality. (I've always found arguments of amorality from a personal perspective a bit odd and in a sense incoherent, but that is perhaps because I have a moral standpoint on moral statments and view tham as fundamentally moral)

 

My point is that none of this is bad, there is nothing but unconditional free will and acceptance from the "creator" - so it's up to you and you alone.

 

What is free will, if it is amoral? What are choices if none of them are considered good or bad, correct or incorrect, well chosen or not well chosen? What is the point of making decisions if one is amoral?

 

To be or not to be, to sleep or not to sleep, to kill and eat or not to...

 

Who gives a shit!

 

I do, I care for my own and others health. I also care much for others opinions on caring.

 

I don't care what anyone else does, judgement is just as sleep inducing...

 

Arguable there is no reason without judgement.

 

Some people think you cant get enough protein from fruit and veg - who cares what uneducated sleepy knobs think?

 

Some people even think you cant get enough calories from fruit and veg - snore.......

 

I care, because i consider these people to be misinformed and they also spread this misinformation. And while I might be wrong i do think it is right to voice my way of seeing things and give them more perspectives to be able to judge themselves, and perhaps they will respond with giving me another perspective.

 

Some people think that because the world is so fucked up we should forget living responsibly, and forget even trying to live a healthy lifestyle free of cruelty and toxicity - who gives a shit...

 

I care, because people like this affect other people, and even the ecosystem which in effect has a great inpact on many lives.

 

But that does not mean you cannot change the world....one individual can change everything.

 

If one individual can change everything, that means that one individual have power over all other indivuduals which i don't really belive myself. I belive many have free will not just one.

[AussieTrees]

Stop it all.

No killing animals for food.

Stop killing and displacing native animals,stop burning the trees to grow crops.

Stop wild fishing,stop caged fish factories.

Please stop killing the young calves so we can drink their milk.

Probably should stop killing the mice as well.

 

Nuts we could probably live on ethical nuts,they must exist somewhere.You know the nuts that were grown without first killing every creature right down to the microbes in the soil,but will there be enough of this ethical foodstuff to go around?

 

Bananas are ethical,probably not.

 

What I'm trying to say,is it does not matter to much what you eat,everything we eat causes animals/birds/fish/insects to die.

[leth]

Stop it all.

No killing animals for food.

Stop killing and displacing native animals,stop burning the trees to grow crops.

Stop wild fishing,stop caged fish factories.

Please stop killing the young calves so we can drink their milk.

Probably should stop killing the mice as well.

 

Nuts we could probably live on ethical nuts,they must exist somewhere.You know the nuts that were grown without first killing every creature right down to the microbes in the soil,but will there be enough of this ethical foodstuff to go around?

 

Bananas are ethical,probably not.

 

What I'm trying to say,is it does not matter to much what you eat,everything we eat causes animals/birds/fish/insects to die.

 

This is true, but how much damage do we do? Should we not strive towards causing as little suffering an pain as possible?

 

Ethical is a relative concept, one thing can be considered more ethical than another. For instance when we feed an animal to be able to kill and consume it we are producing/using large amounts of food and water. If we instead focused all that land are on growing crops for human food we would save on the total usage of both land and water, but also suffering, becase we are killing one animal less. And while it can be said that there are issues with how we grow crop or the way we produce certain other plantbased foodstuff, it must be said that it is far worse to breeding animals to produce food from.

 

Bananas are anoter great example of this, while most bananas than can be bought in around where i live are somewhat problamatic from an ethical standpoint there are those that are less problamtic. There are fair trade and ecological bananas which while not foolproof it should indicate that the bananas are a better choice from an ethical standpoint.

 

Sure we can device an ethical argument on why most foodstuff is unethical in one way or another, but what really matters is practicability and which foodstuffs are more or less ethical to eat and our choices of foodstuff with this knowledge.

[Marblehead]

While it is true that people do kill people, I don't think this in any way speaks about how we should treat any living being or whether it is right or wrong to kill certain living beings for sustanance.

 

Surely if we kill an animal and the make use of it's remains that makes more sense that just killing it, but it doesn't really justify killing it. Especially so if there are other ways to do things which does not require us to kill an animal.

However, if we look at nature devoid of humans the process continues.  Some die so that others may live.  A wolf will always kill and eat the sheep if given a chance.  It is the Way of Tao.

[Marblehead]

Stop it all.

 

Can't stop it.  There are too many humans on the planet.

[leth]

However, if we look at nature devoid of humans the process continues.  Some die so that others may live.  A wolf will always kill and eat the sheep if given a chance.  It is the Way of Tao.

 

This is also true, but that does not in anyway argue for or against the ethics of killing. We are creatures able to think tehically about out choices and some would say that gives us responisbilities that are far greater that that of the wild animals. None the less, because someone else does something we consider wrong does not in any way justify us to do the same thing, and this applies to the behaviour of animals aswell.

 

De is the Dao.

[Marblehead]

This is also true, but that does not in anyway argue for or against the ethics of killing. We are creatures able to think tehically about out choices and some would say that gives us responisbilities that are far greater that that of the wild animals. None the less, because someone else does something we consider wrong does not in any way justify us to do the same thing, and this applies to the behaviour of animals aswell.

 

De is the Dao.

Yep.  So those who think it is wrong shouldn't do it.  For those who think it is okay might just as well continue doing it.

 

I doubt the lion will ever opt for eating white bread and peanut butter over a young deer.

[Karl]

This is also true, but that does not in anyway argue for or against the ethics of killing. We are creatures able to think tehically about out choices and some would say that gives us responisbilities that are far greater that that of the wild animals. None the less, because someone else does something we consider wrong does not in any way justify us to do the same thing, and this applies to the behaviour of animals aswell.

 

De is the Dao.

 

You need to study economics.

 

Many countries and geographies are unsuitable for large scale agriculture. Mountainous areas with poor weather struggle to grow much more than grass/scrub. Humans can't eat grass and scrub but animals can. They are also a source of wool/leather/glue and provide milk, eggs, iron rich meat. Where it is easy to grow crops then that's what will generally be grown. It's important to understand how the world actually works rather than an idealist view of it. Animals are reared at a cost. If it's less expensive and more economically viable then crops will be grown instead. Do we write of all land that is unsuitable for crops and the people who live there ? In the places where there is poor crop growth other resources and different production occurs.

[leth]

You need to study economics. Many countries and geographies are unsuitable for large scale agriculture. Mountainous areas with poor weather struggle to grow much more than grass/scrub. Humans can't eat grass and scrub but animals can. They are also a source of wool/leather/glue and provide milk, eggs, iron rich meat. Where it is easy to grow crops then that's what will generally be grown. It's important to understand how the world actually works rather than an idealist view of it. Animals are reared at a cost. If it's less expensive and more economically viable then crops will be grown instead. Do we write of all land that is unsuitable for crops and the people who live there ? In the places where there is poor crop growth other resources and different production occurs.

 

I've actually read a number of actuall studies on both the economical and environmental effects on breeding animals (from an academical viewpoint, becase i've actually studied nutritonal science), and while it is true that in certain places on earth it is not at all feasable to grow crops for human consumption while it might be possible to breed animals, It is also true that on a global scale it make more sense to grow crops that breed animals, and that the vast amount of land masses and water supply we use up on breeding animals is highly ineffcient ways to manage our resources. The earth is capable of sustaining a far larger populations of humans if we as a while change diet towards a more plant based diet than one based on animal products.

 

This is supported by scientific studies in both enviornmental studies and economics, and is a comon academical standpoint.

 

Furthermore the fact that animals are more economical to breed than it is to grow crops is only true in some very few circumstances, in general that argument falls on the same idea that animals need to be feed crops to eat and that the production of crops to feed animals always going to give is a net loss of energy and resources in sense of producing food.

 

So yes understanding reality is far more important than ideology.

 

If you have any serious studies in the field of economics that goes against this reasoning then please post them here so that i an read them and widen my views. Or you could just post the macroeconomical reasoning from a more theroretical level and let me judge for myself.

[Karl]

Fair call,

 

There has been far too much state intervention in the animal farming industry which can skew things. Subsidising beef production in areas where it isn't sustainable is ruinous and ultimately poor economics. Then there are the subsidies for maize farmers for cattle feed and methanol production.

 

However, it's not always necessary to farm meat intensely to the degree that crops need to be grown specifically feed them. Sheep, cows and pigs do pretty well on grass, hay and swill. The grass and scrub plants will grow in areas which don't easily sustain agriculture and thus provide a very sustainable source of high calorie, healthy meat which is often local.

 

In our part of the world we eat quite a bit of game such as venison. This is wild meat which is also very sustainable. Their habitats are often high, cold and rugged.

 

The economic facts are clear, but only if the state stops its wholesale subsidies being thrown at farmers. If it's true that it is more costly to produce meat, then meat will have a clear cost disadvantage over vegetables. People will buy less as result and likely of higher quality. The market should be left to determine this and it will allocate resources to the best possible option.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Karl

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Many countries and geographies are unsuitable for large scale agriculture. Mountainous areas with poor weather struggle to grow much more than grass/scrub. Humans can't eat grass and scrub but animals can. They are also a source of wool/leather/glue and provide milk, eggs, iron rich meat. Where it is easy to grow crops then that's what will generally be grown. It's important to understand how the world actually works rather than an idealist view of it. Animals are reared at a cost. If it's less expensive and more economically viable then crops will be grown instead. Do we write of all land that is unsuitable for crops and the people who live there ? In the places where there is poor crop growth other resources and different production occurs."

-----

 

There is much more to modern animal faming than this.

 

Crops grown as animal feed are being grown on prime agricultural areas, not mountains and scrub areas.

 

It's not a matter of economics. The econmics of animal farming are atrocious and accomplished by trickery and subsidization.

 

It's not about feeding many people efficiently. Animal food is very inefficient use of resources.

 

Here is a link to a recent documentary movie in which one guy looks into this, somewhat superficially, but it is an interesting intro to this puzzle:

 

http://www.cowspiracy.com/

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Edited October 7, 2015 by vonkrankenhaus

[thelerner]

now for a commercial break..

http://www.lolboom.net/this-lioness-killed-a-baboon-but-what-she-did-next-will-touch-you/

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I've seen similar clips and as well as I can remember it is the female predator that protects the infant pray animal.  Just shows that raw nature sometimes has its tender times.

[Bud Jetsun]

Can't stop it.  There are too many humans on the planet.

 

Each may only choose to use or discard ethics for themselves, not for others. 

 

To say it can't be stopped is a bit short sighted my friend, all non-sustainable processes stop.  The choice is if you want to wait until the last forest is cleared for cattle pens and the last river is poisoned with the blood and feces byproducts of the murder that defines the mass corpse eating ritual practices.  Either way it all stops, one way it stops after bringing more mass scale death and suffering to all living beings. 

 

For those who may have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise, it is indeed possible to thrive in vibrant health living from fruits and vegetables.  If someone believes it to be some detriment to physical performance, it would be a pleasure to begin a run or ocean swim with you and see who stops first. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[leth]

The economic facts are clear, but only if the state stops its wholesale subsidies being thrown at farmers. If it's true that it is more costly to produce meat, then meat will have a clear cost disadvantage over vegetables. People will buy less as result and likely of higher quality. The market should be left to determine this and it will allocate resources to the best possible option.

 

I agree that the economical facts are clear, the fact that meat is more costly to produce has been a fact for as long as we know, and still is. Meat has in many times in history been considered a luxury food, something which one could not eat as muhc of as we do today. The fat that meat is so abundance today is that our technology and industrial treatment of animal breeding allows us to produce meat in much larger quantities, unfortunatly this leads to a far wors treatment of animals. The idea that meat is cheaper than crops is mainly something that comes from the US, where meat is heavily subsidised. In most of the rest of the world meat is generally much more expensive, and it can be clearly seen that meat is a more resource heavy food by just looking at the price of meat in comparison to other foodstuffs.

[AussieTrees]

Bamboo luck,or is it baboon luck?

[Marblehead]

To say it can't be stopped is a bit short sighted my friend,

I am fairly well known for that.  It is reality that has places those limits on me.

[Stosh]

nevermind

Edited October 8, 2015 by Stosh

[vonkrankenhaus]

Modern industrial production of feed, animals, meat, eggs, and dairy is a very interesting study.

 

The industry producing these things is very very serious. Huge areas of the world have been and are being deforested to accomodate it. Laws have been made that allow taxpayer money to subsidize both production and distribution.

 

For example, a state department program allows that US taxpayers pay to build McDonalds restaurants outside the US. Of course, the US taxpayer does not participate in any profits from this.

 

Without government subsidies, the true price of meat would appear as high as it really is. John Robbins writes that a McDonalds hamburger is actually produced at a cost of $200.

 

Government and Industry have knocked that price down to one or two dollars.

 

They must really want people to eat that stuff.

 

Generally, animal farming is around 10% as efficient at feeding human beings as plant-based farming is.

 

Note that this is industrial production, not any kind of natural human culture.

 

People have seen the photos and videos of industrial animal production.

 

And still consider such products attractive and desireable.

 

Looking at it from a consumer viewpoint, this is producing products intended for consumption or not depending on consumer preferences and other similar ideas.

 

Looking at it from a production viewpoint, these practices are producing several things, including the "end user" - who sees themself as a consumer recipient, but is actually also a product.

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[rene]

Interesting thread.

I really liked the part about the ethical bananas.

 

[Marblehead]

Interesting thread.

I really liked the part about the ethical bananas.

 

Funny.  Last night on "How The Universe Works" they were talking about the biology/chemistry of life and pointed out that we humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas.

[dust]

The economic facts are clear, but only if the state stops its wholesale subsidies being thrown at farmers. If it's true that it is more costly to produce meat, then meat will have a clear cost disadvantage over vegetables. People will buy less as result and likely of higher quality. The market should be left to determine this and it will allocate resources to the best possible option.

 

Not sure about the bit in bold. People don't much care about quality, that much seems clear to me..

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Last night on "How The Universe Works" they were talking about the biology/chemistry of life and pointed out that we humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas."

-----

 

Did they happen to say what we do with the other 50%?

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus