• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vegetarianism fights Global Warming

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Your example is specious at best. I give anyone as much respect as they earn. Many of these "royals" or "super-rich" that you seem to hate sight unseen are instrumental in doing great humanitarian and philanthropic deeds worldwide. Obviously you have an agenda that probably blurs your perception of reality. Peace out.

Did I use the word "hate"? I asked simply if someone being born into money, doing what they wanted with it, having no care in the world earned their position, deserved respect, etc. I understand that I cast that particular scenario in a negative light - and indeed I know you can understand the type of person I was more specifically referring to. Obviously a philanthropic individual under those circumstances is something else entirely - certainly something different from the archetype I specifically proposed and asked if you'd respect that type of person. And most of us don't do great things with the information and tech passed onto us by our forebears - which is why I made the analogy in the first place. I was looking for something that would be a common-ground understanding point. You think I give a crap about people born into money? You'd be wrong if so.

And my perception of reality is no more blurred than your own I can tell this especially from your retorts of things like:
So you think pigs should have the right to vote? What are your views on rattlesnakes?
I have and have had many animals shoes. Thank you dumb cows.

made in response to items I raised, spoke on or relayed that probably made you a bit uncomfortable in your own skin, if I had to guess. That's a completely expected response, by the way. This stuff isn't easy to swallow. And retaliatory, degrading, look-down-your-nose type responses like yours are nothing new for me when pursuing these conversations. The difference being - you couldn't make me feel uncomfortable if you tried.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You're right. We should be factory farming and leaving the safety, comfort and freedom of the animals as a side-note for the time-being, until we fix everything else.
Because that's exactly what I've been saying this whole time.:facepalm:
We go out and hunt. All that meat at the grocery store? Hunted of course! Stop saying "hunting" for goodness sake.
I'm going to keep using the word because some of us ACTUALLY HUNT AND FISH FOR FOOD! Some of us have actually eaten an animal that we have killed, skinned/scaled, cleaned, prepared, and cooked ourselves.
It's wrong to buy into factory-farmed meat, and only less wrong to consume meat that was procured on a small farm without actually participating in the nasty parts of the process yourself. There is a form of cowardice there - like it or not - because death is involved. You are a coward for not facing it. You always will be. So just own it, eat your meat and shut up about it being "right".
If you want to assume that, and overlook the real problems of factory farming and assume those same problems apply to small farms growing for a community (they don't), and assume that no here has actually went out into the woods to harvest a game animal for food.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Did I use the word "hate"? I asked simply if someone being born into money, doing what they wanted with it, having no care in the world earned their position, deserved respect, etc. I understand that I cast that particular scenario in a negative light - and indeed I know you can understand the type of person I was more specifically referring to. Obviously a philanthropic individual under those circumstances is something else entirely - certainly something different from the archetype I specifically proposed and asked if you'd respect that type of person. And most of us don't do great things with the information and tech passed onto us by our forebears - which is why I made the analogy in the first place. I was looking for something that would be a common-ground understanding point. You think I give a crap about people born into money? You'd be wrong if so.

And my perception of reality is no more blurred than your own I can tell this especially from your retorts of things like:



made in response to items I raised, spoke on or relayed that probably made you a bit uncomfortable in your own skin, if I had to guess. That's a completely expected response, by the way. This stuff isn't easy to swallow. And retaliatory, degrading, look-down-your-nose type responses like yours are nothing new for me when pursuing these conversations. The difference being - you couldn't make me feel uncomfortable if you tried.

Wasn't trying to. BTW there are far worse dirt bags without wealth that deserve no respect than any of those who's only sin was by accident of birth. Your responses seem to speak for themselves.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
If you want to assume that, and overlook the real problems of factory farming and assume those same problems apply to small farms growing for a community (they don't), and assume that no here has actually went out into the woods to harvest a game animal for food.

I don't care if you personally, or a few of you go out and hunt your own meals up. I'm tired of people completely missing the point. I am no longer going to respond to you at all. Don't bother writing again. You can, obviously, I am (thankfully) not your keeper. Just know you'll get nothing in return. Nothing personal... haha... just kidding. It's a little too obvious to be saying that.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Wasn't trying to. BTW there are far worse dirt bags without wealth that deserve no respect than any of those who's only sin was by accident of birth. Your responses seem to speak for themselves.
And again with the missing of points. I'm tired of it. At this point I'm just going to call it out for what it is - willful. Purposefully misunderstanding and replying with "well there's this one guy who lives under a dock in the Phillipines and eats only kelp that washes up on shore who doesn't fit the statements you're making, so ha! Oh wait... no... that guy jumped out a window to escape his sucky job. But nevermind - this still must somehow mean that your point is invalid! Cow shoes!"

Yeah - done replying to you also. This is the end of the line. Not even near worth the time I've put in, so I am cutting my losses.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
And again with the missing of points. I'm tired of it. At this point I'm just going to call it out for what it is - willful. Purposefully misunderstanding and replying with "well there's this one guy who lives under a dock in the Phillipines and eats only kelp that washes up on shore who doesn't fit the statements you're making, so ha! Oh wait... no... that guy jumped out a window to escape his sucky job. But nevermind - this still must somehow mean that your point is invalid! Cow shoes!"

Yeah - done replying to you also. This is the end of the line. Not even near worth the time I've put in, so I am cutting my losses.

Well....you certainly put me in my place, didn't you?
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you want to assume that, and overlook the real problems of factory farming and assume those same problems apply to small farms growing for a community (they don't), and assume that no here has actually went out into the woods to harvest a game animal for food.
OK, so it seems that you are well aware of the environmental impacts of meat eating and that's why you think we should eat less meat. Fantastic.

Before I continue, do you have any estimate of how large these "small farms" will be?
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sucks to be human, huh? Certainly there are ecosystems we are not aware of simple because we don't affect them. Your turn.
I'm not here to trade blows. The fact remains that humans are not so special or important, regardless of your religious or scientific views.

OK, maybe my question was poorly worded as there probably are ecosystems untouched by humans (they would be ruined if we did explore them). But let's just take a look at the ecosystems right now and how we affected it:

Rainforests- Amazon has reduced in size significantly throughout the years...all due to the ranching industry I believe.
Oceans- Pollution, ocean dead zones, over fishing etc.
Glacial Ecosystem- Not much to say...reduced in size significantly due to climate change
etc etc.

Humans have caused significant damage to the planet so its time that we re-evaluate our position in the world. Many meat-eaters have already done that, and have reduced their meat intake as a result. As is shown, bees are far more important for the future of the world than humans.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Before I continue, do you have any estimate of how large these "small farms" will be?
Assuming we don't have the gluttonous demand, I don't know exactly how large but overall it would be much smaller without the massive waste and unsustainable demands for food. And without the pressure to make bigger animals, that also means less resources being used.
And, per farm, those I have a pretty good idea. I'm surrounded by farms of all size where I live. Some of them, which have both fields and animals, aren't even that big. Of course needs determine the size overall, but we've been farming to suit our needs in ways that haven't been destroying the environment for a very long time. But farming to sustain profits, something that hasn't been done for that long, is having dire consequences.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why is it the little Nordic countries are always in the avant-garde? Denmark's now considering a red meat tax to reduce consumption.
The meat industry contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the combined exhaust from every form of transportation on Earth — a whopping fifth of the total. Beef is the biggest culprit, and it requires almost 30 times as much land and 11 times as much water to produce as pork or chicken.

Denmark's Council of Ethics, a government think tank, said that in light of these facts, Danes are ethically obligated to change their eating habits and that a sliding-scale tax should be imposed on foods that are proportional to their "climate impact."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...you-are-ethically-obligated-to-eat-less-beef/
 

Sw. Vandana Jyothi

Truth is One, many are the Names
Premium Member
Pranams,
I looked throughout this thread (well, I tried to skip the pages of brickbats being tossed back and forth about HOW the discussion was presented rather than the discussion itself, so I may have missed it, sorry if so) for the rationale for vegetarianism which Sri Yukteswar (Sri Yogananda's guru) advanced in his work "The Holy Science." I know there is disagreement between him and well, basically the rest of the scholars, on which yuga we are currently in, but let's not go there, it's not germane to the discussion.

The fact that it is a waste of the world's resources to produce meat for human consumption is basically irrefutable. I'm quite satisfied with the math and science on it. Posters speak here about luxuries and rights to meat-eating, etc. Yes, if you live in a country where you have that, mazeltov, you have rights and the means to indulge this "luxury." But as an aside, I'd like to point out that the Masters speak of shreya and preya (the good and the pleasant) on our journey to enlightenment. One can read between the lines about where I'm headed with this. When Natchiketas approached Yamadharmaraj to get the straight skinny on atma and Paramatma, it wasn't granted right away. God of Death demurred and first sought to qualify his disciple.

“Natchiketas, you are so young, you are so beautiful, you have to grow, you have to marry, you should enjoy this life. If you want, millions of celestial nymphs I will make dance and sing for you. If you want to live for millions of years in this body, I will have it be so. You will live as long as you want. You will have every type of bhoga (enjoyment), but please Natchiketas, do not ask me this one question and that is to know the nature of the soul and its goal.”

Natchiketas answers and this is so beautiful, tens of thousands of years before Christ Jesus said, “man cannot live by bread alone, but by the Word of God,” Natchiketas says the utterance, “Material wealth (bread), nothing in this world, can permanently satisfy the human being but the wisdom of the Self. Therefore, all which you promised—celestial ladies dancing, millions of years of life span, wealth, all that which you offered, why don’t you have all those? Because even after thousands or millions of years of enjoying these things, I will still have the fear of death. With fear, how can anyone enjoy? That is why I want the wisdom which makes man fearless. For I know that someday, you will be the ender of everything impermanent. I want that wonderful plenitude where you do not have jurisdiction, where death cannot penetrate, the citadel of immortality. Kindly teach me that wisdom of Atman, knowing which a man while living in this body could remain always peaceful and happy, realizing his immortality. Like a snake sloughing his skin, he will be capable of giving up his ego and remain in the truth of his own Self. Teach me that Atmajnana (wisdom of the Self), Paramatma Sakshatkara, Self-realization.”

Yamadharmaraja blessed Natchiketas and said, “My son, I tested you and you have passed. You only want the truth.” The god of Death continued. “Two are the ways, one is the good, another is the pleasant. In the beginning, everyone claims they prefer the way of goodness. Later, because good need not be pleasant, one undergoes several torments and feels, ‘I am not yet ready.’ He may take to the way of the pleasant. Pleasant need not be always good. Good may not always be pleasant, even though good could be absolute bliss and peace with a lot of agony and crucifixion to the ego and the flesh.

“These two paths are known as shreya (the good) and preya (that which is enjoyable and pleasant). You have taken the way of shreya, the supreme good, the way of Self-realization. As you are deeply interested, I have decided to tell you the nature of the soul and its goal....​

To continue, Sri Yukteswar invited seekers to examine the construction of the human body, it's teeth and digestive structures, compare them to the structures of true carnivores and then perhaps they would agree with him that a plant-based diet is the one most suited to the human body. He pointed out that true carnivores have long, sharp incisors for ripping and tearing the muscle fibers to get to the jugular vein or spine and dispatch the prey by exsanguination or snapping the spinal cord. The true carnivore salivates, gets excited and ENJOYS the sight of all the blood and carnage before eating. Ask yourself, as a human, how many times you've hopped on your bike to go get a front row seat for the purpose of enjoying the sights, sounds and smells of a slaughterhouse? Hmmmm? Another poster pointed out the same thing. Human beings hide from the hunt (killing) today. There's a complete disconnect of conscience and understanding about exactly how that "food" is acquired.

Sri Yukteswar also pointed out that carnivores have short colons. Meat goes in, blood gets licked off the jaws and paws, the digestible parts get digested and the waste is out in pretty short order. Human beings have, by comparison, quite long colons. The meat goes in, the parts that can get digested do and the waste then spends an inordinate of amount of time putrefying in the intestines before exiting. That's a health issue; that's a buildup of toxins in the body temple.

Lastly, Sri Yukteswar points out that the quality of Nature in meat is predominantly rajo guna. In an email to a newly vegetarian devotee who inquired about feeling cold and not wanting to lose iron, I opined:

Sw. V. responds,
Greetings, F. Your body is probably experiencing a transition phase as you alter your eating habits. Fish is the least of the “meats” which interfere with the purification process. In ascending order of “not to eat,” it is fish, poultry, lamb, beef, pork.

Part of the issue involves the level of consciousness in the animal. Higher up the ladder, the animal knows when the butcher approaches that death is at hand. It may have heard its slaughterhouse mates cry out. What happens at that moment is the animal, in its fear, squirts a shot of adrenaline into its bloodstream—the fight or flight hormone which mammals were given for their protection. It is pure rajo guna [a quality of Nature—energetic activity].

Unfortunately, the animal being slaughtered can neither fight nor flee, thus that hormone stays in the blood and tissues which is then consumed by the human. If you’ll note the ascending order list above, generally the “redder” the meat (bloodier), the more the yogis have said to avoid it. In the case of pigs, they are the more intelligent of the lot and it is considered that their terror is more.

That hormone, adrenaline, running in the human’s system, is not peaceful. If you also study the cultures of the world, the more warring (or energetic) nations are also the bigger meat eaters. It is difficult enough to maintain equanimity on the path in the world. We add or avoid additional anxiety by the foods that we choose to consume.
To eat or not to eat meat is a personal choice, of course. But remembering that aligning our thoughts, words and deeds with our ultimate goal--Self-realization--includes a purification process that can be circumvented only at the devotee's peril. Be smart about this. At least, hold your own ego's predilections accountable for any delays and/or upset you might be experiencing on your chosen path. Ask yourself, does or could this wisdom apply to me? Then act accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's not an excuse.
Nothing I could tell you about myself is verifiable.
You could even be a 14 year old girl living in New Jersey.
Anyway, you want to make it about the personal instead of the issues.....more so than I find acceptable.

What I say is about my values, which are neither right nor wrong.
You don't have THE TRUTH here.
What I challenged you to substantiate is your claim that the raising and using of livestock for human consumption need not cause environmental destruction. There is no reason for you to be asserting that claim if it isn't supported by the facts. (Which it isn't.)
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Meat is calorie, fat & protein rich. Before we discovered that "farming" thing that let us turn nearly useless proto-crops into things worth eating, meat was our best bet.
So evidently you can't substantiate anything about Shadow Wolf's claims about "our evolution [beginning] to revolve around eating meat," or get[ting] taller" or "our brain" (sic) "starting] to get bigger" due to eating animals.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What I challenged you to substantiate is your claim that the raising and using of livestock for human consumption need not cause environmental destruction. There is no reason for you to be asserting that claim if it isn't supported by the facts. (Which it isn't.)
It needn't cause environmental destruction....not even degradation.
But I note that raising crops also causes degradation, as currently practiced on a large scale.
So the issue is more about good practice for both, rather than one being bad, & the other good.

As for facts, tis hubris to presume they're all on your side.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'll just repeat: Prove it.
No.
I live in a farming community, & always have.
I'm just opining based upon experience & observation.
Take it for what it is.....I don't plan on providing research.

Look at me....I have a shovel (sometimes a ho,,,,,er hoe).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
No.
I live in a farming community, & always have.
I'm just opining based upon experience & observation.
Take it for what it is.....I don't plan on providing research.

Look at me....I have a shovel (sometimes a ho,,,,,er hoe).

I would agree that there are ways to do sustainable farming and ranching. It's just that the folks that actually do that account for a tiny percentage of all such activities. Most farmers and ranchers do not use sustainable methods. I would tell you that it would be veruy hard for you to experience and observe whether your local farmers' practices are sustainable. Are you measure topsoil levels from year to year? Are you measuring bio-levels within the soil? How about the underlying aquifer you're using? How about the folks that live downstream and/or downwind from your community? The odds are slim that your community is truly practicing sustainability. This is just a statistical claim. It's of course possible that you live in an extremely rare situation.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I would agree that there are ways to do sustainable farming and ranching. It's just that the folks that actually do that account for a tiny percentage of all such activities. Most farmers and ranchers do not use sustainable methods. I would tell you that it would be veruy hard for you to experience and observe whether your local farmers' practices are sustainable. Are you measure topsoil levels from year to year? Are you measuring bio-levels within the soil? How about the underlying aquifer you're using? How about the folks that live downstream and/or downwind from your community? The odds are slim that your community is truly practicing sustainability. This is just a statistical claim. It's of course possible that you live in an extremely rare situation.

A point made much more eloquently than I would have made with my ranting and raving earlier - and something I should have said in some form, because everyone who was replying to me was doing this same thing over and over and over - pushing some rare, one-off occurrence of someone doing things "the right way", saying that that somehow negates all of the horrors of which we were speaking. If you happen to get all your meat by hunting alone - and assure that the utmost care is taken to kill the animal quickly - SO FREAKING WHAT??!??! That's not the situation we're talking about here, and they know it. All the horrors still go on while they're "ethically" killing and prepping their meats - their special-snowflake purity in the matter doesn't stop a single thing.

Let's say the majority of people were avid fans of drunk driving, and lots of people were getting killed, and we all got together to discuss the negatives, and one of the drunk driving fans stands up and says "Well, my friend Pete doesn't even get drunk - there's something weird with his metabolism that makes alcohol ineffective on him. So see? We don't all do it. Now let's go get something to drink, I need to drive home."
 
Top