Vegetarianism/Veganism and You

[Twilight Hue]

Hi, everyone! I hope everyone's lives are going beautifully! Because the Bahá'í Holy Writings exhort us to be kind to animals, treating them with the utmost dignity and respect, and I the fact that I've been contemplating this for a few years, I'm now re-considering becoming a vegetarian.

I would love to know where it is that you (or your religious tradition) stand(s) on the topic of vegetarianism and veganism. What does your religion say about it? What do you personally think about it? Are you considering or have you ever considered becoming a veg(etari)an? Are you now? If you are, how has your life been changed? How do you feel? Thanks a million for your wonderful responses! Blessings!

There is no set position one way or another in my discipline, yet it's well advised to be compassionate whereby I am repulsed by acts of cruelty attributed with slaughter of animals when a clean swift death can be had for the animal.

Meat is nessessary for proper brain health as vegetables cannot provide that, so it's ill advised to completely abstain altogether from meat, although keeping in mind that overendulgence like any excess, is a destructive and harmful behavior, so moderation is practiced to strike a balence.

 

[Chakra]

P.S. It may be counterintuitive, but I would strongly encourage vegans & vegetarians to avoid processed soy products, as the soy industry is a massive cause of deforestation and habitat loss in South America. I would also avoid pleather if possible, because it's a petroleum product. Not trying to point fingers here tho, because it's impossibly to truly "consume ethically" under the current economic system.

As much as I agree with you, most of the produce made by the soy industry goes to feed animals, which meat-eaters eat. If we really want to end deforestation, ending animal agriculture would be a good start.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Also it's extremely inefficient, as TONS of plants are needed to make very little meat. So if someone cared about plants, they shouldn't eat meat, as more of it is used in the process. And farming is polluting the environment in so many ways, from the dung polluting water causing dead zones, to cutting down rainforests to have cattle and soy production (which btw @vaguelyhumanoid , is mostly fed to farm animals, not humans). If fact, here's a nice big infographic about soy: http://wwf.panda.org/_core/general.cfc?method=getOriginalImage&uImgID=&*B<'!.K?

There's so much misinformation out there, it's ridiculous and a fantasy to think that meat, dairy and egg production come from this happy little farm from milk carton pictures. Anyway, I'd recommend to watch Cowspiracy for information on how damaging it is to the environment.

That would be quite the "gotcha", if I was trying to argue that meat production is somehow not as bad as production of soy products. But that is not my position. Rather, my position is that all industrialized farming and use of fossil fuels is an ecological nightmare, and should be ended as quickly as safely possible. The way I see it, if you're vegetarian or (especially) vegan, the whole point is to eliminate as much unethical food from your diet as you can. If you're gonna do that, go the whole nine yards. It's plainly obvious that most petroleum isn't used to produce pleather jackets, yet I also called that out.

That being said, I do acknowledge where you're coming from. I didn't know it was as little as 6%. But that's only one example. Looking closer to home, the mass farming of crops such as corn in the American Midwest has destroyed most of the native prairie ecosystem. Subsidization of corn has led to a massive increase in unhealthy food additives such as high fructose corn syrup. This has led to a situation where empty calories are cheaper than nutritious food. Again, my point is that both factory farming of animals and agribusiness are unjust systems.

Yet another example of unjustified discrimination between persons You get exempted but the little folk who are not deemed worthy enough to be granted staff privileges have to endure eternal "ignorance"!

Regardless, SF is under my "ignore sanction" and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Whomsoever I have the power to ignore and who makes a statement supporting "eating persons"/"cannibalism" will be placed under the said injunction. That is within my rights as an RF poster I believe.

And that IS a promise folks. I am ready and willing to "ignore" any prospective cannibals or serious offenders against the dignity of legally recognised persons and/or anybody who thinks that what they do is in principle OK.

If SF retracts or further clarifies his position on cannibalism/eating persons up to a level deemed satisfactory by the reasonable person, I will remove the 'ignore' injunction - so I would ask other people here to inform me should he do this given that his posts are now entirely invisible to me.

But I do not want to read justifications for cannibalism/serious offences against the dignity of persons if I can avoid them.

You yourself Quint have at least explained and clarified your position (even if I don't agree).

I'm going to try and explain this on @Saint Frankenstein's behalf, since I'm not on your ignore list. (SF, please correct me if I misunderstand any of this.) Saint Frank was trying to explain his abstract philosophical views on ethics. He does not believe in an objective source of morality, such as natural law or divine command. Therefore, under this view, no type of life would be inherently "more immoral" to eat than any other. Also, he never said one single word condoning murder. I'm pretty sure that most cultures that practice cannibalism do not kill people for food (see also @Quintessence's posts). As someone who has followed SF for a long time, I can assure you that he does have strongly-defined personal values. He's very against people slaughtering dogs for food, let alone humans. He just doesn't view his ethical judgments as rooted in any objective truth or meaning. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Chakra]

The seemingly popular notion that treating something with dignity and respect equates to not eating it is something that I find quite bothersome, honestly. There is perhaps no more sacred of an act than something being transformed into the very flesh of one's body. It's an epitome of connection and relatedness - a very literal estis, ergo sum. With disconnection from food production methods, that intimacy has gotten lost in much of my culture. And along with that intimacy, the importance of treating all things we kill to live with respect during their lives. I do not believe this should be about animals at all. To an animist, plants are people too, and there is no "ethical high ground" obtained by not eating animals. There is simply a loss of relationship there, and one that is ultimately unnecessary. I am honored to have Corn Spirit embedded in the carbon isotopes of "my" (is it really?) body, to have Cow Spirit within "my" bones.

While I am quite a fan of animism (and may partially be one- I don't know), is it really sacred when one species terrorizes and exploits the other? Animals can sense their incoming death, and they surely do not want to be a part of it. Shouldn't we respect an animal's right to live happily and without harm?

My thoughts exactly. Diet is ethically neutral, to me, as it's all the same.

She's referring to the animist stance that all things are persons (in the philosophical sense), that plants are imbued with a consciousness of their own even if we don't understand it. And science is demonstrating that plants have consciousness. They have analogues to the nervous system, and plants have long been known to react to their environments and to communicate with each other. They even like certain forms of music (especially classical).

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-...may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

Wouldn't you say that this has more to do with stimuli rather than the plants thinking, deciding, and rationalizing their actions? Plants release toxins when there is a threat nearby, say a caterpillar, and many think that the plant is "crying" because the caterpillar is munching on it. However, there was a study done in which a sound recording of a caterpillar was played next to a plant, yet the plant still released the same toxins, showing that it was not in pain or anything. It was just responding to its environment.

I realize that the idea is hard to digest for many people (har har) but I strive for consistency in my worldview. Most people seem to be operating on a varying levels of cognitive dissonance. Again, I'm referring to personhood in terms of the philosophical concept, not legal definitions, which are arbitrary and all over the place. After all, humans certainly kill other human beings with the blessing of the law in various circumstances, so even that is not absolute under the law.

Correct me where I'm wrong, but how is protesting against the Yulin Dog Festival yet happily eating meat not a form of cognitive dissonance? After all, if all organisms are the same to you, you should either be protesting against both, or not protesting at all. Just my thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

The seemingly popular notion that treating something with dignity and respect equates to not eating it is something that I find quite bothersome, honestly. There is perhaps no more sacred of an act than something being transformed into the very flesh of one's body. It's an epitome of connection and relatedness - a very literal estis, ergo sum. With disconnection from food production methods, that intimacy has gotten lost in much of my culture. And along with that intimacy, the importance of treating all things we kill to live with respect during their lives. I do not believe this should be about animals at all. To an animist, plants are people too, and there is no "ethical high ground" obtained by not eating animals. There is simply a loss of relationship there, and one that is ultimately unnecessary. I am honored to have Corn Spirit embedded in the carbon isotopes of "my" (is it really?) body, to have Cow Spirit within "my" bones.

But isn't the act of killing them, itself, a disrespect or valuation by utility? We don't kill each other for food. What principles withhold us from this, and why aren't the same principles applied consistently with respect to other species?

Plants as people: Personhood and a claim to moral consideration, to my mind, involves sentience, capacity for pain, suffering and joy; self-interest, anticipation of futurity, &c. I don't see these applying to plants.

 

[Quintessence]

While I am quite a fan of animism (and may partially be one- I don't know), is it really sacred when one species terrorizes and exploits the other?

Those are some loaded words there, and as such, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not seeing a necessary connection between being an obligate heterotroph (as humans are) and having to "terrorize" or "exploit" the things we must kill to live. Perhaps it suffices to say I see no reason to condemn any biological organism for being a heterotroph.

Animals can sense their incoming death, and they surely do not want to be a part of it. Shouldn't we respect an animal's right to live happily and without harm?

It's perhaps worth noting that animistic cultures were not vegetarian, and are quite well aware of other animals not willing to die. There are all sorts of cultural/religious practices surrounding this. This notion of "right to live" is likely a very modern idea, and is certainly foreign to the ecological realities of nature.

But isn't the act of killing them, itself, a disrespect or valuation by utility?

This is a strange question to me. I don't see how needing to kill to live means one is solely looking at the creature for its utility value. Nor do I see how understanding utility value necessarily means disrespect. It doesn't follow for me, at any rate. Maybe it does for you?

We don't kill each other for food. What principles withhold us from this, and why aren't the same principles applied consistently with respect to other species?

It is probably a couple of things. First and foremost, I've been mentioning relationships here and there before? Animistic cultures may recognize non-human persons, but it is important to understand that this doesn't mean they consider all persons to be the same. Cat persons aren't the same as dog persons, and you have different types of relationships with them. Those relationships in turn govern the cultural norms that a society develops, which then inform the behavior of members of that society. Contemporary Western culture, for example, places a very strong taboo on eating humans for virtually any reason, as we're seeing some examples of in this thread. That's a cultural norm, and one that is (or has been) foreign to other cultures and historical eras. Western culture is pretty notorious for its ethnocentric supremacy complex, which means we not only have these taboos, we think our culture is the "correct" one and others are "primitive" or "savage" or what have you. But I digress.

Plants as people: Personhood and a claim to moral consideration, to my mind, involves sentience, capacity for pain, suffering and joy; self-interest, anticipation of futurity, &c. I don't see these applying to plants.

This is not how an animist would see it. For an animist, sentience, awareness, consciousness, whatever the heck you want to call it, is a quality that exists in things other than animals, and at times, in things other than living organisms, such as rocks and streams. It's a very different way of seeing than is typical in Western culture. For an animist, not eating a particular type of animal would happen because your tribe has a special kind of relationship with that creature, such as if that creature is your tribe's totem. Then, eating them is taboo. What you don't find is blanket vegetarianism, because it doesn't make much sense from an animistic perspective. The way of regarding the relationship between humans, other animals, and other aspects of the environment is just very different.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Correct me where I'm wrong, but how is protesting against the Yulin Dog Festival yet happily eating meat not a form of cognitive dissonance? After all, if all organisms are the same to you, you should either be protesting against both, or not protesting at all. Just my thoughts.

I don't see a contradiction between being against torturing dogs to death (many of whom are stolen pets) and eating meat in general. I'm not a fan of animal cruelty.

 

[Chakra]

I don't see a contradiction between being against torturing dogs to death (many of whom are stolen pets) and eating meat in general. I'm not a fan of animal cruelty.

I get that. From an outsider's perspective, the Yulin festival seems a lot worse. You said before somewhere that you have watched slaughterhouse videos (like Earthlings) before, yet you didn't get any emotional response. Why is that, when the slaughterhouse videos also show torture and cruelty?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I get that. From an outsider's perspective, the Yulin festival seems a lot worse. You said before somewhere that you have watched slaughterhouse videos (like Earthlings) before, yet you didn't get any emotional response. Why is that, when the slaughterhouse videos also show torture and cruelty?

I haven't watched Earthlings and don't want to (I've seen enough PETA videos and so on). I don't like slaughterhouse videos and don't like industrialized farming. But a farmer beheading a chicken, goat or cow with one swift stroke of a very sharp blade doesn't really bother me, no.

 

[Chakra]

This thread seems to have died down, but animists and other nature-based religions should really look into the environmental consequences of animal agriculture. Greenhouse gases, ocean dead zones, deforestation, species extinction etc. I think it's pretty much evident that animal agriculture is a threat to the environment.

 

[Valjean]

Agreed.
Even if you're indifferent to the suffering there is still the fact that animal agriculture is the primary driver of global warming.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi, everyone! I hope everyone's lives are going beautifully! Because the Bahá'í Holy Writings exhort us to be kind to animals, treating them with the utmost dignity and respect, and I the fact that I've been contemplating this for a few years, I'm now re-considering becoming a vegetarian.

I would love to know where it is that you (or your religious tradition) stand(s) on the topic of vegetarianism and veganism. What does your religion say about it? What do you personally think about it? Are you considering or have you ever considered becoming a veg(etari)an? Are you now? If you are, how has your life been changed? How do you feel? Thanks a million for your wonderful responses! Blessings!

I'd say that we are given dominion over the animals, they are to be treated with respect as God's creations, but not equals, they are for our benefit one way or another.

So eating meat doesn't have to mean being cruel.. or something to feel bad about.

Animal agriculture is also not something to flog ourselves over, we irrigate and grow crops to feed cattle, we use manure to grow crops, we bring life to vast areas of previously barren landscapes this way. The excess nutrients are even naturally dispersed in water.

The mouths of rivers are always nutrient intense from natural runoff (whether there is agriculture or not) , so much so that creatures at the base of the food chain are so abundant, they process all the oxygen, keeping larger species at bay.

Ironically some people call these 'dead zones' but that is only from a humans/ fisherman's perspective, they are teaming with life. This is perfectly natural and healthy, as with many things, human activity merely enhances the process

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am not completely vegetarian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/guinness-fish-bladder_n_2878165.html

 

[Wu Wei]

Hi, everyone! I hope everyone's lives are going beautifully! Because the Bahá'í Holy Writings exhort us to be kind to animals, treating them with the utmost dignity and respect, and I the fact that I've been contemplating this for a few years, I'm now re-considering becoming a vegetarian.

I would love to know where it is that you (or your religious tradition) stand(s) on the topic of vegetarianism and veganism. What does your religion say about it? What do you personally think about it? Are you considering or have you ever considered becoming a veg(etari)an? Are you now? If you are, how has your life been changed? How do you feel? Thanks a million for your wonderful responses! Blessings!

What does your religion say about it? I have no idea

What do you personally think about it? I like the idea

Are you considering or have you ever considered becoming a veg(etari)an? I have considered both and have been both,

Are you now? currently I can say I that my diet is almost vegetarian

If you are, how has your life been changed? Well, technically I'm not, but it did change my life. It got me kicked out of my cardiologists office for being to healthy and got me off Lipitor.

 

[Sundance]

What does your religion say about it? I have no idea

What do you personally think about it? I like the idea

Are you considering or have you ever considered becoming a veg(etari)an? I have considered both and have been both,

Are you now? currently I can say I that my diet is almost vegetarian

If you are, how has your life been changed? Well, technically I'm not, but it did change my life. It got me kicked out of my cardiologists office for being to healthy and got me off Lipitor.

Very groovy, Wu Wei!

 

[Valjean]

I'd say that we are given dominion over the animals, they are to be treated with respect as God's creations, but not equals, they are for our benefit one way or another.

So eating meat doesn't have to mean being cruel.. or something to feel bad about.

I don't believe we were given dominion over the animals, nor that they were created for our benefit. I believe we arrogated dominion -- because we could. Might makes right.
As for animal agriculture as it's practiced today, only someone ignorant of factory farming techniques and the commodification of food animals could claim it was not cruel.

Animal agriculture is also not something to flog ourselves over, we irrigate and grow crops to feed cattle, we use manure to grow crops, we bring life to vast areas of previously barren landscapes this way. The excess nutrients are even naturally dispersed in water.

The mouths of rivers are always nutrient intense from natural runoff (whether there is agriculture or not) , so much so that creatures at the base of the food chain are so abundant, they process all the oxygen, keeping larger species at bay.

Ironically some people call these 'dead zones' but that is only from a humans/ fisherman's perspective, they are teaming with life. This is perfectly natural and healthy, as with many things, human activity merely enhances the process

The dead zones are not natural, and the microscopic life they are "teeming With" is ecologically disastrous to healthy marine ecosystems.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This thread seems to have died down, but animists and other nature-based religions should really look into the environmental consequences of animal agriculture. Greenhouse gases, ocean dead zones, deforestation, species extinction etc. I think it's pretty much evident that animal agriculture is a threat to the environment.

I don't think you can blame all those things on just animal farming. Like the ocean dead zones and the gigantic garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Valjean]

The dead zones are the product of all agricultural runoff. Of course, most of the grain in the US goes to feed animals, not people directly.
The garbage patch -- that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't believe we were given dominion over the animals, nor that they were created for our benefit. I believe we arrogated dominion -- because we could. Might makes right.
As for animal agriculture as it's practiced today, only someone ignorant of factory farming techniques and the commodification of food animals could claim it was not cruel.

The dead zones are not natural, and the microscopic life they are "teeming With" is ecologically disastrous to healthy marine ecosystems.

The dead zones are the product of all agricultural runoff. Of course, most of the grain in the US goes to feed animals, not people directly.
The garbage patch -- that's a whole different kettle of fish.

They are a result of all the extra nutrition where a river meets the sea, and this happens whether the source is from agricultural or natural vegetation, though obviously agricultural runoff is generally more intensely nutritious..

What we humans call garbage, is often vital nutrition and habitat for animals. In the middle of the ocean, in places once devoid of life, vegetation and fish thrive among floating garbage. It may not sound pretty to us, or mesh with our Little Mermaid visions of life under the sea, but the real wildlife is glad of it.

All this is not to say that humans are not guilty of any negative environmental impacts, staggering quantities of birds, large migrating species and birds of prey, are killed by pulmonary barotrauma- having their lungs sucked out by vacuums created by wind turbines, vastly more than the gulf oil spill killed - and every single year

 

[Wu Wei]

Very groovy, Wu Wei!

Thanks, and I lost 30 pounds too