Does Our Treatment of Animals Affect How We Treat Each Other?

[donk]

While our treatment of animals is the most obvious example of it, it is our treatment of all of “nature”, including plants and the land that is the most important aspect of the way our lives…which determines the way we treat each other.

John Zerzan uses anthropological evidence to show how domestication—the domination of nature by man—lead to symbolic language, which gives us culture, which brings us violence:

http://www.primitivism.com/emptiness.htm

It’s our relationship with reality that determines how we treat ourselves and All That Is.

[Akasha]

I think we can treat each other with kindness one day once we learn to treat the animals with kindness.

Gary Yourofsky

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xYP1GGdRMYo

[Pam]

Akasha, I want to thank you for bringing up this topic and taking the time to provide these wonderful quotes. To dishonor our fellow cohabitants on this planet with cruelty and indifference because we are superior to them is in my estimation, madness. I really don't know know how one can have internal dignity while in denial or avoidance about the way animals are treated. I recently saw a commercial on television that showed a gold fish flopping around and dying. This was supposed to be a cute and funny commercial. What does that say about us as human beings?

I do not believe humans will evolve beyond the chaotic mess we have created until humans evolve to honor and respect all living things not just their pets.

Although I am a vegetarian, I appreciate your contributions Mischief and Etheric Underground. Even though you choose to eat meat you are showing respect to the sacrifice of life. I have always found it very difficult to know that on this planet it is necessary to take the life of something just to live, whether that be plant or animal.

I am hoping that this thread will not digress into a vegan bashing as I have seen here before. If you are not interested in this topic and have nothing to contribute but negativity, please find another thread that does interest you.

[TargeT]

Posted by peterpam (here)
I do not believe humans will evolve beyond the chaotic mess we have created until humans evolve to honor and respect all living things not just their pets.

Chaotic mess we have created?

Really?

When’s the last time you were in Nature, like real nature?

Did you know that during WW1 the German and Russian soldiers called an unauthorized cease fire in order to hunt a super pack of wolves that was killing both sides in huge numbers?


Think that doesn't happen today? in 2011 a MEGA super pack of some 400 wolves was hunted down in Siberia after they killed 30 horses.


we didn't create chaos, we were born into it, we adapted to it so people could make interesting decisions like eating vegan; the world humans occupy (in the 1st world) is very gentile and very unrealistic compared to the ACTUAL world we live in (aka: without technology we would be screwed).

the vegan/normal eating debate is silly, make the choices you want, deal with the consequences... vegans are responsible for a lot of animal deaths just like regular diet following people; we should all attempt to be less cruel and more grateful for what we have. The "debate" should end with that.

some vegans face resistance due to their hypocritical ideologies and aggressive persuasion tactics (usually shame, blame, and guilt).

[Abhaya]

Just be as non violent as you can in your eating habits. Simple stuff

[Robin]

Posted by Akasha (here)

I think we can treat each other with kindness one day once we learn to treat the animals with kindness.

Gary Yourofsky

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xYP1GGdRMYo

Thank you for sharing this, my friend.

Gary is the "Mark Passio" of spreading the Truth about veganism and ethics. It is no accident that Mark Passio also abstains from eating animals.

What needs to be said about eating animals has already been said countless times before on this forum, so I'm just going to leave this one comment. If we are going to consciously evolve to a higher state of awareness and being, then we need to seriously think about what we want collectively to embrace when it comes to consumption.

[onawah]

I get too emotional about the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals to really get into this subject yet again on Avalon.
But I sign lots of petitions, write letters to officials, etc about better treatment for animals and for the environment.
I think the two issues are inextricably linked.
I was a lacto-vegetarian for many years, then a raw foods vegan for years, then a lacto-vegetarian again, and then for a couple of years I was mainly lacto-vegetarian, but ate some organic, free range poultry and a lilttle fish.
I stopped eating poultry when my kitty died.
( I began buying the poultry and fish for her, but there was always so much of it that I started eating some of it too, (she didn't care for it much after it had been frozen), though I didn't feel good about it.)
I'm still eating wild caught salmon once in awhile, but that will probably be phased out too before long.
The dairy I eat is organic and mainly pastured, and local when possible.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that eating meat has a negative effect on humans, even if the animals are treated humanely.
I think it's pretty safe to bet that spiritually advanced ET races are not predatory, but are compassionate and caring towards other life forms.
What goes around comes around, and imho, we would be wise as a race to emulate them.

[onawah]

I've recommended this video on a couple of other threads as well, but it's especially pertinent to this thread starting at about 1:21:00 in...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hvtY3Y4B6BY

[Akasha]

Just came back here to post the following short video by New York Times bestselling author, Kathy Freston and was really surprised and encouraged by all the post Gary Y. post posts (even yours Target ) so thanks to everyone who is helping maintain the profile of this thread, for and against.

Target, in response to your highlighting of the mega wolf pack phenomenon, one would have to seriously consider if man's hostility towards wolves over the millennia have not almost exclusively contributed towards such a phenomenon by concentrating their numbers into more and more remote, but at the same time smaller and smaller areas of the globe. With that thought in mind, I still see peterpam's "chaotic mess" comment as perfectly valid.

You are also more than welcome to elaborate on the following statement (I'm not necessarily disputing it but I feel it would be prudent to give examples):

.....vegans are responsible for a lot of animal deaths just like regular diet following people.....

I would also suggest that adjectives such as "normal" and "regular" when put before the notion of carnism are misleading and evidence of conditioning. If the vast majority of the population engaged in a practice which you and I could both agree was actually abnormal and irregular (perhaps TV would be a good example), would that practice still be "normal" or "regular" solely based on consensus or could there be a higher, objective state (dare i say it?) of truth on the subject irrespective of mass human behavior?

Anyway, here's Kathy Freston on being a veganist.

[TargeT]

Posted by Akasha (here)
Just came back here to post the following short video by New York Times bestselling author, Kathy Freston and was really surprised and encouraged by all the post Gary Y. post posts (even yours Target ) so thanks to everyone who is helping maintain the profile of this thread, for and against.

I'll be the first to admit I'm playing devils advocate on this one; I'm a big proponent of free will and what you eat is a huge daily example of that, but a discussion with out two sides is basically just mental masturbation.

Posted by Akasha (here)
Target, in response to your highlighting of the mega wolf pack phenomenon, one would have to seriously consider if man's hostility towards wolves over the millennia have not almost exclusively contributed towards such a phenomenon by concentrating their numbers into more and more remote, but at the same time smaller and smaller areas of the globe. With that thought in mind, I still see peterpam's "chaotic mess" comment as perfectly valid.

since 7 billion people could fit in the state of Texas and live with the comfort of New York City population (pretty spacious when compared to how Asian country citizens live) it's also estimated that we have influence over about 29% of the land on earth (though occupy less than 1% of that 29%).

So I don't really agree with your above statement in the context that you said it.

Posted by Akasha (here)
You are also more than welcome to elaborate on the following statement (I'm not necessarily disputing it but I feel it would be prudent to give examples):

.....vegans are responsible for a lot of animal deaths just like regular diet following people.....

I would also suggest that adjectives such as "normal" and "regular" when put before the notion of carnism are misleading and evidence of conditioning. If the vast majority of the population engaged in a practice which you and I could both agree was actually abnormal and irregular (perhaps TV would be a good example), would that practice still be "normal" or "regular" solely based on consensus or could there be a higher, objective state (dare i say it?) of truth on the subject irrespective of mass human behavior?
.

it is regular, that is not a conditioned thought; for all of history meat has "been on the table"; veganism more closely fits what you are getting at above.

Regular:

reg·u·lar
ˈregyələr,ˈreg(ə)lər/Submit
adjective
1.
arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances.
"place the flags at regular intervals"
synonyms: methodical, systematic, structured, (well) ordered, (well) organized, orderly, efficient More
antonyms: haphazard
happening in such a pattern with the same time between individual instances; recurring at short uniform intervals.
"a regular monthly check"
synonyms: uniform, even, consistent, constant, unchanging, unvarying, fixed More
antonyms: erratic, unsteady
(of a structure or arrangement) arranged in or constituting a symmetrical or harmonious pattern.
"beautifully regular, heart-shaped leaves"
(of a person) defecating or menstruating at predictable times.
2.
done or happening frequently. and regular are just being used by based on their definitions, not with any attached emotion or inference.

Normal (though I didn't use it)

nor·mal
ˈnôrməl/Submit
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

also, "carnism" is a bit of a loaded term with LOTS of emotion attached (as most belief systems are)

Carnism
“carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system.

since "carnism" focuses solely on meat and ignores the rest of the Omnivore that we are I'd say it's not a very good term, rather ignorant really.

Vegan-ism (and it definitely meats the "ism" definition, more so than the fallacious application of "carnism") can work for some people, but it's just not a healthy way to eat based on our biochemistry. If you look at data this is clear.

Now, at the same time, the "vegan way", is a perfectly acceptable application of free will; just like celibacy or vows of silence. However, like most belief systems, the desire to impose that belief on others seems unavoidable.

and THAT is why I tend to disagree with it the belief.

[Akasha]

Thanks for your reply, TargeT. Regarding the wolves, I was merely pointing out that as man has developed livestock farming over the millennia, he has driven wolf populations further and further north (at least in Europe, the Eastern Block and Russia) to less densely human populated regions such as Siberia. That's well established.
Sure, you could fit the population of the planet, at the density of NYC, into the state of Texas but I don't really follow your logic since, as I'm sure you're aware, not many wolves have been sighted in the Bronx recently..... with the exception of within certain zoos of course. They prefer their habitat a little more rambling.

Now, as i said in my previous post, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on the following statement :

.....vegans are responsible for a lot of animal deaths just like regular diet following people.....

Normal (though I didn't use it)

Except here:

.....the vegan/normal eating debate is silly.....

I would venture to disagree here since many folk may be in a state of dietary transition whereby input from this kind of dialogue could be instrumental in swaying them in one direction or another.

.....it is regular, that is not a conditioned thought.....

My use of the word conditioning was in the context of what happens when a regular young child is confronted with a rabbit and an apple. The notion of playing with the apple and killing and eating the rabbit is totally alien to the child in question but through conditioning the cognitive dissonance which naturally ensues through such abhorrent acts (at least to the child at the time) is in most cases effectively managed.
Of course meat has "been on the table" for time, but if children had been given the choice at a young age rather than being duped or threatened by concerned parents into it's consumption wouldn't you agree that things might be different now?

.....since "carnism" focuses solely on meat and ignores the rest of the Omnivore that we are I'd say it's not a very good term, rather ignorant really.....

Melanie Joy coined the term "carnism". I posted one of her presentations on the topic near the beginning of the thread but I'll repost it here for convenience. IMO she makes an excellent case for carnism being deserving of it's "ism" status. Maybe check it out if you get time.....and feel free to comment on it too.

All the best.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q

[onawah]

IMHO, if there are more actions taken like this to awaken humanity's compassion, there is hope for the planet yet.
Right action begins with right intention.
There must be compassion for animals who suffer as well as for the humans who do not yet understand how karma works.
From: In Defense of Animals
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Last Saturday, May 31, IDA tabled at the 4th Annual National Animal Rights Day in Los Angeles, where hundreds of activists participated in a ritual to honor animals that suffer at the hands of humans. After a moving memorial service, activists signed the Declaration of Animal Rights, inspiring onlookers to join the movement. IDA distributed literature to help spread the message of compassion for all beings.

[donk]

I couldn't help but think of this thread when listening to Linda's and Art's back-and-forth (thanks to Calz, who posted this elsewhere), I tend to think her view on the situation fits well with the central thought of this thread:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kh8gOgK8oWk

BONUS: Serpo AND Mantis beings are discussed

[Akasha]

Abby Martin interviews Gary Francione. Gary makes some profound statements not least of which that the amount of grain used to feed the cattle across the globe could literally feed the world's human population instead:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QIcRDen6PEU

[TargeT]

Posted by Akasha (here)
Abby Martin interviews Gary Francione. Gary makes some profound statements not least of which that the amount of grain used to [s]feed[/s] slowly kill and fatten the cattle across the globe could literally feed the world's human population instead:

aaaannndddd FIXED!


Grass fed beef is vastly superior in everything except texture (the "marbled" grain fed meat is tender, generally because the cattle doesn't move much in feed lots).

[Akasha]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Akasha (here)
Abby Martin interviews Gary Francione. Gary makes some profound statements not least of which that the amount of grain used to [s]feed[/s] slowly kill and fatten the cattle across the globe could literally feed the world's human population instead:

aaaannndddd FIXED!

Indeed!

Posted by TargeT (here)
Grass fed beef is vastly superior in everything except texture (the "marbled" grain fed meat is tender, generally because the cattle doesn't move much in feed lots).

I appreciate that you aren't necessarily coming from the welfare angle with the grass fed comment, but you still represent a sector of the market which inadvertently ups the bar on animal welfare through your decision to buy such products and that is clearly less negative than buying into the factory alternative for sure.

However, watch the interview and you'll see how and why Gary rejects the welfare argument (grass fed, organic, cage free, humanely slaughtered etc...) in favour of the abolitionist approach.

[TargeT]

Posted by Akasha (here)
I appreciate that you aren't necessarily coming from the welfare angle with the grass fed comment, but you still represent a sector of the market which inadvertently ups the bar on animal welfare through your decision to buy such products and that is clearly less negative than buying into the factory alternative for sure.

However, watch the interview and you'll see how and why Gary rejects the welfare argument (grass fed, organic, cage free, humanely slaughtered etc...) in favour of the abolitionist approach.

Oh I think I am, I'm a huge proponent of animal WELFARE, I however will not ever support animal "rights", and free range cattle isn't an inadvertently supportive action.

everything is in the same system, the better "things are" (living conditions et al) the better the system is.


YET, I feel that expansion and entropy both must exist, the negative and positive are what keep reality functioning, now do you want to have the negative be the moon, or the earth, that is the question I suppose.

[Akasha]

Posted by TargeT (here)
the negative and positive are what keep reality functioning

I'm with you with regard to protons and electrons. However, extrapolating that theory out to the realms of suffering being necessary…."to keep reality functioning", I'm not so sure about.

BTW I appreciate that you are a proponent of animal welfare as opposed to an unconcerned meat eater and just to clarify, of course buying into free range whatever is not supporting the abolitionist/rights stance. I meant you were supporting the welfare perspective in my previous post. Sorry if that was unclear .

[Abhaya]

great video akasha! i always loved the argument of severly mentally disabled people. How is it that society grants them unquestioned individual rights when animals which may actually pocess a higher level of consciousness then some disabled people are never thought to be worthy of having even the indivudual right to life, let alone any other rights. I hope i can see the day when animal rights is just common sense. After all, only a hunndred plus years ago, the thought of black people having rights was as absurd as this sounds to many today.

[Abhaya]

thinking about it more and I felt like the "what about plants having rights then" argument was inevidable to follow. and rightfully so in many respects. But of course we have to kill to live on this plane of exsistance. horrible fact. But I was thinking about a compromise on where to draw the line on what forms of life are given rights. IMHO i think it only natural to base this on how conscious a being is, to the best of our ability to decifer (not perfect I know, but we can only do our best right?), beings which clearly have affection for their young, feel phsyical pain similar to how we feel it, display curriosity and awareness, should be given in my opinion rights of any sentiant being, and certainly the right to its life. And beings, which as far as we can tell, percieve the least levels of pain and least levels of awareness can be used as food. I think this is the best we can do IMO. Would love to hear ideas about where we can draw this line.