Enlightened Eating - Dispelling Myths and Assumptions

[The Freedom Train]

I decided to make this a new post, because I feel like it is a very important topic. I have been discussing the issue of meat eating with my friend on another thread, and would like to take it on here. I am interested to see what people have to say about it.

The discussion lies in, I have found, two main points of contention:

1) All living things created equal? If so, then can we agree to include not just humans and animals, but ALL living things?
2) Are all living things sentient, capable of feeling - even pain and suffering?

These points being used in various arguments either for or against various diets, such as vegetarianism and veganism, that claim a moral high ground.

Re: plants being unable to feel in the same way the animals do. While they do not bleed or have the same kind of nervous system, from what I have learned in the book, The Secret Life of Plants, this assumption that they do not feel as keenly as animals is not true. Plants can feel pain, and are also incredibly psychic. I will include several excerpts from the book for you, but also suggest that you read the book to learn more on the subject of plant sentience.

(Also I would like to point out again that Simon Parke's main point about the ills of meat eating have to do, not with the question of whether or not plants can feel, but with the question of whether or not we as humans will accept the fact that all living things on the planet are created equal … and that any equal thing – apparently only humans and animals fit into his estimation - should not be eaten, at least according to him)

From The Secret Life of Plants (regarding Cleve Backster's experiments with plants – he was the nation's top expert in lie detector usage, and attached the instruments to plants, observing their reactions.)

“The most effective way to trigger in a human being a reaction strong enough to make a galvanometer (lie detector) jump is to threaten his or her wellbeing. Backster decided to do just that to the plant: he dunked a leaf of the dracaena in the cup of hot coffee perennially in his hand. There was no reaction to speak of on the meter. Backster studied the problem several minutes, then conceived a worse threat: he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes were attached. The instant he got the picture of flame in his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a prolonged upward sweep of the recording pen. Backster had not moved, either toward the plant or toward the recording machine. Could the plant have been reading his mind?”

“Backster first considered his plant's capacity for picking up his intention to be some form of ESP; then he quarreled with the term. ESP is held to mean perception above and beyond varieties of the established five sensory perceptions of touch, sight, sound, smell, and taste. As plants give no evidence of eyes, ears, nose, or mouth, and as botanists since Darwin's time have never credited them with a nervous system, Backster concluded that the perceiving sense must be more basic.

This led him to hypothesize that the five senses in humans might be limiting factors overlying a more 'primary perception,' possibly common to all nature. 'Maybe plants see better without eyes,' Backster surmised: 'better than humans do with them.'”

I include this because I want to make the point that just because plants are not fitted with the same “hardware” as we and other animals are, does not mean that they have no capacity to feel. In fact, based on the extensive and peer-reviewed work of Cleve Backster, it appears that plants are MORE aware and sensitive than most humans, who have been taught only to understand what they can perceive with their physical senses.

“In another series of observations, Backster noted that a special communion or bond of affinity appeared to be created between a plant and its keeper, unaffected by distance. With the use of synchronized stopwatches, Backster was able to note that his plants continued to react to his thought and attention from the next room, from down the hall, even from several buildings away. Back from a fifteen-mile trip to New Jersey, Backster was able to establish that his plants had perked up and shown definite and positive signs of response – whether it was relief or welcome he could not tell – at the very moment he had decided to return to New York.

When Backster was away on a lecture tour and talked about his initial 1996 observations, showing a slide of the original dracaena, the plant, back in his office, would show a reaction on the chart at the very time he projected the slide.”

My point in including these excerpts is that plants are highly aware and sentient beings. Even though they do not bleed in the way we do, they most certainly feel – as has been shown clearly through the work of Cleve Backster. I cannot understand how any person, who is lacking the heightened awareness to be able to feel what plants feel or communicate with them, can feel comfortable assuming that plants do not feel “enough” to warrant their consumption unacceptable – when speaking of killing and eating living things as a thing taken in degrees, based on the level of pain and suffering inflicted on the living thing in question.

Also I would like to point out the many instances of near death experiencers whose spirits left their bodies prior to the accident that nearly killed them. None of them ever report experiencing pain. Our spirit seems to know when it is time to leave the body and does so quickly. Actually, I had a past life regression once where I was being eaten by a tiger. I left my body before it started ripping me apart – the real pain I experienced was watching my mother, who was still alive, freaking out as she watched my body being ripped to shreds.

Also from The Secret Life of Plants:

“If a plant is threatened with overwhelming danger or damage, Backster observed that it reacts self-defensively in a way similar to an opossum – or, indeed, to a human being – by “passing out,” or going into a deep faint. The phenomenon was dramatically demonstrated one day when a physiologist from Canada came to Backster's lab to witness the reaction of his plants. The first plant gave no response whatsoever. Nor did the second; nor the third. Backster checked his polygraph instruments, and tried a fourth and a fifth plant; still no success…. Curious to discover what could have influenced the other plants, Backster asked: 'Does any part of your work involve harming plants?'

'Yes,' the physiologist replied. 'I terminate the plants I work with. I put them in an oven and roast them to obtain their dry weight for my analysis.'

Forty-five minutes after the physiologist was safely on the way to the airport, each of Backster's plants once more responded fluidly on the graph.

This experience helped to bring Backster to the realization that plants could intentionally be put into a faint, or mesmerized, by humans, and that something similar could be involved in the ritual of the slaughterer before an animal is killed in the kosher manner. Communicating with the victim, the killer may tranquilize it into a quiet death, also preventing its flesh from having a residue of 'chemical fear,' disagreeable to the palate and perhaps noxious to the consumer.”

I think that perhaps the reason why I have become almost adamant about this stuff is that I consider the viewpoint that plants are “safe” to eat because we suspect they do not feel in the same way that we do sounds very much like the argument that vegetarians and vegans are trying to make with those who are staunch carnivores. They say just because animals don't talk and aren't human doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to feel anything, and that they are in fact much more intune and aware than many humans would give them credit for. And I would have to say the same for plants. Just because they are not animals does not mean they have no capacity to feel, or that their capacity is somehow less attuned, sensitive, or warranting respect as equals. And again, this goes for ALL life on the planet – plants, unicellular organisms, insects, etc.

So I say, eat whatever you feel like you need to eat. We are all on a personal journey here, and there is nobody that understands more than I how difficult it is to work through feelings of guilt about eating living things and the suspected pain or suffering that this may cause. But again, based on all evidence and arguments that I have come across in my quest, I can say with confidence that ALL LIFE ON EARTH IS CREATED EQUAL, and that THERE IS NO LIVING THING ON THIS PLANET THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO FEEL. Sentience is a little understood thing – but I know that it is what unites all living things. And EQUALITY means that one living thing's sentience cannot be considered less relevant than another's.

I am not a plant now, but in homeopathy, the plant kingdom is my primary classification, and I have a very strong connection with the faerie realm. I have even been blessed by the corporeal visitation of a faerie while with a friend in the woods of Pennsylvania (who also saw the being, and we were both sober.) So I feel I have a lot to say regarding nature and the interconnectedness of life on this planet. I believe that I may have some of the tree spirit bloodline in my lineage and genetic makeup. My deep connection with the plants leads me to balk at the very idea that plants somehow have inferior capabilities to feel what is going on around them or happening to them. It is entirely clear, to me, that this is just not the case.

[TargeT]

Lots of "belief baggage" on this topic,, it's always baffled me that vegans disclude plant life from "life".

In general "non-meat" eaters are so dogmatic that I don't bother with this subject matter; the more confident/arrogant ones feel they are morally superior and don't care to listen to counter arguments (except to find ammo for their own arguments). The quieter ones feel much the same, but don't voice it as much (a rare thing with vegans).

in reality all life (and even "not-life") is very much the same, just different configurations of the same molecules that lend to different outcomes (mix them this way: plant, mix them that way: dog, mix another way... Rock?).

[etheric underground]

Those of the animal kingdom ( and Plant) give themselves fully knowing the requirements we as their supposed guardians need to be sustained here in 3d.
My cultures ideology is that the animal takes on human capabilities by being consumed and we become more physically able ( 3d tuned) in the process.
Hence the heaviness we feel after a large plate of animal flesh.
We forget that this is a non reality planet...we are not truly physical it is a construct that we project with our minds. So in the essence of eating, drinking etc... is it not all just another projection that ultimately binds us to believing in this matrix

[greybeard]

Ultimately you are not the body but you have a responsibility to look after it.

The moment you get into this food, or style of eating is more helpful to spiritual progress than another, then you have fallen for a concept.
Its not true.
All concepts are binding and limiting.

Any identification with being a this or that, any I am a this label, is actually sabotaging discovery --Self realization--it is strengthening individuality, separation etc.
It implies superiority.

There is no place were "God" is not present.
So yes plants are very much alive and aware in their own way.

Ch

[Akasha]

We indirectly consume many times more plants if we consume animal flesh since the amount of plants needed to produce that flesh must be taken into consideration - an extremely inefficient method of food production.

So, even if we assume plants have feelings too and thus suffer just as animals do, do we really want to minimize that suffering as much as possible or are we just using Cleve Backster’s “research” (controlled experiments that have attempted to replicate Backster's findings have failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster)) to justify our palates' desires?

(See this (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62855-Does-Our-Treatment-of-Animals-Affect-How-We-Treat-Each-Other&p=912142&viewfull=1#post912142) post too)

[Akasha]

Those of the animal kingdom ( and Plant) give themselves fully knowing the requirements we as their supposed guardians need to be sustained here in 3d.
My cultures ideology is that the animal takes on human capabilities by being consumed and we become more physically able ( 3d tuned) in the process.
Hence the heaviness we feel after a large plate of animal flesh.
We forget that this is a non reality planet...we are not truly physical it is a construct that we project with our minds. So in the essence of eating, drinking etc... is it not all just another projection that ultimately binds us to believing in this matrix

Show me any footage of animals "giving themselves" - just one clip.

[Isserley]

Lots of "belief baggage" on this topic,, it's always baffled me that vegans disclude plant life from "life".

In general "non-meat" eaters are so dogmatic that I don't bother with this subject matter; the more confident/arrogant ones feel they are morally superior and don't care to listen to counter arguments (except to find ammo for their own arguments). The quieter ones feel much the same, but don't voice it as much (a rare thing with vegans).

in reality all life (and even "not-life") is very much the same, just different configurations of the same molecules that lend to different outcomes (mix them this way: plant, mix them that way: dog, mix another way... Rock?).

Yes we are all the same mix of elements simply because we are all part of the material world. You ignore the fact that not all (living) things suffer the same.
Humans can identify with mammals .. little harder with apple which is understandable because the apple does not moan while biting and do not suffer in cramped box while you grow it for food.. this is not the same. Empathy works for things we can naturally relate. Living creatures that can suffer the same way as we can.
Everything is very simple for me - if something doesnt want to be eaten - I dont eat it..

[Akasha]

This cartoon sums it up concisely:

http://veganindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/173_plants.jpg

[greybeard]

My Mum gave me good advice " If you cant kill it your self don't eat it."
For that reason I don't eat meat or fish
I don't label my self as vegetarian--or claim my diet is a spiritual in anyway

Ch

[TargeT]

This cartoon sums it up concisely:


Generally people bring up the plant thing to show how hypocritical that argument is, not as a literal example.

The cartoon kind of almost works for that too, however.



Yes we are all the same mix of elements simply because we are all part of the material world. You ignore the fact that not all (living) things suffer the same.

And you deny that suffering is a valid experience.

I guess it really comes back down to your base philosophy on what reality is, doesn't it?


My Mum gave me good advice " If you cant kill it your self don't eat it."
For that reason I don't eat meat or fish
I don't label my self as vegetarian--or claim my diet is a spiritual in anyway

Ch

Damn good advice.

I've inadvertently lived by that with the (rather large) exception of Cows.... and I guess if you get super vegan horses? (I drank fermented horse milk in Mongolia) Though technically, I have put horses down after a broken leg, but never cleaned and prepared them (can't be too different than an elk or caribou, and have NO DOUBT that my "when **** hits the fan" list doesn't include eating horse if I have to).

[Akasha]

This cartoon sums it up concisely:


Generally people bring up the plant thing to show how hypocritical that argument is, not as a literal example.....

Errr no, carnists bring it up to justify continuing eating animal flesh.





Yes we are all the same mix of elements simply because we are all part of the material world. You ignore the fact that not all (living) things suffer the same.

And you deny that suffering is a valid experience....

Where? (confused)

[joeecho]

Ultimately you are not the body but you have a responsibility to look after it.


Temporal responsibility to a temporal thing.

Gone in the blink of an 'I' no matter how responsible one is.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.illustrationsource.com/huge.99.499782.JPG

Follow your heart, no regrets, no surrender.

[Innocent Warrior]

I was vegetarian for some months, can't remember how long exactly but I was forced to begin eating meat again after I began to rapidly lose muscle mass. I lost so much muscle mass in one week that it freaked me out and I haven't tried it again since. Maybe I wasn't adequately supplementing what I was getting from meat, that's possible, but also I came to the conclusion that it's most important to listen to my body and not my guilt of eating animals. I think it's different for everyone and to say one way is morally better than another is too simplistic and really seems like it's not best for everyone, at least in my experience.

[Innocent Warrior]

In addition to my previous post, I'm not dismissing my sense of spiritual responsibility but feel it's important to follow the lead of our bodies. I'm hoping that my body will no longer need meat once I've raised my frequency enough but don't feel it's wise to push it. Even after a 30 day fast I still feel the need to have some meat in my diet, it makes sense that we grow out of the need for it as we develop spiritually but I'm not there yet and don't think it's fair to judge meat eaters as vegetarians often do.

[neutronstar]

From a spiritual perspective I look at it this way. I want to evolve. To evolve spiritually, I believe I have to raise my vibrational frequency. Everything is awareness, but a human has more awareness than an animal, an animal more than a plant, a plant more than a rock. Killing is a negative act which is a low vibrational frequency. Killing a human is worse than killing a animal. Killing an animal is worse than killing a plant. It would be even better if we could get our energy we need directly from the sun, but humans are not that advanced yet, at least most aren't. I have heard there are people who have achieved that level. If it is true or not I don't know.

My opinion with people that have a problem with becoming vegan or vegetarian is don't. Eat what you want to eat. I would love to give up plants but I can't get my energy directly from the sun so I choose to eat what will acquire the least amount of karma that feels comfortable to me.

[neutronstar]

To Innocent Warrior

I am into bodybuilding and have no problem gaining muscle. You do need to get fats to build and maintain muscle. If you are on a plant based diet you won't get enough. Nuts and seeds are a must.

[Enola]

I just don't think there's anything healthy about meat. I didn't even think about it after I stopped eating it. I don't understand the strong craving for it.

[Innocent Warrior]

Cheers Neutronstar, good to know. It wasn't just muscle loss btw, I was also having trouble with upper urinary tract infections and it took me a good couple of months to fully recover. I supplemented with seeds and nuts but it wasn't enough and I didn't have enough health left to see if upping my nuts and seeds etc. intake would do it.

I'll give it another try when I feel I'm ready and will be doing it under the supervision of a nutritionalist next time, I'd be happy to cut out meat completely if I didn't feel I was risking my health. I guess my point is that I'm not convinced it's best for all bodies to force it. We've been eating meat a long time, I'm suggesting that not all bodies respond well to a vegetarian diet, maybe it's genetics or something, I don't know.

Thanks again.

[neutronstar]

Cheers Neutronstar, good to know. It wasn't just muscle loss btw, I was also having trouble with upper urinary tract infections and it took me a good couple of months to fully recover. I supplemented with seeds and nuts but it wasn't enough and I didn't have enough health left to see if upping my nuts and seeds etc. intake would do it.

I'll give it another try when I feel I'm ready and will be doing it under the supervision of a nutritionalist next time, I'd be happy to cut out meat completely if I didn't feel I was risking my health. I guess my point is that I'm not convinced it's best for all bodies to force it. We've been eating meat a long time, I'm suggesting that not all bodies respond well to a vegetarian diet, maybe it's genetics or something, I don't know.

Also on the urinary

Thanks again.

When I first started working out I would go for a run and no matter what I did I would have to stop any where between 3 to 5 miles. I would get these sharp pains in my calves like a thousand ice picks stabbing them. Sometimes also on my feet. I would pull muscles all the time. This went on for 5 years. Then I saw a video on the benefits of distilled water so I decided to try it. I was drinking tap water. A gallon a day and two days later I went for a run and 6 miles later nothing. I felt great. 2 days after that I pushed it to 7 and I still feel great, then 8, a little tired but still felt great. 4 years later and I still haven't had that problem. I also noticed after a month of drinking distilled water my prostate shrunk. After only being able to pee about half a cup for 2 to 3 years pryer, I can pee for about 2 minutes now lol.

I have also notice other changes in my quest to improve my diet. So many of our health problems I believe are in our diets. Most of the food in a grocery store is simply not meant to be eaten.

Also on the urinary tract infection. Squeezing a couple lemons every few days are great to clean the urinary tract, the kidneys and the liver. It is the bodies cleaning fluid. Also works great at preventing colds. Or getting rid of them.

[ErtheVessel]

Good topic, Freedom Train. Unfortunately, The Secret Life of Plants has lost a bit of credibility over the years, though. A newer book that I recommend highly is called Plant Intelligence and the Imaginal Realm, by Stephen Harrod Buhner. Marvelous book about how every bit of matter in the universe is intelligent.

[The Freedom Train]

Enola - I totally understand your sentiments. In fact, I understand Akasha as well - although the animosity is something I feel rather confused and saddened by.

This split really bothers me for some reason. Being a former vegetarian myself, I can usually sympathize with and understand vegetarians and vegans for making the choices they do. But when exploring the logic that the more vocal denouncers of meat eaters use to prop themselves up, I usually find holes and hypocrisies that inspire me to speak up.

I find it strange that despite the "evolving out of meat" argument - I am definitely a much more balanced and awakened person than I was when I was a vegetarian for 16 years. And yet, when I fast and follow detox regimens that always exclude meat, I also notice a raising of my vibrations and awareness.

How can we KNOW these statements are true:

"Not all living things suffer the same" (how do we know?)
"Killing a human is worse than killing a animal. Killing an animal is worse than killing a plant" (I thought all life was created equal?)
"if something doesnt want to be eaten - I dont eat it.. " (how do you know if they want to be eaten when you can't ask them?)
"Those of the animal kingdom (and Plant) give themselves fully knowing the requirements we as their supposed guardians need to be sustained here in 3d." (how do we know?)

I think greybeard's point here rings true as much for me as anything I have yet to read in this thread: "Any identification with being a this or that, any I am a this label, is actually sabotaging discovery --Self realization--it is strengthening individuality, separation etc. It implies superiority."

How can we heal this rift? I think the whole live and let live argument is a good one neutronstar, and one that I agree with.

It seems to me that we have been led to feel guilty even while engaging in the most basic activities needed for our survival - feeding our physical bodies to sustain life. Perhaps next we will be taught to feel guilty for breathing!

I still feel like I am missing something though. WHY is this such an issue? WHY WHY WHY? I just cannot understand why there is so much animosity - bordering on hatred - when it comes to discussing diet? It seems to me like some kind of nefarious underhanded plot designed to turn us all against each other. I will sleep on this and perhaps have more insight to share tomorrow.

[TargeT]

Good topic, Freedom Train. Unfortunately, The Secret Life of Plants has lost a bit of credibility over the years, though. A newer book the I recommend highly is called Plant Intelligence and the Imaginal Realm, by Stephen Harrod Buhner. Marvelous book about how every bit of matter in the universe is intelligent.

one could say..

The universe is made up of ourselves, objectively observing ourselves in a subjective manner.

[Enola]

I think much of it just doesn't make sense. There's a lot of health problems with eating meat. The world's health organisation is even starting to admit it. And it's not like most people are eating fresh steak or some type of healthy meat, most of that stuff is really poor.

I find it hard to believe people who complain about health issues after a few months of not eating meat when so many people live off stuff like doughnuts and milkshake for years without seeing any problems. It makes you wonder what we even need to live off. No wonder people are seeing good results from going over to a fruitarian diet, etc. considering the stuff most people actually eat. So the health argument might make sense in theory, but not so much in real life.

And I think a lot of it has to do with a misunderstanding of what you need in your life. The craving for meat is mostly a craving for salt and fat, with some kind of aroma, and meat isn't necessarily the best source of that. In fact, most homemade vegetarian food is better than junkfood made from meat. People only crave meat because they don't know how to cook or can't imagine a good meatless diet, but it doesn't have to be a problem in reality.

[neutronstar]

I still feel like I am missing something though. WHY is this such an issue? WHY WHY WHY? I just cannot understand why there is so much animosity - bordering on hatred - when it comes to discussing diet? It seems to me like some kind of nefarious underhanded plot designed to turn us all against each other. I will sleep on this and perhaps have more insight to share tomorrow.

It is the ego's incessant need to be right. Being right ensures its survival. It is also the thinking that everyone should be on the same spiritual journey. We are not. We are all on different levels, some going up, some going down, and all have there purpose.

Some like to demonize the people in power because of their evil ways. But they to have their purpose. You can't have a hero without a villain. The people in power are kind enough to play the part of the villain (there inner awareness that is). I sure as hell wouldn't want to play that part. Just think of all the lives it is going to take to pay back all that karma.

[Innocent Warrior]

I don't need you to believe me Enola and I admit my diet may not have been a sufficient vegetarian diet but I can tell you for a fact that I've enjoyed perfect physical health as an omnivore (minus normal ailments such as colds etc), despite much mental and emotional stress. I'm a tall yet fine build and yet I'm surprisingly physically resilient, it takes a lot to make me sick.

[neutronstar]

How can we KNOW these statements are true:

"Not all living things suffer the same" (how do we know?)
You have to experience life as a plant or animal to know how they feel but come on. Plants don't have brains and most animals aren't as advanced as us. You can make an argument for Orcas.

"Killing a human is worse than killing a animal. Killing an animal is worse than killing a plant" (I thought all life was created equal?)
See above

"if something doesnt want to be eaten - I don't eat it.. " (how do you know if they want to be eaten when you can't ask them?)

Haven't asked them, but if you spend some time with them you will know by observation that they don't like to be harmed.
I have this squire that I have been feeding nuts for the past year, he was pretty cautious for a long time. He looks in my sliding glass door if there is no nuts out there now and he has more trust in me. He knows I mean him no harm. When I open the door he will stay right there and even eat from my hand. He or she is soo cute.

[joeecho]

I still feel like I am missing something though. WHY is this such an issue? WHY WHY WHY? I just cannot understand why there is so much animosity - bordering on hatred - when it comes to discussing diet? It seems to me like some kind of nefarious underhanded plot designed to turn us all against each other. I will sleep on this and perhaps have more insight to share tomorrow.

It is the ego's incessant need to be right. Being right ensures its survival. It is also the thinking that everyone should be on the same spiritual journey. We are not. We are all on different levels, some going up, some going down, and all have there purpose.

Some like to demonize the people in power because of their evil ways. But they to have their purpose. You can't have a hero without a villain. The people in power are kind enough to play the part of the villain (there inner awareness that is). I sure as hell wouldn't want to play that part. Just think of all the lives it is going to take to pay back all that karma.

The inner awareness you speak of doesn't believe in karma, that is part of the play. Those in the karma play believe it but shhhhh don't tell them that.

[joeecho]

Good topic, Freedom Train. Unfortunately, The Secret Life of Plants has lost a bit of credibility over the years, though. A newer book the I recommend highly is called Plant Intelligence and the Imaginal Realm, by Stephen Harrod Buhner. Marvelous book about how every bit of matter in the universe is intelligent.

one could say..

The universe is made up of ourselves, objectively observing ourselves in a subjective manner.

And the wheel goes round and round. No beginning, no end.

http://bubblyfunk.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ece13f58833010536dbb83f970b-400wi

[Yetti]

Thanks TargeT. I firmly believe that plants or animals feels as any creation of the 3d realm, so eating a chicken or a letuce to me is no different but the flavor/ or consistency. By the way, nothing taste better than a juicy 2" thick T bone stake on the grill. period!
Also, I don't feel my self superior to any other person because what I eat or not. If it makes you happy eat it !

[Innocent Warrior]

LOL, yikes Yetti, that's a LOT of beef.

[Isserley]

Yes we are all the same mix of elements simply because we are all part of the material world. You ignore the fact that not all (living) things suffer the same.

And you deny that suffering is a valid experience.

I guess it really comes back down to your base philosophy on what reality is, doesn't it?.

It will allways be somebodies philosophy..
Or maybe you know what reality is?

[kirolak]

The body is ultimately not always the best judge of what we "need" - some people's bodies crave sweets, fatty junk food, sweetened sodas. . . .I like to think I control the body I wear (probably fail most of the time). . .

[neutronstar]

Yes we are all the same mix of elements simply because we are all part of the material world. You ignore the fact that not all (living) things suffer the same.

And you deny that suffering is a valid experience.

I guess it really comes back down to your base philosophy on what reality is, doesn't it?.

It will allways be somebodies philosophy..
Or maybe you know what reality is?

Ultimately there is only only one truth, but reality for each person, is uniquely our own.

[Akasha]

I would be careful not to confuse animosity with heartfelt compassion for those we KNOW do suffer when we inflict the continuing horrors on them every minute of every day (http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html). The research into plants is by no means conclusive with regard to whether or not they suffer. Respond? yes, but then so does an LDR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoresistor) or a bimetallic strip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallic_strip).... and to be clear, I’m not trying to suggest that they aren’t alive as TargeT would suggest is the misconception of vegans (come on, T).

There’s been some talk of diet and not doing well on a vegetarian diet. Well, if you still consumed dairy and eggs and if you, like me (when I was vegetarian), supplemented meat with more dairy and eggs it’s going to be less than ideal to say the least……and if you supplemented the meat with… well, nothing… then you would expect to see loss of muscle mass.

Neutronstar talked about getting fats from seeds and that's all well and good but if you are trying to build muscle mass you really need protein… and here’s where legumes come in. Beans, lentils etc... are the highest plant source of protein rivaling if not decisively defeating meat on the topic, particularly once one re-tallies the figures to account for bio-availability. Legumes (along with fruit and seasonal vegetables) also get around the ethical conundrum postured in the OP since they voluntarily separate themselves from the plant or die at the end of the season respectively.

And.... anyone thinking that “as long as i just cut out meat, I’m not contributing to the ongoing animal horrocaust (http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html)" really owes it to those they perpetuate the suffering of to watch this:

UcN7SGGoCNI

... and this:

utPkDP3T7R4

It's all well and good talking metaphysics as a means to distance ourselves and our actions from the very physical world which we do exist in (no solipsists here, I trust - oh now I remember: you're all a figment of my imagination :bigsmile:), but those very real actions do have very real consequences for us and them, both individually and collectively.

In my experience it’s about connecting heart to source and then following the heart. When I do that, it becomes perfectly clear what the universal guidelines are, regardless of what kind of life form I’m interacting with. To those that feel they have transcended such a process to the point that everything's on the menu again, what can I say?

Note to neutronstar: Mr Universe winner 2014 is vegan....

http://thethinkingvegan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FB_20141028_18_07_08_Saved_Picture.jpg

....and he smashes in the legumes to the max FTW, not fat. He lists his daily macros as protein: 275g, Carb’s: 500g, fats: 80g which gives a macro ratio of 32.16 : 58.48 : 9.36 (less than 10% fat).

i2UdQxQrfbM

Barny’s highly recommended channel : Powers Of The Universe TV (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfGCqlNNKTN6bTuKmWDg6oQ)

[Watching from Cyprus]

Lots of "belief baggage" on this topic,, it's always baffled me that vegans disclude plant life from "life".

In general "non-meat" eaters are so dogmatic that I don't bother with this subject matter; the more confident/arrogant ones feel they are morally superior and don't care to listen to counter arguments (except to find ammo for their own arguments). The quieter ones feel much the same, but don't voice it as much (a rare thing with vegans).

in reality all life (and even "not-life") is very much the same, just different configurations of the same molecules that lend to different outcomes (mix them this way: plant, mix them that way: dog, mix another way... Rock?).

May i say, Right on Target. Wonderful comment mate.

Thank you ;)

[TargeT]

Or maybe you know what reality is?

I have many questions, little "knowing" that I trust; I certainly don't have anything figured out or even (very often) answers to my own questions... I mostly just fumble through and fall back on logic / critical thinking to assist me through subjects.


The body is ultimately not always the best judge of what we "need" - some people's bodies crave sweets, fatty junk food, sweetened sodas. . . .I like to think I control the body I wear (probably fail most of the time). . .


Well now, this might be interesting to you (especially in the "what I crave" doesn't align with "what I think"):


It sounds like it's not so much "the body" as "whats in the body"...

T3Ftj5E90tY


Not easy to switch up your gut bacteria (well it is, but not many people are comfortable with the concept of fecal transplants... haha). I'm not sure how it happened but mine was changed over in Iraq, it was a drastic difference for me as far as what I could eat and how my "gut" handled it (I now can eat anything, except my stomach don't tolerate spicy food as much, which is weird, I used to be a spicy food addict).

[Sunny-side-up]

I think there is a lot to be said for this comparison,

It was Santos Bonacci who I first heard discribe food in this way:

"Cooked (dead) meat is a decomposing spent lump of POOP.
While RAW (Live) veg is a vibrant energy system." words to that effect

Animals struggle day to day to stay alive, they work hard at doing so, I have compassion for them.
We are related in many ways and on many levels.
Plants as a life force are a consciousness experiencing reality/life from a single point perspective, IE they grow in the ground and don't move around (yes some do i know), They take life as it comes and so move on, no ego, no Karma.

 Sanskrit: कर्म; IPA: [ˈkərmə] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).
Sauce Wiki: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=karma&oq=karma+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6813j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Vegetation a higher level of life you might say. Veg life here to build the planet, to feed the air, to feed the ground, to feed all life, the base of life here. Veg life even adds direct beauty and wonder.
Vegetation maybe a sacrificial path towards Higer realms, then it moves on out of the Food-Chain, out of lower.

I hate being in the food chain.
I hope we develop 'Plasma technology' and make foods and medicines soon.
Make our food directly from the universal energy all around us.

One last thing:

We as humans (Some of course don't have that ability) have choises, all other life forms here on Earth as far as I know DO NOT!

[Sunny-side-up]

Hi TargeT

Not easy to switch up your gut bacteria (well it is, but not many people are comfortable with the concept of fecal transplants... haha). I'm not sure how it happened but mine was changed over in Iraq, it was a drastic difference for me as far as what I could eat and how my "gut" handled it (I now can eat anything, except my stomach don't tolerate spicy food as much, which is weird, I used to be a spicy food addict).

Your comment about the Gut bacteria is something that I often wonder about.
I think as soon as possible we should take samples of our gut-bac and store it for latter health recovery. It could/should be part of the normal proses after birth.
Maybe done in stages through out our lives.
A kind of 'System-Restore-Point' :sun:

TargeT

(mix them this way: plant, mix them that way: dog, mix another way... Rock?).
Yes It's the proces of the Mix that dose make things different, one might wonder more on that, not just dismiss it to easy.

[TargeT]

Hi TargeT

Not easy to switch up your gut bacteria (well it is, but not many people are comfortable with the concept of fecal transplants... haha). I'm not sure how it happened but mine was changed over in Iraq, it was a drastic difference for me as far as what I could eat and how my "gut" handled it (I now can eat anything, except my stomach don't tolerate spicy food as much, which is weird, I used to be a spicy food addict).

Your comment about the Gut bacteria is something that I often wonder about.
I think as soon as possible we should take samples of our gut-bac and store it for latter health recovery. It could/should be part of the normal proses after birth.
Maybe done in stages through out our lives.
A kind of 'System-Restore-Point' :sun:


Well, you'd have to keep the bacteria alive otherwise there's no point.

Plus, the best way is to take a sample from a currently healthy person (aka fecal transplant)... ;)

There's more than just a "2nd brain" effect.. watch that video, around half or MORE of your dopamine production occurs in your "stomach", depression & anxiety appear to be very strongly tied to our gut bacteria.

[Sunny-side-up]

Well, you'd have to keep the bacteria alive otherwise there's no point.
Yup but I did mean stored like we would human eggs and spirm etc :)


Plus, the best way is to take a sample from a currently healthy person (aka fecal transplant)...

There's more than just a "2nd brain" effect.. watch that video, around half or MORE of your dopamine production occurs in your "stomach", depression & anxiety appear to be very strongly tied to our gut bacteria.
Yup true and would be a great tonic from time to time Ha. But i also think it best from your own gut when you are at a healthy condithion.

On a side note view and or adding to this convosation:
Are we just talking as 'Darwinians' here?
Thinking that we evolved naturaly on this planet (I don't think we are natural to this planet as a life form atal), evolved naturaly into this dreadful food chain exsistance?
Because if you take other lines of thought about our beginins and our present form of being, should we be in the food chain. I mean are we being held in this food chain as slaves, what did our makers eat, makers we are related too?

If I/you/we was given direct and undeniable proof that to evolve higher and on out of 3D, all we had to do at a certain age/mind-set (Once you had higher awairness of the worlds ways) was to just stop eating (aided by meditation), and move on. Would you do it. If that was the only way out of the food chain (Material realm) and evolve!

[TargeT]

If I/you/we was given direct and undeniable proof that to evolve higher and on out of 3D, all we had to do at a certain age/mind-set (Once you had higher awairness of the worlds ways) was to just stop eating (aided by meditation), and move on. Would you do it. If that was the only way out of the food chain (Material realm) and evolve!

I'm probably closer to that than most, I only eat once a day & sometimes I have to remind myself to eat.

We have to get energy from somewhere, currently we chemically pull nutrients and "sun energy" out of our foods... I could possibly see using a different energy source but the raw materials (supplements) will still be needed to keep the meat suit functional; regardless of energy source; thus it logically makes sense that we are omnivores & have the most opportunity possible to imbibe the needed elements via a wide and varied diet.

[Bubu]

Normally when its widely circulated in the media its crap; meat is bad; sugar is bad; vegetarianism is good; fried food is bad...so I just trust my senses surely its there for a reason. Common sense says don't eat process food its laden with toxins the rest I leave to taste buds and gut sense. So far I have a very healthy body and getting healthier.

I prefer to keep it simple. "truth is self explanatory"

[Wind]

In the end it always comes down to beliefs and choices. In my case, I can't watch animals suffer nor kill them so I prefer not to support an inhumane system which does that to them. I was primarily a meat eater for over two decades of my life, I was never very fond of red meat anyways. Now I'm primarly a vegetarian after years ago I watched videos about the meat factories, but I don't like preaching, as said in Matthew 7:5 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm). Not a single human being is perfect, but we can aspire to be more humane. I see no need for judgement.

I do eat fish at times, but I can feel a bit guilty about it and perhaps will one day stop doing that too. All of us are on our evolutionary level with our own consciousness. No one is lower and higher, we just are. What native americans did was that they thanked their prey for their sacrifice. Then again, they were in harmony with nature and animals so therefore there was no need for mass factories and endless slaughter.

It is important to be thankful and kind towards all living beings, any empathic and sane person would naturally know that. I hope that one point in time humanity will evolve to a point where eating meat is not needed anymore.

[Omi]

Every existing being should have the freedom to eat whatever food they decide to take in as source of energy for their bodies.
One would naturally choose the energy source that resonates in the same or similar vibrational frequencies as their own energy level.

When we speak about the many kinds of diets that people choose for themselves, a lot of times it seems to have a similar feeling of debate over religious beliefs, and self-righteously declaring its authority over all others that one does not choose.

I agree that all souls of sentient beings are created as equals, which is another thing of itself from the hierarchy of all existing sentient beings. Every one is at their own stage of development for their consciousness, and ideally speaking, we should give respect to each of us for where they are in their spiritual developments.

A yoga instructor friend was once interested in breatharianism. The theory to it is that light is the purest form of energy, and perhaps a very highly spiritually developed soul who truly understands the meaning of the physical/ material world to be only but an illusion, could then possibly live only by breathing.

I personally couldn't eat anymore animal flesh after I had the experience of smelling the stench of burnt human flesh at the site of 9.11 few days after the incident, and probably from other past experiences that are more subconsciously remembered. Burning human flesh smells very similar to many kinds of animal flesh put on a grill or cooked in any other way, to my sense of smell. I would not eat human flesh, same reason goes for not eating animal flesh.

I don't mind others eating meat at the same table, I respect others for their preference of what they eat, and understand that there are some people who need it as a source of protein and energy for their health. But if one prefers to eat animal meat, why not try eating human meat too? Oh yes, that could be considered a crime according to man-made laws in most countries around the globe, with few exceptions depending on the situation and cultural purpose in certain countries.

One can meditate on eating - not only having more awareness of what you put in your mouth but becoming more conscious of how you put the food in your mouth, how you chew and the number of times (my almost 90yr old grandmother used to always say, with each bite chew at least 40 times). Then you notice that the taste of the food changes, your taste buds become more sensitive to sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, spiciness and umami. You can possibly notice that your body can take in the nutritions way more efficiently, with smaller amounts of food.

Whatever you decide to eat - animals, plants, rocks, humans, sunlight etc. give your blessings to it, and for the energy that it provides you for your well-being.

Happy eating:sun:

[TargeT]

Burning human flesh smells very similar to many kinds of animal flesh

Pork, I always thought of pig... Don't know why our meat suit would smell different than other meat suits... I'd be more freaked out if we smelled like cotton candy or rotten cabbage or something.

[Omi]

Burning human flesh smells very similar to many kinds of animal flesh

Pork, I always thought of pig... Don't know why our meat suit would smell different than other meat suits... I'd be more freaked out if we smelled like cotton candy or rotten cabbage or something.

Thanks for that TargeT, gave me a good laugh :D

[Yetti]

To Innocent Warrior. : No is not a lot , is the right size of stake for me and must be a law!! no less than 2 ".....

[neutronstar]

Burning human flesh smells very similar to many kinds of animal flesh

Pork, I always thought of pig... Don't know why our meat suit would smell different than other meat suits... I'd be more freaked out if we smelled like cotton candy or rotten cabbage or something.

Yes humans taste like pigs. I saw an interview of a guy in prison that ate human meat that he killed. He said we taste like pork.

[East Sun]

Horses and cows etc will eat grass all day every day. imo it it would be ludicrous to condemn anything in nature inc. the natural process
of the food chain. We can at times be part of that chain and have been for countless eons.

But I'm totally opposed to the way animals are slaughtered. I feel helpless to stop that process--it's like trying to stop mans inhumanity to man.

Humans have a long way to go, but we are trying as best we can.............

ES

[Enola]

It was Santos Bonacci who I first heard discribe food in this way:

"Cooked (dead) meat is a decomposing spent lump of POOP.
While RAW (Live) veg is a vibrant energy system." words to that effect


I like that quote. But I think it's mostly my intuition that tells me to do it. As soon as I was made aware of the idea I couldn't wait to get off it. There were no vegerarians or vegetarian culture or anything, but I didn't care. It just felt right, and I'm not veering from that feeling.

[NancyV]

I experimented with many different types of vegetarianism over a 7 year period. It was great fun to see how diet affected vibrational frequency....and it did. The reason my husband and I became vegetarians was to enhance a meditation path we were following...it was required by the master that his followers become vegetarian. Perhaps because the vegetarian diet raised my vibrational frequency I started out of body traveling within 2-3 months of practicing the meditation. Over the next 7 years we became raw foodists for about a year, then fruitarians for maybe 6-8 months. There were some benefits to the frutarian diet such as being able to feel energy constantly, but almost TOO strongly to the point of discomfort. I could barely stand to shop in a grocery store because I could feel the vibrations of all the food. It became very uncomfortable. My teeth started to get loose and my hair and nails were becoming less healthy so after many months I realized that fruitarianism was not for me. The same things happened with my husband.

During these 7 years I left my body hundreds of times and traveled in many dimensions. I very soon realized that diet was meaningless in the bigger picture. It is possible that it helped raised my vibratory frequency in the beginning but after I learned to soul travel there were no rules I needed to follow, including diet and also including all the "rules" the master told his followers that we must adhere to when in different dimensions. I met and merged with many beings which greatly changed my perspectives about most things we do here in this earth dimension. One of the silly games we like to play is moralizing about diet or theorizing that a certain diet will make us more spiritual....and it is a FUN game!

When I stopped the meditation, the vegetarian diet and left the master, I had even more amazing experiences right here without leaving my body. This went on for several more years while I was eating an omnivorous diet. I don't care much about food anymore and usually only eat once a day, which is quite sufficient.

Everyone will do what they need to do for their best and highest good. Even if what someone is doing looks ugly or bad to us here, it is something they need to do for their evolution. I would think that most people here understand that there is no death, so "killing" a person or an animal or plant only transforms them. I personally think that "thou shalt not kill" should be interpreted as thou shalt not murder.

An animal killing another animal for food is not murder. It is the natural order in this physical realm. Humans killing and eating animals is natural and has nothing to do with moral or immoral behavior. But BELIEFS are strong things which influence us greatly. I try to limit my beliefs because I feel like beliefs are limiting. Even when I experience something personally I cannot form an absolute belief that will be unchangeable, so I try to live more in the now and let everyone experiment with different beliefs in their own way and their own time. I had a lot of fun experimenting with diets and I'm still experimenting. We cured my husband's diabetes with diet a few years ago. When someone gets sick they are much more open to trying different healthier diets.

I know there are some people who are able to live in a physical body and not eat at all. We were trying to work towards being breatharians, but stopped when the frutarian diet was unsuccessful. We do not eat food in other dimensions (at least I don't and no one I met did). I figure I might as well enjoy the physical world while I'm here and since I'm almost 70 now I won't be here to eat food much longer! :clapping:

Nowadays I lean more towards a paleo type diet and buy organic as much as possible. May you all have fun experimenting with your diets and hopefully not suffer guilt as guilt is a low vibrational frequency which is probably a less healthy "food" than eating the meat you may feel is unhealthy physically and/or spiritually. Judgement of others is also a low vibrational "food". Thoughts are energy and energy is food that feeds your spirit. I still have some problems indulging in the judgement food, especially when thinking or talking about politics!!! LOL

[Enola]

Do you mind telling what type of meditation you did?

[The Freedom Train]

NancyV - your post pretty much summed up a lot of what has been going through my head since I started this thread, and spent time reading various responses.

I came to the conclusion late last night, after much mulling over, that to bring morality into a discussion regarding what we do for survival (eating) is a very insidious thing - definitely sounds to me like an agenda that has been contrived by whatever factions are interested in maintaining oppression and control. How could people be blamed (or acquire "bad karma") for eating - it is something we must do to stay alive!

I had a whole long winded philosophical discussion with myself that I typed up and was planning on posting, but your post is so perfect, NancyV, that I am not sure I have anything else worth adding to the dialogue!

THANK YOU!

[Intuitive Fish]

Thanks for bringing up this topic, Freedom Train and I'm with you on the equality of all things, although that might not necessarily mean all things experience the same experiences with the same perspectives and levels of consciousness.... But this is coming from someone who can't bear to see trees cut down without any care or concern for nature or the life of a tree.

This would even go for human-made objects from my perspective. Humanity has a long way to go in the respect department, sentient or not. I'd say we've got some illusional ideas about death and dying too, although for some reason that doesn't keep people from charring the meat of freaked out and abused feedlot animals at the summer bbq.

I eat vegan but I wouldn't necessarily recommend that. I tried to go from a meat-diet to a vegetarian diet some years ago and I got really, really sick. Going back to eating animal foods helped me get my health back. Right or wrong, ethical or self-incriminating, and even if it's purely psychological, many humans have evolved in the food chain to physically rely on animal foods.

I never considered going vegan until (after I healed) I had been doing a lot of inner work, clearing out past traumas, buried emotions, questioning everything and getting my own mind back. One day I saw a picture of a raw vegan salad and realized I was craving fresh, colorful, organic, flavorful vegetables... They looked delicious and they tasted the same - completely satisfying. That was the beginning and I'm going on 11 months now eating vegan almost every day.

I didn't think I'd be able to give up eating fish, eggs and cheese because let's face it, gourmet cheese might be the only good thing happening on this planet right now. :lol: But somehow it was relatively easy to switch over and I lost most of my cravings for animal foods after a few months.

Every now and then I get the urge to eat a fat, juicy grilled panini with (humanely-raised) meat and the works, and so I do. But it's never quite as satisfying as I expected, and it also makes me feel noticeably heavy and weighted down. This makes me think at least some animal-food cravings are mere psychological conditioning - which can feel quite real and strong. And then there's the commercialized meat industry which is a trillion dollar affair....

But that's not to say all plant-based diets are healthy. It took me months to figure out how to get all my nutrients and ensure they're in balance. If they aren't, then switching to a vegan diet is going to be really difficult and even dangerous. I had to learn how to cook all over again, and with many failed experiments.

Anyway, it's a little too soon to come to any hard conclusions but so far I feel fabulous on a plant-based diet, I'm happy with my body shape and size, my sensitivities are heightened too, and I'd say it's definitely helped by way of personal growth.

As far as being a vegan militant, that seems clearly counterproductive but I'd say we've all got some legitimate guilt for mindless eating and living without care and concern for the rest of the planet, whatever that might mean to every individual; and there's nothing wrong with taking a cold, hard look at that to see how we might do better for ourselves and our environment.

I'd also say that having respect for whatever we eat (like some native peoples rituals) and eating clean and as close to nature as possible is more important than what a food is, if we're interested in feeling the same.

About the evils of consumption, I'm not really sure about that. The intimate interconnection of the eco system and symbiotic cycles of giving and receiving is a beautiful thing. It would just be really nice if we could do that with more awareness and respect.

[meat suit]

to eat and be eaten is quite natural within the current arrangements of this dimension.
many of us are dissatisfied with various aspects of this... that may be so because we humans are not totally natural and would be better off feeding directly of voltage or sun light etc... maybe we will be doing that one day and exit from the 'eat and be eaten' arrangemnts of the natural world.

personally I have spent much time figuring out how to eat so I function best... and that is 'Paleo'
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/

[neutronstar]

As far as being a vegan militant, that seems clearly counterproductive but I'd say we've all got some legitimate guilt for mindless eating and living without care and concern for the rest of the planet, whatever that might mean to every individual; and there's nothing wrong with taking a cold, hard look at that to see how we might do better for ourselves and our environment.



I tread so carefully in conversations like this whatever your diet is, people defend it with such conviction. Whenever people ask me why I don't eat meat I really hate to answer it. I don't understand why so many Vegans attack meat eaters or Vegetarians. It's like hard core religious people that attack you because you don't follow their belief system.

[neutronstar]

....and he smashes in the legumes to the max FTW, not fat. He lists his daily macros as protein: 275g, Carb’s: 500g, fats: 80g which gives a macro ratio of 32.16 : 58.48 : 9.36 (less than 10% fat).

[

Yes, I was not very specific in my answer. My point was that many people who try a plant based diet don't get enough fat to their diet. It doesn't have to be a really large quantity. I see he does it with oils. I also use coconut oil too. Just for the record that is his Cut diet. He probably does that for about 3 months or so, losing about 2 pounds of fat a week. He must time it just right where he will be about 2% body fat for the competition. He can't maintain that low of body fat, so he has to time it just right. It is a science with these guys. They are truly experts when it comes to their diet.

Also I should point out that, I don't know what his muscle building diet consists of, but that cut diet would drive most people crazy. It is not a diet you can sustain because he is trying to lose most of his body fat. Your body starts to crave fats.

[Sunny-side-up]

In the end it always comes down to beliefs and choices. In my case, I can't watch animals suffer nor kill them so I prefer not to support an inhumane system which does that to them. I was primarily a meat eater for over two decades of my life, I was never very fond of red meat anyways. Now I'm primarly a vegetarian after years ago I watched videos about the meat factories, but I don't like preaching, as said in Matthew 7:5 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm). Not a single human being is perfect, but we can aspire to be more humane. I see no need for judgement.

I do eat fish at times, but I can feel a bit guilty about it and perhaps will one day stop doing that too. All of us are on our evolutionary level with our own consciousness. No one is lower and higher, we just are. What native americans did was that they thanked their prey for their sacrifice. Then again, they were in harmony with nature and animals so therefore there was no need for mass factories and endless slaughter.

It is important to be thankful and kind towards all living beings, any empathic and sane person would naturally know that. I hope that one point in time humanity will evolve to a point where eating meat is not needed anymore.
Bump you Wind
:bowing:
:sun:

[NancyV]

Do you mind telling what type of meditation you did?

Hi Enola,

It was called Surat Shabd Yoga, The Path of the Masters and was a meditation on sound and light. Kirpal Singh was one of the more well known Masters of this path.

[Bubu]

I experimented with many different types of vegetarianism over a 7 year period. It was great fun to see how diet affected vibrational frequency....and it did. The reason my husband and I became vegetarians was to enhance a meditation path we were following...it was required by the master that his followers become vegetarian. Perhaps because the vegetarian diet raised my vibrational frequency I started out of body traveling within 2-3 months of practicing the meditation. Over the next 7 years we became raw foodists for about a year, then fruitarians for maybe 6-8 months. There were some benefits to the frutarian diet such as being able to feel energy constantly, but almost TOO strongly to the point of discomfort. I could barely stand to shop in a grocery store because I could feel the vibrations of all the food. It became very uncomfortable. My teeth started to get loose and my hair and nails were becoming less healthy so after many months I realized that fruitarianism was not for me. The same things happened with my husband.

During these 7 years I left my body hundreds of times and traveled in many dimensions. I very soon realized that diet was meaningless in the bigger picture. It is possible that it helped raised my vibratory frequency in the beginning but after I learned to soul travel there were no rules I needed to follow, including diet and also including all the "rules" the master told his followers that we must adhere to when in different dimensions. I met and merged with many beings which greatly changed my perspectives about most things we do here in this earth dimension. One of the silly games we like to play is moralizing about diet or theorizing that a certain diet will make us more spiritual....and it is a FUN game!

When I stopped the meditation, the vegetarian diet and left the master, I had even more amazing experiences right here without leaving my body. This went on for several more years while I was eating an omnivorous diet. I don't care much about food anymore and usually only eat once a day, which is quite sufficient.

Everyone will do what they need to do for their best and highest good. Even if what someone is doing looks ugly or bad to us here, it is something they need to do for their evolution. I would think that most people here understand that there is no death, so "killing" a person or an animal or plant only transforms them. I personally think that "thou shalt not kill" should be interpreted as thou shalt not murder.

An animal killing another animal for food is not murder. It is the natural order in this physical realm. Humans killing and eating animals is natural and has nothing to do with moral or immoral behavior. But BELIEFS are strong things which influence us greatly. I try to limit my beliefs because I feel like beliefs are limiting. Even when I experience something personally I cannot form an absolute belief that will be unchangeable, so I try to live more in the now and let everyone experiment with different beliefs in their own way and their own time. I had a lot of fun experimenting with diets and I'm still experimenting. We cured my husband's diabetes with diet a few years ago. When someone gets sick they are much more open to trying different healthier diets.

I know there are some people who are able to live in a physical body and not eat at all. We were trying to work towards being breatharians, but stopped when the frutarian diet was unsuccessful. We do not eat food in other dimensions (at least I don't and no one I met did). I figure I might as well enjoy the physical world while I'm here and since I'm almost 70 now I won't be here to eat food much longer! :clapping:

Nowadays I lean more towards a paleo type diet and buy organic as much as possible. May you all have fun experimenting with your diets and hopefully not suffer guilt as guilt is a low vibrational frequency which is probably a less healthy "food" than eating the meat you may feel is unhealthy physically and/or spiritually. Judgement of others is also a low vibrational "food". Thoughts are energy and energy is food that feeds your spirit. I still have some problems indulging in the judgement food, especially when thinking or talking about politics!!! LOL

I agree mostly with what you said although I experimented with diets with in 3 months period only,on and off, ( was only a vegetarian for 7 days), and arrive at same conclusions you have. Maybe its because I listened more to my senses more than anything else, books scientific research testimonies etc. I think our biggest mistake in learning is that while we are endowed with senses to help us navigate we tend to listen more to outside sources.
And yes 'I will enjoy more this physical world while Im still here' I really don't see the logic of trying to venture (with much trouble) into the spirit realm while I have the physical baggage to do so. perhaps there would be time when I can roam and enjoy the spirit realm when I become purely one .

[Akasha]

I'm re-sharing the following thread links particularly for the benefit of newer members and non-members (at least 90% of Avalon's visitors) who may not have come across them, as they are relevant to this thread and bring up several other perspectives on the same subject.

I would encourage everyone to fully "digest" their content.

The Extremism of Veganism - Exposing the Greatest Lie (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90628-ARE-YOU-SPECIAL-or-are-you-ENTITLED--The-Extremism-Of-Veganism-Exposing-The-Greatest-Lie-)

Cowspiracy - The Sustainability Secret (2014) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82470-Cowspiracy-the-sustainability-secret--2014-)

Does Our Treatment of Animals Affect How We Treat Each Other (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62855-Does-Our-Treatment-of-Animals-Affect-How-We-Treat-Each-Other)

All Things Vegan (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83021-All-Things-Vegan-)

[Intuitive Fish]

I tread so carefully in conversations like this whatever your diet is, people defend it with such conviction. Whenever people ask me why I don't eat meat I really hate to answer it. I don't understand why so many Vegans attack meat eaters or Vegetarians. It's like hard core religious people that attack you because you don't follow their belief system.

I hear ya, neutronstar and I've wondered about it myself. Militaristic veganism, I think, can be a result of different factors like:


A strong empathic connection with animals and seeing them abused
A strong desire for the world to evolve
A defense to societal persecution/pressure/advertising from the meat industry, meat-eaters, social norms, cultural customs, etc. and fear/insecurity which results from that
A misunderstanding of evolutionary life cycles, symbiotic sustainability, consciousness/sentience, moralistic duality paradigms, humanely-raised animal products, etc


While veganism does seem to be related to the next phase of human evolution/awakening as Akasha and others have pointed out, and while it potentially has physical, mental and emotional benefits if done right... those benefits can be lost when the contempt put upon animals is only transferred to humans.

[neutronstar]

I tread so carefully in conversations like this whatever your diet is, people defend it with such conviction. Whenever people ask me why I don't eat meat I really hate to answer it. I don't understand why so many Vegans attack meat eaters or Vegetarians. It's like hard core religious people that attack you because you don't follow their belief system.

I hear ya, neutronstar and I've wondered about it myself. Militaristic veganism, I think, can be a result of different factors like:


A strong empathic connection with animals and seeing them abused
A strong desire for the world to evolve
A defense to societal persecution/pressure/advertising from the meat industry, meat-eaters, social norms, cultural customs, etc. and fear/insecurity which results from that
A misunderstanding of evolutionary life cycles, symbiotic sustainability, consciousness/sentience, moralistic duality paradigms, humanely-raised animal products, etc


While veganism does seem to be related to the next phase of human evolution/awakening as Akasha and others have pointed out, and while it potentially has physical, mental and emotional benefits if done right... those benefits can be lost when the contempt put upon animals is only transferred to humans.

Yes, I also believe it is our next phase of human evolution, but trying to argue with people about what one person believes is right or wrong never works. My spiritual teacher says to change people all you need to do is be around them. We all affect each other's vibrational frequency simply by being in each others presence.

2000 years ago our entertainment was watching people slaughter each other in arenas. Today it is much less violent games. Someday in the future killing animals will be looked upon like killing humans. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

[Intuitive Fish]

2000 years ago our entertainment was watching people slaughter each other in arenas. Today it is much less violent games. Someday in the future killing animals will be looked upon like killing humans. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

We generally believe it's wrong to slaughter each other but humans still kill humans - on a genocidal scale - while the majority look away or consider it normal. While we don't see a high rate of cannibalism, humans are still killed for means of "survival," just like animals.

Not to justify the killing of anything. Just pointing out that the issue goes beyond ethics.

[Intuitive Fish]

I'm re-sharing the following thread links particularly for the benefit of newer members and non-members (at least 90% of Avalon's visitors) who may not have come across them, as they are relevant to this thread and bring up several other perspectives on the same subject.

I would encourage everyone to fully "digest" their content.

The Extremism of Veganism - Exposing the Greatest Lie (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90628-ARE-YOU-SPECIAL-or-are-you-ENTITLED--The-Extremism-Of-Veganism-Exposing-The-Greatest-Lie-)

Cowspiracy - The Sustainability Secret (2014) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82470-Cowspiracy-the-sustainability-secret--2014-)

Does Our Treatment of Animals Affect How We Treat Each Other (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62855-Does-Our-Treatment-of-Animals-Affect-How-We-Treat-Each-Other)

All Things Vegan (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83021-All-Things-Vegan-)

Akasha, all of these threads somehow turn into the same argument of meat-eating vs. veganism, haha.

Since it's all been said (in many different ways!) is there a way to change the conversation?

No matter what we eat, I think we can all agree that animals abused in feedlots is a criminal act. And eating them poses health risks and hazards.

I'd also say that poisoning plant foods with insecticides is just as criminal and ignorant, as well as genetically modifying or denaturing any food, as well as destroying the soil and habitat it grows in.

We're all responsible (meaning that we all experience the consequences) which requires us to engage in some form of activism (which occurs in many different ways.)

That's not being militant. That's just common sense.

I've encountered both militant meat-eaters and vegans. That's when they hurl abuse at you without taking the time to explain where they're coming from. You get the feeling they don't truly care about the subject they're talking about, but would likely execute you for it if they could. This makes me think it's not a meat vs. plant problem, but a problem of respect, and maybe even human illness.

Activism isn't easy because we're constantly bombarded and indoctrinated with images of fake food.... It seems the real enemy isn't eating animals or plants but while we're distracted with that argument, the FDA and food industry have no problem harming us all.

[The Freedom Train]

Wow I have been really appreciating all of the input here. I have been doing a lot of soul searching, and find that this issue of diet concerns me quite a bit, having grown up as a self proclaimed vegetarian in a family of meat eaters for 16 years, and having been led, after a very stressful and unhealthy pregnancy followed by three years of breast feeding on demand, chronic fatigue, and autoimmune type stuff, to reincorporating meat into my diet after a powerful acupuncture treatment made me start to crave meat (which I had never done before). I certainly began to feel better after eating it.

At this point, my diet is usually along the lines of "paleo" - although this is punctuated regularly with intervals of veganism, fruitarianism, juice and water fasts, anywhere from several days to weeks at a time. I seem to need to go back to meat to replenish myself.

I definitely understand the sentiments of vegetarians and vegans, therefore. But I do not want to feel like I am an evil person for doing what I feel I must do to have the energy I need to be productive, take care of my active daughter, etc. I have enough trouble with it on my own - let alone when I speak to other people about it.

I do not like the idea of killing to eat and survive, and I do not condone cruelty against any lifeform.

Because I have noticed that fruitarianism in particular seems to definitely raise my vibrations when I follow it for periods of time, I would say I have to agree that evolutionarily speaking, it seems like we are moving in the direction of something new and different dietarily speaking - but I think really the evolution involves probably not eating at all (again, because of my opinion on the equality of all lifeforms - plant, animal, unicellular organism) and because I have noticed that water fasting is the surest way to raise my vibrational levels, awareness, and psychic abilities through the roof. Of course, it is also the hardest on the body. I did a 12 day water fast last year that blew my mind. This past summer I did a 3 day fast, and just last week I did a 2 day one. It seems to be getting harder and harder for me to do it. I think my body says oh **** not this again!

I would still like to see plants (and all other "lower" lifeforms) being considered on the same level as animals in discussions of "to eat or not to eat" - for the reasons I laid out in the post that started this thread.

It also seems to me that - like it or not, it seems that our physical bodies are designed to thrive on animal products - much to the chagrin of many of our awakened spirits. I have heard countless cases of people who followed extreme diets that were free of animal products for years and had to eventually go back to meat eating because of many different iterations of energetic imbalance and illness. One example is the Dalai Lama. While I do not think his diet was all that "extreme" - he ended up incorporating meat into his diet upon the advice of his doctor, after he had some health issues crop up.

http://tovarcerulli.com/the-dalai-lama-on-meat-and-moral-gymnastics/

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/31urvk/til_the_dalai_lama_eats_meat_for_health_reasons/

So, I am not sure what the answer is, other than, follow the golden rule, respect each other and life on this planet, be gentle with yourself, give thanks for the lifeforms that sacrifice their lives for you whenever you eat, and try not to feel guilty for eating when we have not evolved out of the need to do so yet.

[meat suit]

growing your own food provides a good perspective... I grow vegetables for eating. most of those vegetable types have been bred over decades or even centuries to be suitable 'slave' species for human consumption.... I often think that there isnt much difference between slave plants and slave animals...
those 'slave species' have an advantage over free species... they get to be more numerous.... souls, awarenesses, call it what you will still incarnate into these slave species for the lessons provided...

quite often.. thru negligance, I let vegetable plants run riot... nothing more amazing to watch than a lettuce go into flower and seed.... how many of our vegans here check if their food has had a fullfilling life cycle??

[neutronstar]

2000 years ago our entertainment was watching people slaughter each other in arenas. Today it is much less violent games. Someday in the future killing animals will be looked upon like killing humans. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

We generally believe it's wrong to slaughter each other but humans still kill humans - on a genocidal scale - while the majority look away or consider it normal. While we don't see a high rate of cannibalism, humans are still killed for means of "survival," just like animals.

Not to justify the killing of anything. Just pointing out that the issue goes beyond ethics.

Sure we still kill each other, but to say we haven't evolved is crazy. In Roman society it was legal for a man to kill his wife and kids because they were his property. Slavery was open and accepted behavior. Today it has gone underground because it is no longer accepted. Just 60 or 70 years ago women were still considered second class citizens. Black men were allowed to vote before women were and they were slaves 150 years ago. I can go on and on about how life today is by far so much safer in most of the world than in the past.

Things today are not perfect, but much better than in the past. Maybe things don't change fast enough for some, but they do change for the better. Now that is not to say we can't set ourselves back with say a nuclear war. Our weapons can do much more damage and people in power are some of the worst of humanity.

[Intuitive Fish]

Sure we still kill each other, but to say we haven't evolved is crazy. In Roman society it was legal for a man to kill his wife and kids because they were his property. Slavery was open and accepted behavior. Today it has gone underground because it is no longer accepted. Just 60 or 70 years ago women were still considered second class citizens. Black men were allowed to vote before women were and they were slaves 150 years ago. I can go on and on about how life today is by far so much safer in most of the world than in the past.

Things today are not perfect, but much better than in the past. Maybe things don't change fast enough for some, but they do change for the better. Now that is not to say we can't set ourselves back with say a nuclear war. Our weapons can do much more damage and people in power are some of the worst of humanity.

Well, we've evolved in some ways and other ways we've only changed. The issues are still there, only they're in a different form. Black slavery still very much exists, not only as slavery but as slave workers in the prison institution. Same issue, different form.

And humans are still killing humans, except now we have the technology to do so on a mass scale.

But the point is that the food issue isn't necessarily an ethical one. People in poverty eat whatever they can. Meat-eating as I mentioned is a highly profitable industry and we're surrounded by corporate propaganda for all kinds of harmful foods. Food is also a political, cultural and geographical issue. There are complex variables that go into why people eat what they eat.

[Intuitive Fish]

growing your own food provides a good perspective... I grow vegetables for eating. most of those vegetable types have been bred over decades or even centuries to be suitable 'slave' species for human consumption.... I often think that there isnt much difference between slave plants and slave animals...
those 'slave species' have an advantage over free species... they get to be more numerous.... souls, awarenesses, call it what you will still incarnate into these slave species for the lessons provided...

quite often.. thru negligance, I let vegetable plants run riot... nothing more amazing to watch than a lettuce go into flower and seed.... how many of our vegans here check if their food has had a fullfilling life cycle??

Okay, I can talk about this topic all day long and not get bored. And not because I'm good at gardening.

I get overwhelmed with all the weeds, and how much physical labor it takes, not to mention the time and cost. It seems to require a creative knowledge I don't have and I want to cry over the fact that I wasn't taught how to grow things and care for the Earth.

And I'd just like to reiterate that eating a plant-based diet isn't necessarily healthy. What did we do to the wheat? And the corn...? If I knew how to garden and had the extra time and energy to do so, I'd want to somehow figure out how to bring back all the traditional and heirloom varieties.

Traditional agriculture seemed to utilize animals too. The cows go through and eat the forage, then the goats and the chickens, their waste fertilizes the ground, certain insects keep other insects under control, and compost is recycled to enrich the soil... then the crops are planted.... Or something like that.

Anyway, I might hold onto a dream of someday having a garden in the future. I've planted them before, and it really was a special event as long as it lasted. The vegetables tasted far superior to anything bought in a store.

[meat suit]

growing your own food provides a good perspective... I grow vegetables for eating. most of those vegetable types have been bred over decades or even centuries to be suitable 'slave' species for human consumption.... I often think that there isnt much difference between slave plants and slave animals...
those 'slave species' have an advantage over free species... they get to be more numerous.... souls, awarenesses, call it what you will still incarnate into these slave species for the lessons provided...

quite often.. thru negligance, I let vegetable plants run riot... nothing more amazing to watch than a lettuce go into flower and seed.... how many of our vegans here check if their food has had a fullfilling life cycle??

Okay, I can talk about this topic all day long and not get bored. And not because I'm good at gardening.

I get overwhelmed with all the weeds, and how much physical labor it takes, not to mention the time and cost. It seems to require a creative knowledge I don't have and I want to cry over the fact that I wasn't taught how to grow things and care for the Earth.

And I'd just like to reiterate that eating a plant-based diet isn't necessarily healthy. What did we do to the wheat? And the corn...? If I knew how to garden and had the extra time and energy to do so, I'd want to somehow figure out how to bring back all the traditional and heirloom varieties.

Traditional agriculture seemed to utilize animals too. The cows go through and eat the forage, then the goats and the chickens, their waste fertilizes the ground, certain insects keep other insects under control, and compost is recycled to enrich the soil... then the crops are planted.... Or something like that.

Anyway, I might hold onto a dream of someday having a garden in the future. I've planted them before, and it really was a special event as long as it lasted. The vegetables tasted far superior to anything bought in a store.

if you have the space start a forest garden... this guy is the man to watch....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFbcn06h8w4

[Akasha]

Phew!!! where do I start? The Freedom Train’s sentence about the golden rule presents the opportunity for the most concise post from my perspective. Agriculture, human health and ecology are other subjects which certainly deserve attention but I think they would / will resolve themselves “organically” if the following much-repeated sentiment were successfully addressed.


…..follow the golden rule, respect each other and life on this planet, be gentle with yourself, give thanks for the lifeforms that sacrifice their lives for you whenever you eat…..

I agree 100% about application of the golden rule. It was one of my primary motivations for going vegan.

The problem I have is with the often-repeated (twice so far in this thread) claim that these lifeforms sacrifice themselves for us. It is a subtle but very significant, and for the non-human animals who are subject to it, lethal piece of wordplay which helps to perpetuate the ongoing holocaust (http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html) and, in my experience, is an argument particularly ubiquitous within the circles of the more spiritually aware.

The fact is that they don’t sacrifice themselves for us and to say as much is dishonest both to ourselves and to those we share such words with. They are killed…..murdered by us. Dress it up any way you want to try and make the practice more “digestible” but the fact remains.

Anyone reading this and sensing the contemptuousness within my tone is mistaken. If that is you, please stop, take a deep breath, exhale slowly and then visualise yourself in the position of the non-human animal about to “sacrifice itself”. Ask yourself, do they really not know what is about to happen? Can they really not feel the fear, the horror of what is about to take place? Can they not smell the blood of their colleagues who have just “sacrificed themselves” before them? If you can take the time to truly practice this exercise in empathy, it will gradually help to dismantle the very powerful speciesist framework at play.

Once one removes speciesism from the process i.e: once one truly applies the golden rule, the veil will be lifted in any given situation regarding dietary choices.


…..and try not to feel guilty….

The only way to “not feel guilty” is to do the right thing or disassociate from your conscience. It is possible to override it but then one is into the realms of cognitive dissonance.

[AutumnW]

Akasha,

Thank you for pointing out some of the ludicrous rationalizations for eating meat. I am still eating meat, but not as much and take pains to eat outside of the agribusiness holocaust industry.

I have an illness that includes GI issues that disallow nearly all fruit and vegetables, unless I take massive amounts of drugs to counter the effects. It is a a real, incontrovertible problem for me and causes me a fair amount of emotional and spiritual distress.

In my next life, I want to reincarnate somewhere where something doesn't have to die, (plant or animal,)so I can live.

I don't judge others for eating meat in an unconscious way. They will come to the realization on their own and at their own speed. The aggressive Vegans and vegetarians tend to provoke a defensive reaction that shuts down compassionate comversation. We all deserve compassion. None of us consciously choose cruelty. We are born into it.

[Intuitive Fish]

I agree 100% about application of the golden rule. It was one of my primary motivations for going vegan.

The problem I have is with the often-repeated (twice so far in this thread) claim that these lifeforms sacrifice themselves for us. It is a subtle but very significant, and for the non-human animals who are subject to it, lethal piece of wordplay which helps to perpetuate the ongoing holocaust (http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html) and, in my experience, is an argument particularly ubiquitous within the circles of the more spiritually aware.

The fact is that they don’t sacrifice themselves for us and to say as much is dishonest both to ourselves and to those we share such words with. They are killed…..murdered by us. Dress it up any way you want to try and make the practice more “digestible” but the fact remains.


Akasha, that's a great point. There's no denying that the current conventional food industry creates stress and suffering for animals both in their life and death process. And we support that suffering by funding and eating those animals, or just by doing and saying nothing, allowing it continue.

It also seems clear and obvious that animals are conscious and self-aware. But The Freedom Train also brought up a good point. Where do we draw the line on what constitutes a sentient being? Just because say, a rock, has a slower vibrational oscillation than say, a cheetah doesn't necessarily mean the rock isn't conscious, right?

If in fact, everything is energy, then what we consider to be alive and what we consider to be an object is likely an illusion.... In that case, by your definition of "killing anything creates suffering and is wrong," we're always wrong because we're killing things all the time, whether it's a tree to build a home, a plant to use as food or the billions of live bacteria in our own gut.

Someone also brought up the excellent point that death isn't necessarily the evil or the suffering we're led to think it is. There's evidence it's actually a beautiful and wonderful experience just like the process of birth, in spite of all the fears and confusion surrounding them both. The only reason that might be controversial is because of how we're socially conditioned every day to view death as a horrible tragedy.

Put all of this together and that leads me to think that death isn't necessarily and automatically the wrong thing. We can still treat all beings and things with respect even when death is involved.

[Akasha]

.....the excellent point that death isn’t the evil or suffering that we’re led to think it is.....

Sure, in and of itself, death is possibly the most sublime rite of passage we will ever take, but to impose that on another sentient being is something entirely different. Dying is not the same as murder and should not be categorized as such.


.....Just because say, a rock, has a slower vibrational oscillation than say, a cheetah doesn't necessarily mean the rock isn't conscious, right?.....

If you are going to talk about rocks being conscious etc… you have every right to do so. Who am I to stop you? You may even be right, but do they suffer? That's the question. In the same vein, the notion that plants have feelings too is also something that you’re free to contemplate and may well be true too, but likewise, do they suffer? I will also refer back to the cartoon in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1105608&viewfull=1#post1105608) since consuming animals and their secretions only leads to more plants being consumed, so if they do suffer then more will suffer through consuming animals. I accept that we cannot go through life here on Earth without causing suffering but we can decide to minimize it.

Where do we draw the line on where sentience begins? I'd say having a central nervous system is a pretty good place to start. When we start requiring extremely sophisticated technology to support our assertions on dietary ethics things are going to get problematic.......and why are we using said tech'? To reduce the suffering of plants or to provide an excuse for continuing to exploit animals?


.....everything is energy....

so…….. bacon!

Just because we can theoretically break everything down into its component parts doesn’t mean there is no inherent value in the sum of those parts and should be respected as such, in particular when we are all agreed that the sum of those parts go to make up a creature with the capacity to suffer just like us - hence application of the golden rule.

Now since you agreed with me on the golden rule, let's turn the tables for a minute. Would you be happy to be killed, “with respect” of course, for the sake of someone else’s palate?

[The Freedom Train]

Wow this discussion thread is starting to make me feel like I should just stop eating altogether.

Mostly all of the points being made, I can agree with.

When I say thanks to the lifeforms that sacrifice their lives - I am not suggessting that they are usually signing up for it, but that their life was a sacrifice for my survival, whenever I am eating.

I really do not think it is possible to assume that other lifeforms do not suffer, in general, but I am not aware enough to be able to communicate with them.

I do agree that, beyond eating, pretty much everything that we do entails death and destruction on some level (mining natural resources, building houses, desalination of sea water, etc) . Even if we go for a walk in the woods we are unwittingly stepping on and killing insects in our wake.

Akasha, I feel your passion and desire to minimize suffering of lifeforms on this planet, and I agree with you.

It is possible that suffering is oftentimes not involved, when lifeforms are killed for consumption - the theory being that their consciousness checks out of the body before death takes place. This has been attested to by many NDE's - they experience, not pain or fear, but a great sense of peace.

It does also seem to me, still, that unless we renounce food altogether, we cannot escape the "circle of life" - which requires us to kill and eat each other to survive.

I understand wanting to opt out of meat eating in consideration of the numbers of lifeforms being taken (animals eat the plants, then we eat the animals) - however, people oftentimes need to eat more plant matter in volume than animal, and just one of these animals can feed a number of people.

What about when people who were meat free for years become so sickly that they find the solution to their own suffering is to begin eating meat - as has been the case with countless people that my friend and I know - myself being one of them)?

All of this just makes me feel like I might as well stop eating and be done with it.

[meat suit]

Wow this discussion thread is starting to make me feel like I should just stop eating altogether.


ultimately thats where we are heading... the current human design has one big difference to all other animals... and that is our brain...
in all other animals the brain is mainly used for processing navigation towards food / procreation and away from danger... it is ruled by the gut and the groin...
in humans the brain (that upgraded navigation device) is in the process of taking over control of the gut/groin/body system... this is why we are in a transitional period as a species... eventually our body may evolve to be complient with 'brain caused' ''ethics''... we could live on electrical fields or sunlight... maybe become more of a plant....
I know for myself that that it is ok to be 'part animal and part windows 95' thats what its like around here right now...

[Akasha]

Dear Freedom Train, please watch Cowspiracy: torrent here (http://extratorrent.cc/torrent/5143471/Cowspiracy.The.Sustainability.Secret.720p.x264.AAC+Forum.mkv.html). It will help clarify your confusion regarding the humans eating non-human animals eating plants scenario. I would also draw attention to my most recent post on the All Things Vegan thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83021-All-Things-Vegan-&p=1107487&viewfull=1#post1107487) which covers the subject more concisely (10 minute youtube vid' vs Cowspiracy - 1hr 25 min's) but if you have the time, Cowspiracy is outstanding. You can also watch it via Netflix if you are subscribed.

[Ewan]

I yearn for a world free from corporate madness. Back to the days of mixed farming and crop rotation. Out with the chemicals and mass production.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JqZvE55a_U

[The Freedom Train]

Is it just me, or does anybody else feel guilty for being alive and taking up space after reading all of the back and forth on this thread?

If natural proclivities to feed ourselves are evil, and the only moral solution is to abstain, then our only solution is to commit suicide. Much of what we have come to depend on in our cultures has been produced through various iterations of death and destruction - diet aside. So should we all kill ourselves to stop the destruction of the earth that we are enacting in every way shape and form by living out our modern day existences? What about driving cars, riding on airplanes? What about building houses? Anything, really. It seems, when followed logically, that the argument for abstinence from activities that cause (either directly or indirectly) death, destruction, and suffering requires us all to stop being alive in order to properly fulfill such an empassioned vow.

[Intuitive Fish]

.....the excellent point that death isn’t the evil or suffering that we’re led to think it is.....

Sure, in and of itself, death is possibly the most sublime rite of passage we will ever take, but to impose that on another sentient being is something entirely different. Dying is not the same as murder and should not be categorized as such.


.....Just because say, a rock, has a slower vibrational oscillation than say, a cheetah doesn't necessarily mean the rock isn't conscious, right?.....

If you are going to talk about rocks being conscious etc… you have every right to do so. Who am I to stop you? You may even be right, but do they suffer? That's the question. In the same vein, the notion that plants have feelings too is also something that you’re free to contemplate and may well be true too, but likewise, do they suffer?

Good points, again. But the question isn't whether or not something suffers (feels pain.) There's no question that animals feel pain. But death doesn't necessarily equate to pain. I know livestock breeders who treat their animals better than most humans treat each other. And their slaughtering routine is humane as well. No pain, no stress. It's rare, but it's possible.

So the question isn't about pain. Of course we don't, or shouldn't, want to inflict pain on animals. The question is, as far as ethics go, do humans have a right to take an animal's life before an animal falls to disease, the climate, natural disasters and events, or another predator.... And if humans are in the wrong for killing the bugs in our own gut, we're going to have to blame nature as well.

Can you see what I'm getting at here?


I will also refer back to the cartoon in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1105608&viewfull=1#post1105608) since consuming animals and their secretions only leads to more plants being consumed, so if they do suffer then more will suffer through consuming animals. I accept that we cannot go through life here on Earth without causing suffering but we can decide to minimize it.

That argument goes both ways. The more crops we plant, the more natural habitats for animals we destroy, and animals themselves.



Now since you agreed with me on the golden rule, let's turn the tables for a minute. Would you be happy to be killed, “with respect” of course, for the sake of someone else’s palate?

Of course not. But would I donate my organs to anyone who needs them in the case of my death? Without a doubt.

Like I said, you've got good points, and I know I'm asking a lot here, but so-called vegan ethics aren't adding up. It has holes in it, the issue is more complex than we'd like to shove it into, and we seem to be missing important information.

Personally, I think that important information has something to do with the fact that we're all dependent on each other for life and sustenance. I know that fact can really dent our pride.

But I don't see an automatic wrong for caring for animals and in return they also care for us. There's a sacrifice there either way, especially since we established that death isn't the great suffering we once thought.

[Akasha]

Is it just me, or does anybody else feel guilty for being alive and taking up space after reading all of the back and forth on this thread?

If natural proclivities to feed ourselves are evil, and the only moral solution is to abstain, then our only solution is to commit suicide. Much of what we have come to depend on in our cultures has been produced through various iterations of death and destruction - diet aside. So should we all kill ourselves to stop the destruction of the earth that we are enacting in every way shape and form by living out our modern day existences? What about driving cars, riding on airplanes? What about building houses? Anything, really. It seems, when followed logically, that the argument for abstinence from activities that cause (either directly or indirectly) death, destruction, and suffering requires us to all to stop being alive in order to properly fulfill such an empassioned vow.

Maybe try being vegan and see if it makes any difference? It certainly did for me.

I accept that our existence compromises the well being of others but a vegan lifestyle actively seeks to limit that as far as possible.

Short of suicide as you suggest, it’s the most logical option.

[Akasha]

…..I know livestock breeders who treat their animals better than most humans treat each other. And their slaughtering routine is humane as well. No pain, no stress. It's rare, but it's possible…..

Most humans don’t subject each other to a bolt gun to the head when they are barely adults.


…..The question is, as far as ethics go, do humans have a right to take an animal's life before an animal falls to disease, the climate, natural disasters and events, or another predator…..

I would agree, for example, in the event of an aged, suffering pet being euthanised, but if you look at the thread title you’ll notice the word “eating”. If you are prepared to eat your euthanised pet I wouldn’t have a problem with that and it wouldn’t contravene the guidelines of veganism either. The same would apply to road kill.


…..humans are in the wrong for killing the bugs in our own gut…..

We don’t kill bugs in our gut (except when we consume antibiotics), they reside there.


…..The more crops we plant, the more natural habitats for animals we destroy, and animals themselves…..

We currently plant enough crops to feed 10 billion people but much of those crops are fed to livestock so that we can then eat them instead.



…..Now since you agreed with me on the golden rule, let's turn the tables for a minute. Would you be happy to be killed, “with respect” of course, for the sake of someone else’s palate?”

…..Of course not…..

QED (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D).


…..would I donate my organs to anyone who needs them in the case of my death? Without a doubt…..

You’d already be dead so no sacrifice there.


…..so-called vegan ethics aren't adding up. It has holes in it…..

Hopefully I’ve just plugged a few more of those holes for you.


…..I don't see an automatic wrong for caring for animals and in return they also care for us…..

Decoding the euphemism, I get “I don’t see an automatic wrong in feeding and prematurely murdering animals so we can eat them and die (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer)…….prematurely (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=0)”


…..There's a sacrifice there either way…..

Exactly, so why not just remove both unnecessary sacrifices from the equation of life?

nb: Apologies if this post was err.....well, a bit terse. Only so many hours in the day.
If you really want to plug the holes (they are all pluggable), read through all the threads I linked to here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1106097&viewfull=1#post1106097). Many if not all your arguments/questions are rebutted/answered in them.

That's not to say I'm not happy to continue the dialogue.

[TargeT]

…..I know livestock breeders who treat their animals better than most humans treat each other. And their slaughtering routine is humane as well. No pain, no stress. It's rare, but it's possible…..

Most humans don’t subject each other to a bolt gun to the head when they are barely adults.

OH, I think we can find plenty of humanity in terrible conditions...

I mean, china is actively harvesting organs from political dissidents (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/)(mostly practitioners of Folun Gahn.. a Tai Chi like religion)



…..The question is, as far as ethics go, do humans have a right to take an animal's life before an animal falls to disease, the climate, natural disasters and events, or another predator…..

I would agree, for example, in the event of an aged, suffering pet being euthanised, but if you look at the thread title you’ll notice the word “eating”. If you are prepared to eat your euthanised pet I wouldn’t have a problem with that and it wouldn’t contravene the guidelines of veganism either. The same would apply to road kill.

What about the "other predators" part? Some animals literally are the foundation of hundreds of other animals diet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Ecology)... Do you consider this abnormal?



…..humans are in the wrong for killing the bugs in our own gut…..

We don’t kill bugs in our gut (except when we consume antibiotics), they reside there.

Completely untrue, our intestines are a battle ground with various colonies of microbes attempting to destroy each other AND influence us on dietary (and even social) choices (http://www.mindful.org/meet-your-second-brain-the-gut/).
Every time you go to the bathroom You "eliminate" an estimated 500,000,000,000 to around 100 TRILLION (http://www.livescience.com/10501-scientists-examine-100-trillion-microbes-human-feces.html) or so microbes.



…..The more crops we plant, the more natural habitats for animals we destroy, and animals themselves…..

We currently plant enough crops to feed 10 billion people but much of those crops are fed to livestock so that we can then eat them instead.

Got a reference for that?



…..so-called vegan ethics aren't adding up. It has holes in it…..

Hopefully I’ve just plugged a few more of those holes for you.

Nope, still coming off as extremely bias to your viewpoint. (same as me I assume, except my view point is inclusive I suppose)



…..I don't see an automatic wrong for caring for animals and in return they also care for us…..

Decoding the euphemism, I get “I don’t see an automatic wrong in feeding and prematurely murdering animals so we can eat them and die (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer)…….prematurely (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=0)”

And modernly grown fruit and veggies cause cancer (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/17/medicalscience.research)... woohoo! lets not eat anything!



…..There's a sacrifice there either way…..

Exactly, so why not just remove both unnecessary sacrifices from the equation of life?


Who are you to say what is necessary and what is not?

I don't feel in the position to judge that, I simply follow the patterns; stay with the fractal... and the fractal largely rejects veganism in humans, but there is still a place for it.




I'm a closet (vicarious) vegan....

http://i.imgur.com/tJZx6iZ.jpg

[Akasha]

…..I know livestock breeders who treat their animals better than most humans treat each other. And their slaughtering routine is humane as well. No pain, no stress. It's rare, but it's possible…..

Most humans don’t subject each other to a bolt gun to the head when they are barely adults.

OH, I think we can find plenty of humanity in terrible conditions...

I mean, china is actively harvesting organs from political dissidents (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/)(mostly practitioners of Folun Gahn.. a Tai Chi like religion)



…..The question is, as far as ethics go, do humans have a right to take an animal's life before an animal falls to disease, the climate, natural disasters and events, or another predator…..

I would agree, for example, in the event of an aged, suffering pet being euthanised, but if you look at the thread title you’ll notice the word “eating”. If you are prepared to eat your euthanised pet I wouldn’t have a problem with that and it wouldn’t contravene the guidelines of veganism either. The same would apply to road kill.

What about the "other predators" part? Some animals literally are the foundation of hundreds of other animals diet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Ecology)... Do you consider this abnormal?



…..humans are in the wrong for killing the bugs in our own gut…..

We don’t kill bugs in our gut (except when we consume antibiotics), they reside there.

Completely untrue, our intestines are a battle ground with various colonies of microbes attempting to destroy each other AND influence us on dietary (and even social) choices (http://www.mindful.org/meet-your-second-brain-the-gut/).
Every time you go to the bathroom You "eliminate" an estimated 500,000,000,000 to around 100 TRILLION (http://www.livescience.com/10501-scientists-examine-100-trillion-microbes-human-feces.html) or so microbes.



…..The more crops we plant, the more natural habitats for animals we destroy, and animals themselves…..

We currently plant enough crops to feed 10 billion people but much of those crops are fed to livestock so that we can then eat them instead.

Got a reference for that?



…..so-called vegan ethics aren't adding up. It has holes in it…..

Hopefully I’ve just plugged a few more of those holes for you.

Nope, still coming off as extremely bias to your viewpoint. (same as me I assume, except my view point is inclusive I suppose)



…..I don't see an automatic wrong for caring for animals and in return they also care for us…..

Decoding the euphemism, I get “I don’t see an automatic wrong in feeding and prematurely murdering animals so we can eat them and die (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer)…….prematurely (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=0)”

And modernly grown fruit and veggies cause cancer (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/17/medicalscience.research)... woohoo! lets not eat anything!



…..There's a sacrifice there either way…..

Exactly, so why not just remove both unnecessary sacrifices from the equation of life?


Who are you to say what is necessary and what is not?

I don't feel in the position to judge that, I simply follow the patterns; stay with the fractal... and the fractal largely rejects veganism in humans, but there is still a place for it.....

So this is back and forth is getting a bit confusing but, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.

Regarding Intuitive Fish’s comment about “most humans”, we can always find examples of humans treating other humans atrociously (as you highlighted) but it isn’t most, unlike animal agriculture where they all end up in being slaughtered.

Regarding the second point I addressed, yes I am fully aware of the fact that “some animals are literally the foundation of other animals’ diet” and no I don’t consider it abnormal, but there are lots of things which are normal for them which would be abnormal for us. Take dogs and lions sniffing one another’s anuses (anusi?) on greeting each other as an example of the appeal to nature fallacy breaking down once again.

Regarding bugs in the gut, you said it yourself that “various colonies of microbes attempt to destroy each other”. Our gut is merely the venue of their battle and yes I’m aware that they seek to influence the host. Are you, by any chance, suggesting that my gut flora drove me to veganism? If so, it would certainly fall in the “friendly bacteria” category :)

Regarding crops fed to livestock instead of humans and that 10 billion figure, (it’s actually closer to 11 billion) here (http://www.meatfreemondays.com/feed-an-extra-4bn-by-growing-crops-for-humans-not-animals/)’s the article and here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta;jsessionid=EC8BCDE375471C079450A324762FD1D0.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl472821s4)’s the study.

Regarding vegan ethics not adding up and your accusations of me being biased, I put my hands up. Ethics are what started veganism. One really has to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get them to not add up. Even Dawkins, in conversation with Singer, concluded that it was logical from an ethical perspective, being honest enough to cite tradition and taste as his reasons for not being vegan himself.

N-d6H6jRlqg

Regarding “modernly grown fruit and veggies causes cancer”, let’s be clear, it’s the nitrates in the fertilizer, not the fruit and veggies themselves, which are responsible for this phenomenon, as clearly specified in the article you linked to - yet another reason to only eat organic.

Regarding unnecessary sacrifices and “who am I to say what’s necessary and what’s not?” Good question. I’ll let the American Dietetic Association clarify:


.....appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.....(here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864))

ergo, animal products are not necessary.

Regarding fractals, I’m not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

.......And finally, did you manage to watch Cowspiracy (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82470-Cowspiracy-the-sustainability-secret--2014-&p=1037786&viewfull=1#post1037786) yet?

[TargeT]

So this is back and forth is getting a bit confusing but, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.

Regarding Intuitive Fish’s comment about “most humans”, we can always find examples of humans treating other humans atrociously (as you highlighted) but it isn’t most, unlike animal agriculture where they all end up in being slaughtered.

I.F. said they know people that treat animals better than "most" humans treat eachother, humans are emotionally brutal to eachother; in our current society I think that is equatable with physically brutal (as it used to be that way before...). People get ostracized from this form for the SLIGHTEST emotional abuse, so clearly we've agreed that's a "big deal".


Regarding the second point I addressed, yes I am fully aware of the fact that “some animals are literally the foundation of other animals’ diet” and no I don’t consider it abnormal, but there are lots of things which are normal for them which would be abnormal for us. Take dogs and lions sniffing one another’s anuses (anusi?) on greeting each other as an example of the appeal to nature fallacy breaking down once again.

Well, we have our own weird customs that they don't ... Every time you shake someones hand you are literally checking to see if they have a weapon in their hand & the "shake" is to ensure there is nothing tucked up that sleeve, ever wave at someone (same thing, showing your dominant hand is empty)?

But then that would be a strawman, you set up an easy to win argument that was unrelated to the original one.. we were talking about things eating each other, not greeting each other ;)


Regarding bugs in the gut, you said it yourself that “various colonies of microbes attempt to destroy each other”. Our gut is merely the venue of their battle and yes I’m aware that they seek to influence the host. Are you, by any chance, suggesting that my gut flora drove me to veganism? If so, it would certainly fall in the “friendly bacteria” category :)

Certainly, your eating habits killed off the bacteria that relied on meats.. you basically committed genocide (with prejudice, I might add). The remaining microbes are the ones that process vegetable matter and thus influence you (I'll bet you noticed this gradual change as you started to find veggies more and more desirable).



Regarding crops fed to livestock instead of humans and that 10 billion figure, (it’s actually closer to 11 billion) here (http://www.meatfreemondays.com/feed-an-extra-4bn-by-growing-crops-for-humans-not-animals/)’s the article and here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta;jsessionid=EC8BCDE375471C079450A324762FD1D0.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl472821s4)’s the study.

So we have enough food to do both, perfect!


Regarding vegan ethics not adding up and your accusations of me being biased, I put my hands up. Ethics are what started veganism. One really has to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get them to not add up. Even Dawkins, in conversation with Singer, concluded that it was logical from an ethical perspective, being honest enough to cite tradition and taste as his reasons for not being vegan himself.

Yes mental gymnastics, like deciding what life is worth caring for and what is not.. I see that absolutely.

Bio-availability and health are my reasons.. and quite solid ones ;)



Regarding “modernly grown fruit and veggies causes cancer”, let’s be clear, it’s the nitrates in the fertilizer, not the fruit and veggies themselves, which are responsible for this phenomenon, as clearly specified in the article you linked to - yet another reason to only eat organic.

Yep, same with meat, it's the additives that are bad, not the natural product, but you didn't differentiate this when you said meat gives cancer (except, the article you posted did, for you).


Regarding unnecessary sacrifices and “who am I to say what’s necessary and what’s not?” Good question. I’ll let the American Dietetic Association clarify:


.....appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.....(here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864))

ergo, animal products are not necessary.

Except they are, I can't believe lactating mothers are included in this list.. That's the ONE TIME you HAVE to be an omnivore or screw your child up... and forcing veganism on your children is a good way to goto jail (http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/lifestyle/parents-who-feed-kids-vegan-diet-may-risk-jail-italy-n627986)... not so for omnivorous eating habits...

It's a fine choice, but it's not the only choice.. no where close.


Regarding fractals, I’m not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

That's a hard one to break into.

simplistically it's this: reality is a fractal, it's a pattern repeated large and small (as above, so below) we see the pattern all the time, but due to slight shifts in context it seems that everything is novel and new (example: The man who would be king, Pocahontas, The Road to Eldorado, Stargate, Avitar.. All seem different due to the contexts, yet they all are the exact same story) Those who deeply understand the Fractal nature have often been refereed to as mystics or seers or guru's.. (not that understanding it inherently makes you "good" or benevolent, by any means..).

I'm fairly certain that this is why we have injected "pre-programming" like events (9/11 for example was, for YEARS hinted at...) the "fractal" is being primed.. the event has a greater success of happening if it's represented in the fractal previously (since we can only influence "present" and through that "previous" we can only spread the fractal injection in one direction of time).

Anyway, that's way off topic.


Still haven't seen cowspiracy.. too busy being a parent feeding/caring for rescue horses, dogs, cats etc. for low interest items right now. ;)

most those type of films are just back to back emotional manipulation with cherry picked stats, it's hard to sit through them as (from my perspective) they seem very obvious and morose.

[thepainterdoug]

i play ice hockey 4 times a week. i have always been a meat eater and have felt i needed the fats and protein. i can't eat nuts and seed due to intestine problems that occur and I'm allergic to soy for some reason. .

i was told I'm 0- blood type and it is best suited to eating and digesting meats and this has been true in my life. however this is not a moral or spiritual evaluation, just a fuel for my body finding. i truly feel best this way.

the problem is this is a dellema for anyone who even cares to consider the feelings of living things, as all do on this website. however i cannot say whats true for anyone but myself.

everytime someone mows the lawn , walks on the lawn or cuts down a tree, someone slices and squeezes a lemon or walks on anything for that matter has to understand this dilemma.

in the many out of body experiences i have read, no one i have found has yet said there is retribution for these actions. in fact, there is no punishment for your life according to many, you are welcomed home and judge your own life review. i don't know this or anything to be true, i really don't know much but surely know we as humans are incredibly hypocritical in so many ways.and i know this because I am.

its just in our nature as the ego wants to win and disregard what it doesn't see as beneficial to that end. hey i didn't make us!
anyhow, thanks for the post.

[Akasha]

So this is back and forth is getting a bit confusing but, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.

Regarding Intuitive Fish’s comment about “most humans”, we can always find examples of humans treating other humans atrociously (as you highlighted) but it isn’t most, unlike animal agriculture where they all end up in being slaughtered.

I.F. said they know people that treat animals better than "most" humans treat eachother, humans are emotionally brutal to eachother; in our current society I think that is equatable with physically brutal (as it used to be that way before...). People get ostracized from this form for the SLIGHTEST emotional abuse, so clearly we've agreed that's a "big deal".


Regarding the second point I addressed, yes I am fully aware of the fact that “some animals are literally the foundation of other animals’ diet” and no I don’t consider it abnormal, but there are lots of things which are normal for them which would be abnormal for us. Take dogs and lions sniffing one another’s anuses (anusi?) on greeting each other as an example of the appeal to nature fallacy breaking down once again.

Well, we have our own weird customs that they don't ... Every time you shake someones hand you are literally checking to see if they have a weapon in their hand & the "shake" is to ensure there is nothing tucked up that sleeve, ever wave at someone (same thing, showing your dominant hand is empty)?

But then that would be a strawman, you set up an easy to win argument that was unrelated to the original one.. we were talking about things eating each other, not greeting each other ;)


Regarding bugs in the gut, you said it yourself that “various colonies of microbes attempt to destroy each other”. Our gut is merely the venue of their battle and yes I’m aware that they seek to influence the host. Are you, by any chance, suggesting that my gut flora drove me to veganism? If so, it would certainly fall in the “friendly bacteria” category :)

Certainly, your eating habits killed off the bacteria that relied on meats.. you basically committed genocide (with prejudice, I might add). The remaining microbes are the ones that process vegetable matter and thus influence you (I'll bet you noticed this gradual change as you started to find veggies more and more desirable).



Regarding crops fed to livestock instead of humans and that 10 billion figure, (it’s actually closer to 11 billion) here (http://www.meatfreemondays.com/feed-an-extra-4bn-by-growing-crops-for-humans-not-animals/)’s the article and here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta;jsessionid=EC8BCDE375471C079450A324762FD1D0.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl472821s4)’s the study.

So we have enough food to do both, perfect!


Regarding vegan ethics not adding up and your accusations of me being biased, I put my hands up. Ethics are what started veganism. One really has to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get them to not add up. Even Dawkins, in conversation with Singer, concluded that it was logical from an ethical perspective, being honest enough to cite tradition and taste as his reasons for not being vegan himself.

Yes mental gymnastics, like deciding what life is worth caring for and what is not.. I see that absolutely.

Bio-availability and health are my reasons.. and quite solid ones ;)



Regarding “modernly grown fruit and veggies causes cancer”, let’s be clear, it’s the nitrates in the fertilizer, not the fruit and veggies themselves, which are responsible for this phenomenon, as clearly specified in the article you linked to - yet another reason to only eat organic.

Yep, same with meat, it's the additives that are bad, not the natural product, but you didn't differentiate this when you said meat gives cancer (except, the article you posted did, for you).


Regarding unnecessary sacrifices and “who am I to say what’s necessary and what’s not?” Good question. I’ll let the American Dietetic Association clarify:


.....appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.....(here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864))

ergo, animal products are not necessary.

Except they are, I can't believe lactating mothers are included in this list.. That's the ONE TIME you HAVE to be an omnivore or screw your child up... and forcing veganism on your children is a good way to goto jail (http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/lifestyle/parents-who-feed-kids-vegan-diet-may-risk-jail-italy-n627986)... not so for omnivorous eating habits...

It's a fine choice, but it's not the only choice.. no where close.


Regarding fractals, I’m not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

That's a hard one to break into.

simplistically it's this: reality is a fractal, it's a pattern repeated large and small (as above, so below) we see the pattern all the time, but due to slight shifts in context it seems that everything is novel and new (example: The man who would be king, Pocahontas, The Road to Eldorado, Stargate, Avitar.. All seem different due to the contexts, yet they all are the exact same story) Those who deeply understand the Fractal nature have often been refereed to as mystics or seers or guru's.. (not that understanding it inherently makes you "good" or benevolent, by any means..).

I'm fairly certain that this is why we have injected "pre-programming" like events (9/11 for example was, for YEARS hinted at...) the "fractal" is being primed.. the event has a greater success of happening if it's represented in the fractal previously (since we can only influence "present" and through that "previous" we can only spread the fractal injection in one direction of time).

Anyway, that's way off topic.....

Equating emotional abuse between humans and physical violence by humans to animals is a bit of stretch don’t you think?

In highlighting dogs and lions exhibiting certain practices, I was emphasising that just because plenty in the animal kingdom devour one another doesn’t mean we have to.

Regarding gut bacteria, I’d rather not be responsible for the death of non-human animals than save what literally amounts to, excuse my French, a piece of sh!t. It’s easy to get caught in the fractals but if it means you can’t make a meaningful value judgement, i.e recognise that there is a difference between sentient life and excrement then why are you saving horses instead of their manure?

We do not have enough food to “do both” as you put it. Please read the report.

Deciding “what life is worth caring for and what is not” is an improvement on deciding that none of it is worth caring for, isn’t it?

Which aspect of bio-availability are you concerned with? I mean which minerals, micro-nutrients etc? I had a recent blood test at the behest of a slightly paranoid neurologist and everything came back slap bang in the middle of the ranges…..and I’m 45 years old, not 37.

You said that “it’s the additives in meat that are bad, not natural product”, but what about heterocyclic amines (HCAs) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)? Studies have shown that they increase aggressive prostate cancer risk. You talk about eating the way you eat for health, but is it really?

4Zu58SM4BE8

I would say your comments about fractals aren’t off topic. In fact I’d suggest it’s your fractal being primed that fuels your disbelief about lactating mothers being on that list from the American Dietetics Association. It should also be noted that your (broken) link to Italy’s controversial anti-vegan parenting proposal, led by politician (nb: not dietician) Elvira Savino, was rejected by the Italian Society of Food Science, their president saying “diets containing excessive sugar and fat were of greater concern than the risks of deficiency of a vegan diet (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/parents-children-vegan-diet-prosecuted-italian-law)”.

[Akasha]

i play ice hockey 4 times a week. i have always been a meat eater and have felt i needed the fats and protein. i can't eat nuts and seed due to intestine problems that occur and I'm allergic to soy for some reason. .

i was told I'm 0- blood type and it is best suited to eating and digesting meats and this has been true in my life. however this is not a moral or spiritual evaluation, just a fuel for my body finding. i truly feel best this way.

the problem is this is a dellema for anyone who even cares to consider the feelings of living things, as all do on this website. however i cannot say whats true for anyone but myself.

everytime someone mows the lawn , walks on the lawn or cuts down a tree, someone slices and squeezes a lemon or walks on anything for that matter has to understand this dilemma.

in the many out of body experiences i have read, no one i have found has yet said there is retribution for these actions. in fact, there is no punishment for your life according to many, you are welcomed home and judge your own life review. i don't know this or anything to be true, i really don't know much but surely know we as humans are incredibly hypocritical in so many ways.and i know this because I am.

its just in our nature as the ego wants to win and disregard what it doesn't see as beneficial to that end. hey i didn't make us!
anyhow, thanks for the post.

Hi Doug.

I just posted a couple of short videos on the topic of blood-type on the All Things Vegan (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83021-All-Things-Vegan-&p=1108321&viewfull=1#post1108321) thread. Check them out at your leisure and feel free to comment.

[Akasha]

Not to put a dampener on this passionate back and forth or anything, but I just wanted to inject the following ramblings given that Avalon’s catchphrase is “Chronicles of the human awakening“.

What does awakened actually mean? Can it be defined in a tangible way we can all agree on? Is it in fact an ongoing process which will eventually lead to us transcending the material world completely as some might suggest? What drives that process? Is it automatic or is it dependent on our will, awareness or consciousness?

Take the abolition of slavery as an obvious example of this ongoing awakening, a practice which has, for the most part, been extinguished from modern society. We collectively abhor the very idea of it, even if some of us still tacitly support it by purchasing products made in sweat-shop environments (as just one example).

How and why have we moved on from such a repugnant practice? No doubt pro-slavery arguments were made by those with a vested interest in it’s continuation but what portion of the free who didn’t participate still saw it as normal and acceptable too? The constant dehumanisation of the enslaved would have helped maintain the status quo, just as it is with farmed animals, despite the fact that many such animals have intelligence levels on par with those we chose to have as pets.

I should insert a disclaimer at this point that I am in no way comparing historical slaves to non-human animals. I’m trying to highlight the fact that there was a discriminatory dynamic at play just as there is now against non-human animals: a discriminatory dynamic which we eventually, collectively recognised and collectively changed.

How did that change take place? Was it some kind of social osmosis which just happened automatically, a simple, inevitable but passive sign of the times if you will, or was it a passionate struggle by the minority who were able to recognise the inhumanity of such a practice and had the courage to oppose the status quo? History makes it clear it was the latter.

I’m suggesting that abolishing the enslavement of non-human animals is another aspect of our incremental awakening. I’m not saying it will be the last either, but I am suggesting it might well be the next.

Now, in hindsight, was the abolition of slavery an enlightened process, and going back to the OP, what does enlightened eating actually mean? Does it mean that we, once enlightened, consciously recognise the sacrifice of the thing we are about to consume, but then consume it anyway, regardless of the pain and suffering involved? i.e. before enlightenment, collecting water, after enlightenment, collecting water, enlightenment therefore just representing a shift in awareness to the point that we are conscious of our actions but don’t change them because “everything is one”, or…… do we actually change our practice? If so how do we change it? I’m not claiming to be enlightened (or this post would obviously have been infinitely more coherent!) but given what I just wrote about the incremental awakening of humanity, as I see it relating to this subject, a plant-based diet seems to be the next step.

One last thing - Assuming we maintain our material existence and don’t just vaporise into the aether, will slaughterhouses continue to exist in a fully awakened society? What about crops and orchards?

- ramble over.

[Intuitive Fish]

Regarding vegan ethics not adding up and your accusations of me being biased, I put my hands up. Ethics are what started veganism. One really has to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get them to not add up. Even Dawkins, in conversation with Singer, concluded that it was logical from an ethical perspective, being honest enough to cite tradition and taste as his reasons for not being vegan himself.


Yes mental gymnastics, like deciding what life is worth caring for and what is not.. I see that absolutely.

I'm still unclear why elevating certain life forms over others is in any way ethical? All life forms are different and have unique purposes, yes. But better than, less than? Some are more worthy of life than others? That sounds like the exact opposite of ethical.



Regarding unnecessary sacrifices and “who am I to say what’s necessary and what’s not?” Good question. I’ll let the American Dietetic Association clarify:

Wait, are you saying we should allow the American Dietetic Association to determine our health? You know the ADA has too many conflicts of interest to be of any reliable value, right? This is a clear case of confirmation bias, as are many vegan films, agendas and studies, including the infamous China Study.


ergo, animal products are not necessary.

Everything naturally contributes to the organic symbiotic interconnected network of conscious energy and living things. This factor seems obvious from the air we breathe to the tiny insect eating animal poo, i.e., animal product. By the way, horse manure makes an excellent plant fertilizer.



In highlighting dogs and lions exhibiting certain practices, I was emphasising that just because plenty in the animal kingdom devour one another doesn’t mean we have to.

Here's the thing. Everything is devouring everything all the time. Veganism might make perfect sense in your head, but the natural process of life for life means that nature simply doesn't agree with you.

This issue also requires the ability for nuanced thinking.



Deciding “what life is worth caring for and what is not” is an improvement on deciding that none of it is worth caring for, isn’t it?

Both presumptions are ignorant and narcissistic. Believe it or not, humans do not have ultimate control over nature. Nature does. We would do best to be in harmony with nature. And at least at this time and on this planet... whether we like it or not... nature exists and sustains itself by destroying and devouring itself.

[Akasha]

Regarding vegan ethics not adding up and your accusations of me being biased, I put my hands up. Ethics are what started veganism. One really has to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get them to not add up. Even Dawkins, in conversation with Singer, concluded that it was logical from an ethical perspective, being honest enough to cite tradition and taste as his reasons for not being vegan himself.


Yes mental gymnastics, like deciding what life is worth caring for and what is not.. I see that absolutely.

I'm still unclear why elevating certain life forms over others is in any way ethical? All life forms are different and have unique purposes, yes. But better than, less than? Some are more worthy of life than others? That sounds like the exact opposite of ethical.



Regarding unnecessary sacrifices and “who am I to say what’s necessary and what’s not?” Good question. I’ll let the American Dietetic Association clarify:

Wait, are you saying we should allow the American Dietetic Association to determine our health? You know the ADA has too many conflicts of interest to be of any reliable value, right? This is a clear case of confirmation bias, as are many vegan films, agendas and studies, including the infamous China Study.


ergo, animal products are not necessary.

Everything naturally contributes to the organic symbiotic interconnected network of conscious energy and living things. This factor seems obvious from the air we breathe to the tiny insect eating animal poo, i.e., animal product. By the way, horse manure makes an excellent plant fertilizer.



In highlighting dogs and lions exhibiting certain practices, I was emphasising that just because plenty in the animal kingdom devour one another doesn’t mean we have to.

Here's the thing. Everything is devouring everything all the time. Veganism might make perfect sense in your head, but the natural process of life for life means that nature simply doesn't agree with you.

This issue also requires the ability for nuanced thinking.



Deciding “what life is worth caring for and what is not” is an improvement on deciding that none of it is worth caring for, isn’t it?

Both presumptions are ignorant and narcissistic. Believe it or not, humans do not have ultimate control over nature. Nature does. We would do best to be in harmony with nature. And at least at this time and on this planet... whether we like it or not... nature exists and sustains itself by destroying and devouring itself.

I agree that nature exists by destroying and devouring itself, but I am suggesting that "enlightened eating" would entail removing as much pain and suffering from that equation as possible rather than just accepting that that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Hence the question at the end of my last post about slaughterhouses.

Also, I posted the following here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1105734&viewfull=1#post1105734) but it seems it was largely overlooked.


Legumes (along with fruit and seasonal vegetables) also get around the ethical conundrum postured in the OP since they voluntarily separate themselves from the plant or die at the end of the season respectively.

Nuts and seeds also fall into the same category. No suffering involved. Anyone care to comment on this aspect of the discussion?

[Rich]

Some don't do so well on a veg diet. I was vegan once and vegetarian twice. But in the end I returned to meat and fish, I know people that have been vegetarian for years and seem to be doing fine. Most in my family are vegetarian or vegan.

[Intuitive Fish]

I agree that nature exists by destroying and devouring itself, but I am suggesting that "enlightened eating" would entail removing as much pain and suffering from that equation as possible rather than just accepting that that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Hence the question at the end of my last post about slaughterhouses.

So, you're saying that our goal should be to remove pain and suffering as much as possible? If so, this seems to assume there's no value in pain. But what about pain as a signal or a guide? Or what about feeling pain with exercise in order to build muscle...? If we evolved into a world with no pain and suffering, then what?

Your appeal to moralism sounds good at first appearances. And there's some truth in it, because the abuse of animals in factory farming isn't good for anyone (which I presume we've established here.)

But your moralist premise seems to anthropomorphize animals. It assumes animals must be JUST LIKE humans. Because humans are the center of the universe and it's all about us humans! (Not that I blame anyone for that line of thinking because that's how we're conditioned to think.)

I eat vegan but not for ethical reasons. It's purely for energy frequency, so I guess you could say it's also for health. But that doesn't automatically imply that a meat diet is unhealthy. It doesn't even mean that a meat diet is unenlightened or low frequency. That's ridiculous.

What's healthy for one person can be poison for another because different people eat different foods at different times for different reasons. I know we like to standardize things, and make everything fit into a one-size-fits-all.... But that never works, and it's far from realistic anyway.

[Akasha]

I agree that nature exists by destroying and devouring itself, but I am suggesting that "enlightened eating" would entail removing as much pain and suffering from that equation as possible rather than just accepting that that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Hence the question at the end of my last post about slaughterhouses.

So, you're saying that our goal should be to remove pain and suffering as much as possible? If so, this seems to assume there's no value in pain. But what about pain as a signal or a guide? Or what about feeling pain with exercise in order to build muscle...? If we evolved into a world with no pain and suffering, then what?

Your appeal to moralism sounds good at first appearances. And there's some truth in it, because the abuse of animals in factory farming isn't good for anyone (which I presume we've established here.)

But your moralist premise seems to anthropomorphize animals. It assumes animals must be JUST LIKE humans. Because humans are the center of the universe and it's all about us humans! (Not that I blame anyone for that line of thinking because that's how we're conditioned to think.)

I eat vegan but not for ethical reasons. It's purely for energy frequency, so I guess you could say it's also for health. But that doesn't automatically imply that a meat diet is unhealthy. It doesn't even mean that a meat diet is unenlightened or low frequency. That's ridiculous.

What's healthy for one person can be poison for another because different people eat different foods at different times for different reasons. I know we like to standardize things, and make everything fit into a one-size-fits-all.... But that never works, and it's far from realistic anyway.

I’m saying there’s no value in pain when it is inflicted on innocents by us - for example debeaking, tail-docking, testicle removal or de-horning, all practices done without anaesthetic, the pain incurred in no way disputed by anyone in the industry, not necessarily limited to factory farm scenarios and by know means an exhaustive list either.
What is a pig, chicken, sheep or cow to learn from having various body parts removed without anaesthetic?

Granted, WE learn plenty from subjecting ourselves to the flame and rightly so, chronic disease being one of the most profound teachers, ironically, often the fundamental factor in driving (literally) die-hard carnists towards a plant-based diet.

Now to be clear, I don’t anthropomorphise animals, I simply recognised the characteristics we share with them, of which there are many as you know, a central nervous system and brain being the most fundamental similarities from which I (imho) reasonably extrapolate outwards. Is that moralism or just common sense?

Can you elaborate on your ideas about energy frequency of food. Frequency is measured in hertz, the other variable being amplitude, the height of the wave as it were. If meat isn’t lower (you appear contemptuous of such a notion evidenced by the “ridiculous” adjective and who am I to argue with you?), is it the same frequency or a higher frequency or one of the two with just a different amplitude and if so is it a greater or lesser amplitude? Serious question, just in case it sounded somewhat facetious.

There are anecdotal differences between one person’s physiology and another’s but they are just that. We’ve all heard the story about the 95 year old granny who smashed through two packs of Marlboro Red’s every day of her life (and she’s still going strong now, you know!), but the larger the scientific study the more these examples are ironed out and we can, with increasing accuracy, speculate about what’s healthy and what’s not, the China Study being a good example despite you regarding it as infamous (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1108612&viewfull=1#post1108612):


.....In a written debate with Campbell in 2008, nutritionist Loren Cordain argued that "the fundamental logic underlying Campbell's hypothesis (that low [animal] protein diets improve human health) is untenable and inconsistent with the evolution of our own species." Campbell argued that "diet–disease associations observed in contemporary times are far more meaningful than what might have occurred during evolutionary times—at least since the last 2.5 million years or so.". The book was reviewed by Harriet Hall, a physician and skeptic who writes about alternative medicine, in a blog entry posted on the Science-Based Medicine website in 2009. Hall argued that the book had references which do not support directly the claims made by the authors. She also stated that the book does not explain the exceptions to his data—for example that "stomach cancer rates are higher in China than elsewhere in the world" or that there are countries whose diet includes high intake of animal protein, like Maasai and Eskimo, but that do not have the health issues described by the authors. Hall's blog cites her main source as the website of Weston A. Price Foundation. Quackwatch describes the Weston A. Price Foundation as promoting "questionable dietary strategies" and Price's core assumptions as contrary to contemporary medical understanding.....(Wiki' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study))

Diabetes, atherosclerosis and cancer (to name but a few) having been well established as chronic conditions, almost always alleviated to some degree and often treatable with a plant-based diet.

And (just in case it gets lost in the back and forth)........getting back to my last question in post 90 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93873-Enlightened-Eating-Dispelling-Myths-and-Assumptions&p=1108467&viewfull=1#post1108467)


.....will slaughterhouses continue to exist in a fully awakened society?....

Would anyone including yourself care to comment?

[greybeard]

In my world there would be no slaughter houses.
No moral high ground--just not needed.
If you need meat/fish go out, catch it and kill it yourself.

Another side of the whole thing is that many animals would not have had an experience of life without meat eaters.
I believe animal are very aware of being alive and have emotions.

I dont have a judgmental mind set on the subject but I am inclined to rebel against cruelty or anything that causes fear.
I can remember as a very young child thinking--"If that can happen to "Them" it could happen to me--do I want that?"

Chris

[Intuitive Fish]

Yallz can remove the "But we shouldn't inflict pain on animals!" argument because I (and I'm going to assume pretty much everyone) agrees with you 100%. That's not the dilemma. In fact, I was thinking that the mistreatment of animals (and plants and the Earth) - and not just for use as human food - is the real issue here. We can all meet on that point, right?

So let's get the argument straight. What we're differing on is whether or not animals should be used for food at all, even if no pain, stress or abuse is inflicted upon them. Correct?

For the sake of argument - because hey, I'm all about a good argument - we can forget the fact that some animals eat animals and even voraciously, violently and terrifyingly tear into each other. We can even ignore the Venus fly trap - a carnivorous plant - which doesn't exactly treat its prey like an invitation to tea either.

About anthropomorphizing animals, I realize humans and animals have some important commonalities, just like everything does. Yet, in spite of what some people think, humans and animals are also different. ;) And at least at this point in our evolution, it seems clear enough there's some kind of a missing link.

So what I mean is: How do we know animals experience the same plane of consciousness, same beliefs, values, standards, morals... and all the same fears and hang ups that us humans do? I mean, maybe they do. We know some animals have emotions. But beyond that, we don't seem to have that kind of information, without projecting our own thought processes onto them.

So to assume that all life forms understand death as humans understand it... seems to be reaching. Life is far too complex.

About eating vegan for energy frequency, I don't mean that one frequency is necessarily better than another. I think the "higher" "lower" terms are a misnomer in that sense because it assumes that a higher frequency must be something good while a lower frequency must be something really bad. (Just like "light" and "dark" and other terms of duality.) But as I understand frequency, it's relative. I think the best food diet for anyone contains a vibrational frequency that more or less matches their own, which would indicate a more "natural" or "harmonious" diet. I might also say that unbalanced frequencies is why certain diets don't work for certain people. But don't ask me to actually explain any of that because I'm new to this whole subject....

I was under the impression that the science behind the China Study was sufficiently debunked:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

https://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/


I can't stop laughing at the hypothetical 95 year old woman who smashes through 2 packs of reds every day, HAHA! Seriously though, she beat us all and wins this argument fair and square. :lol:

[Sueanne47]

I live in a family of meat eaters, if I was living on my own I'd become a vegan. Because my hubby Terry & daughter Emma insist on eating meat, I only buy sausages from pigs that have a free range life..same as chickens and eggs. Red meat ~ its difficult to tell if the animal has had a good life in the field or not, turkey at Christmas I only get a free range one but I HATE having to buy one anymore!, just to think the poor bird dies just to give us a dinner.

I detest factory farming and people that wear real fur just so it 'looks good for them' and I sign petitions about the Yulin dog festival.

I donate to the RSPCA

I buy detergents and hair shampoo & toothpaste only if it has a leaping bunny logo on it (so I know that no animal has been lab tested for that product) sainsbury do some 'no animal testing' products, and Waitrose has now jumped on the bandwagon.

[Akasha]

.....I was under the impression that the science behind the China Study was sufficiently debunked:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

https://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/.....

The first rebuttal of the China Study you linked to was by Chris Masterjohn. Here is Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s response:


Sales of our book, "The China Study…", co-authored by me and my son, Tom, have exceeded our expectations. With no formal public relations campaign, no recipes, no menus and many scientific references, we were cautioned by some in the publishing world not to expect a market of more than 5-15,000 copies sold. Instead, we sold more than 100,000 copies in about the first 18 months. We also are delighted with the 300 or so on-line reviews and e-mails that speak of very positive personal health benefits.

But, not all readers agree. A small number (5-10%) have not only disagreed, but have done so rather vigorously and vehemently. I have accepted with interest these commentaries, mostly assuming that our book must be having an impact.

I have not been inclined to respond to these relatively few critics. Yet, a few friends and colleagues have asked that I consider doing so, especially because a couple of the seemingly well-researched commentaries are being vigorously promoted far and wide. These include, for example, commentaries by Mr. Chris Masterjohn (Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites, July 4, 2005, and http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/index.html) and an anonymous Mr. "JayY" (Amazon website, May 18, 2006, with numerous additional "comments" on many positive reviews on Amazon.com). So, here goes my rebuttal.

I have several concerns with these critiques. First, these writers do not understand the overarching theme of our book. They even misunderstand what scientific discovery is all about—at least the version of discovery that I have learned over the past half century. Second, these critics--at least for Masterjohn and his enthusiasts— are following an agenda which promotes a diet high in cholesterol, fat and animal protein, which is the mission of an organization to which Masterjohn belongs. Third, they question the misleading title of our book, and on this point, I agree (more later).

Although I would like to respond to each of their specific items, I believe that discussing these broader points will suffice. The strategy that we used in our book was designed to explain how I came to have a worldview of diet and health, both personally and professionally, that was almost diametrically opposed to what I had at the beginning of my 50-year research career.

In planning the strategy for our book to tell this story, we wondered: Do we simply summarize a bunch of studies favoring my new views and run the risk of selecting only the evidence that I liked? Or do we summarize, without judgment, both the pro and con evidence, only to leave the reader more confused? We chose neither. We decided to tell the story how I personally learned it and why I was willing to recommend it for my family, my friends and myself. In this way, the reader decides whether the message is as convincing as I found it, perhaps even worth trying.

Our book starts with a short recounting of my personal background and professional training that may have influenced my early thinking. Mainly, I was raised on a dairy farm, milking cows while believing in the great health value of the typical high fat, animal protein based American diet. On our farm, for example, we were paid more for high fat milk than for low fat milk. To the extent that I even thought about such things, I also believed that cow's milk was the nearest thing to Nature's most perfect food, being especially rich in protein and calcium. Eventually, it was on to my doctoral dissertation research at Cornell University when I investigated with my professors how to produce MORE not less animal protein, because of the widespread belief that so-called 'high quality' animal protein was the quintessential hallmark of good health.

I then began my formal research career investigating a very narrow topic, the dietary causes of primary liver cancer. Each of the experiments in this early research was quite focused and a variety of experimental designs was used. I certainly had no preconceived ideas where our research might be headed except, possibly, for my bias in favor of the typical American diet, high in fat and animal-based protein. Our research began with an anecdotal observation in children that coincided with an experimental animal study in India, then proceeded through a widening array of basic laboratory experiments and hypotheses, eventually to involve an unusually comprehensive human observational study in China.

As the years progressed, our research, which was handsomely funded for most of my career by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), was producing more than a few findings that did not agree with my training or with my preconceived hypotheses. At times, these findings were provocative and frustrating, however well our experiments may have been planned and executed. These experiments often turned up more questions than answers. Nonetheless, I was also being reminded that if a more comprehensive truth were emerging from these detailed, isolated and sometimes controversial experiments, this truth had to be consistent both with a variety of experimental study designs, with real life conditions and with a rational biological explanation, among other criteria.

These considerations and observations of mine are important for understanding my criticisms of the commentaries of these writers. In effect, our research was conducted with an eye toward breadth, consistency, plausibility and, eventually, human health. It was not emphasizing the results of one experiment or one bit of data. In contrast, the critics are uncritically using highly selected detailed observations with no respect for context. They rely rather heavily, for example, on choosing selected but uncorrected correlations (associations of one variable with another) from the huge number (about 100,000 or so) that were published in the 894-page China Project monograph itself (Chen, J., Campbell, T. C., Li, J., and Peto, R. Diet, life-style and mortality in China. A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties, pp. 894. Oxford, UK; Ithaca, NY; Beijing, PRC: Oxford University Press; Cornell University Press; People's Medical Publishing House, 1990). Moreover, they emphasize the results of this one project in China as if it were the whole story in the book. This is wrong, quite literally, dead wrong. They not only miss the connectedness of the observations in this study with other research presented in the book, but also they also are selecting and interpreting from this study individual unadjusted correlations out of context, perhaps to please their own biases. It is important to understand both the limitations and the interpretations of these correlations. In contrast to these critics, most readers seem to have understood that there is far more to our book than the China Project. Indeed, this project represents only one of eighteen chapters in the book.

As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study can define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health, they almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how single agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I also followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations both in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of a limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual experiments can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each experiment may be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it possible to begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger truth.

At least, this is the way research SHOULD be done. Unfortunately, this often fails to take place. Instead, researchers get anxious and speculate beyond the results of a single experiment thus giving rise to the perception that a very broad truth has been discovered or is emerging. This especially happens when there are financial implications.
We tried in our book to avoid this problem by chronologically reporting on the main experiments during my career, along with the research of others, to elaborate a larger view that I thought was taking shape. We felt that this chronology of experiments respects readers, leaving them to decide whether they agree or disagree. It's about connecting the dots, so to speak….(full response here (http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm#storyContinued))

The other three rebuttals you linked to were all authored by Denise Minger. Here’s Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s response to her critique of his work:


Ms. Denise Minger has published a critique of our book, The China Study, as follows.
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? by Denise Minger - article found at: http://bit.ly/9s5pn8

It is both interesting and gratifying that there has been such a huge response, both on her blog and on those of others. This is a welcome development because it gives this topic an airing that has long been hidden in the halls and annals of science. It is time that this discussion begin to reach a much larger audience, including both supporters and skeptics.

I hope at some point to be able to read all of the discussions and the questions that have been raised, but present deadlines and long-standing commitments have forced me, for now, to focus on the most common concerns and questions, in order to respond in a timely manner here.

Kudos to Ms. Minger for having the interest, and taking the time, to do considerable analysis, and for describing her findings in readily accessible language. And kudos to her for being clear and admitting, right up front, that she is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but an English major with a love for writing and an interest in nutrition. We need more people with this kind of interest.

I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields. On the other hand, background, time in the field, and especially peer review, all do give one a kind of perspective and insight that is, in my experience, not attainable in any other way. I will try to make clear in my comments below when this is particularly relevant.

My response can be divided into three parts, mostly addressing her argument's lack of proportionality--what's important and what's not.

• Misunderstanding our book's objectives and my research findings
• Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database
• Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

Before proceeding further, however, I would like to make a general comment about my approach in responding to Denise.  I believe Denise is a very intelligent person, and I can see how she might reach the conclusions she did; this is easy to do for someone without extensive scientific research experience.  Having said this, there are fundamental flaws in her reasoning, and it is these flaws that I will address in this paper.  Some might wonder, "Why didn't he go through her laundry list of claims and address each one in the same order?"  The answer is simple: these claims are derived from the same faulty reasoning, so it is this underlying problem that I will address.  I do in fact illustrate this point by addressing one of her claims regarding wheat, and the reader can assume that one could go through a similar exercise with all her claims.
A. Not understanding the book's objectives.

The findings described in the book are not solely based on the China survey data, even if this survey was the most comprehensive (not the largest) human study of its kind. As explained in the book, I draw my conclusions from several kinds of findings and it is the consistency among these various findings that matter most.

First and foremost, our extensive work on the biochemical fundamentals of the casein effect on experimental cancer in laboratory animals (only partly described in our book) was prominent because these findings led to my suggestion of fundamental principles and concepts that apply to the broader effects of nutrition on cancer development. These principles were so compelling that they should apply to different species, many nutrients, many cancers and an almost unlimited list of health and disease responses (e.g., nutritional control of gene expression, multi-mechanistic causation, reversal of cancer promotion but not reversal of initiation, rapidity of nutritional response, etc.). These principles also collectively and substantially inferred major health benefits of whole plant-based foods.

This earlier laboratory work, extensively published in the very best peer-reviewed journals, preceded the survey in China. These findings established the essence of what can be called biological plausibility, one of the most important pillars establishing the reliability of epidemiological research. [Biological plausibility represents established evidence showing how a cause-effect relationship works at the biological level, one of the principles of epidemiology research established by the epidemiology pioneer, Sir Bradford Hill.]

Unfortunately, this issue of biological plausibility too often escapes the attention of statisticians and epidemiologists, who are more familiar with 'number crunching' than with biological phenomena. The first 15-20 years of our work was not, as some have speculated, an investigation specifically focused on the carcinogenic effects of casein. It was primarily a series of studies intended to understand the basic biology of cancer and the role of nutrition in this disease. The protein effect, of course, was remarkable, and for this reason, it was a very useful tool to give us a novel insight into the workings of the cancer process. [Nonetheless, the casein effect, which was studied in great depth and, if judged by the formal criteria for experimentally determining which chemicals classify as carcinogens, places casein in the category of being the most relevant carcinogen ever identified.]….(full response here (http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html))

[Omni]

I have been trying to become a lot more vegetarian. My biggest problem is I go out to eat for dinner with my family to standard American restaurants and the only thing I can really want on the menu has meat in it. Honestly I am a decent bit disgusted by the idea that I'm eating the bloody flesh of another being's body. I have been focusing on eliminating meat from my diet if I can for moral, taste and health reasons. I don't necessarily judge others for meat eating but I can judge others for killing innocent animals a bit...

I despise the christian view that animals are here for us to use and abuse. It appears both meat eaters and veges in this thread see the other side badmouth them though... oh well. -_-

[Akasha]

..... It appears both meat eaters and veges in this thread see the other side badmouth them though... oh well. -_-

My bad and I apologize for my part in that. I have to remind myself that I used to exploit animals too, but I find it difficult sometimes. It's such a psychological paradigm shift that I often forget how I was before. I need to be more mindful of that fact.

[greybeard]

I have been trying to become a lot more vegetarian. My biggest problem is I go out to eat for dinner with my family to standard American restaurants and the only thing I can really want on the menu has meat in it. Honestly I am a decent bit disgusted by the idea that I'm eating the bloody flesh of another being's body. I have been focusing on eliminating meat from my diet if I can for moral, taste and health reasons. I don't necessarily judge others for meat eating but I can judge others for killing innocent animals a bit...

I despise the christian view that animals are here for us to use and abuse. It appears both meat eaters and veges in this thread see the other side badmouth them though... oh well. -_-

I agree wholeheartedly Omni--the choice of non meat or non fish dishes here is pitiful but there is some.
Im not fond of bad mouthing either--even if I disagree with something a person is saying I don't think the less of them.

Chris

[lunaflare]

Some really thought provoking posts here.
I like what you wrote, AutumnW:
We all deserve compassion. None of us consciously choose cruelty. We are born into it.

We can, however, choose to reduce the amount of cruelty in our world.
Kindness and compassion are virtues. Do we, as humans, have an ethical responsibility to reduce violence in our world? I say, yes, we have an ethical responsibility; to care for this planet and the species that exist here.

There is a food chain; a hierarchy, on planet earth and each species knows what it needs for its survival.
Humans do not need to eat other animals in order to survive. In this time of our evolution, a diet without the need to farm depressed and fearful animals for slaughter is "enlightened eating".
The gorilla, our genetic relative, is vegan.
We eat the flesh of other animals, in my opinion, because we are addicted.

My choice to become vegan arose from a willing readiness to listen and learn from those around me. Education brings awareness. I learned that animal farming is heartbreakingly savage and an industry driven solely for profit. I learned chickens "owned" by humans-if they are to raised in a tiny cage or a free range field- have their beaks cut or burnt off. I learned all dairy cows get slaughtered and abattoirs are places of unholy terror. I learned "organic" raised animals head to the same slaughtering places as their penned up friends. I also learned that animals have beauty, wisdom and love to impart.

We are different to other species, not equal.
There is no equality.
To make a few general statements:
Babies/children are not equal to adults; young children are dependent upon adults for survival: care, food, shelter, love.
Animals are not equal to humans: There are physiological differences and differing brain function/capabilities. These factors influence choices/opportunities.
It is a fact that animals can be hunted; even the mightiest mammal, the blue whale.
Animals can be imprisoned; factory farmed and subjected to genetic engineering (creating hybrid hens with increased egg production; artificially inseminating cows so they produce more and more milk).

Abrahamic religions state, humans have dominion over animals.
But where lies our moral and ethical compass?
Many stories and myths teach that with greater power, comes greater responsibility.
Can we rule from a place of compassion instead of greed?

Animals do not create abattoirs to kill us (and profit from our meat). They do not farm us nor hunt us down. There is no "equality" here...

From a three dimensional earth-perspective, humans are top of the hierarchy.
We have the power to uproot a plant, break a branch or fell a forest, if we so choose.
We have the power to harpoon a whale, shoot a dog or a pig or a horse, if we so choose.
Again, no equality in this relationship.

And from a cosmic perspective?
Well...
many would say we humans are ruled over by people in our own species as well as other non homo sapiens. Our choices and freedoms are limited due to limited awareness/capacity/capabilities.

I say we make changes within our own culture; our own societies, to reduce cruelty and violence for enlightened eating (the title of this thread)
After-all, in medieval days, bear-baiting was an accepted form of entertainment...

[Akasha]

Some really thought provoking posts here.
I like what you wrote, AutumnW:
We all deserve compassion. None of us consciously choose cruelty. We are born into it.

We can, however, choose to reduce the amount of cruelty in our world.
Kindness and compassion are virtues. Do we, as humans, have an ethical responsibility to reduce violence in our world? I say, yes, we have an ethical responsibility; to care for this planet and the species that exist here.

There is a food chain; a hierarchy, on planet earth and each species knows what it needs for its survival.
Humans do not need to eat other animals in order to survive. In this time of our evolution, a diet without the need to farm depressed and fearful animals for slaughter is "enlightened eating".
The gorilla, our genetic relative, is vegan.
We eat the flesh of other animals, in my opinion, because we are addicted.

My choice to become vegan arose from a willing readiness to listen and learn from those around me. Education brings awareness. I learned that animal farming is heartbreakingly savage and an industry driven solely for profit. I learned chickens "owned" by humans-if they are to raised in a tiny cage or a free range field- have their beaks cut or burnt off. I learned all dairy cows get slaughtered and abattoirs are places of unholy terror. I learned "organic" raised animals head to the same slaughtering places as their penned up friends. I also learned that animals have beauty, wisdom and love to impart.

We are different to other species, not equal.
There is no equality.
To make a few general statements: Babies/children are not equal to adults; young children are dependent upon adults for survival: care, food, shelter, love.
Animals are not equal to humans: There are physiological differences and differing brain function/capabilities. These factors influence choices/opportunities.
It is a fact that animals can be hunted; even the mightiest mammal, the blue whale.
Animals can be imprisoned; factory farmed and subjected to genetic engineering (creating hybrid hens with increased their egg production; artificially inseminating cows so they produce milk for example).

As Abrahamic religions state, humans have dominion over animals.
But where lies our moral and ethical compass?
Many stories and myths teach that with greater power, comes greater responsibility.
Can we rule from a place of compassion instead of greed?

Animals do not create abattoirs to kill us (and profit from our meat).

From a three dimensional earth-perspective, humans are top of the hierarchy.
We have the power to uproot a plant, break a branch or fell a forest, if we so choose.
We have the power to harpoon a whale, shoot a dog or a pig or a horse, if we so choose.
There is no equality in this relationship.

And from a cosmic perspective?
Well...
many would say we humans are ruled over by people in our own species as well as other non homo sapiens. Our choices and freedoms are limited due to limited awareness/capacity/capabilities.

I say we make changes within our own culture; our own societies, to reduce cruelty and violence for enlightened eating (the title of this thread)
After-all, in medieval days, bear-baiting was an accepted form of entertainment...

Well said! Sorry I didn't notice it sooner.

[Joey]

I suddenly gave up meat a year ago. This was completely unplanned. It started out as an experiment, where I felt like stopping meat for a week or two. Well that experiment lasted a bit longer and I just didn't felt the need for returning to meat. At a point I felt a shift in my perception regarding the consumption of meat and with this a revulsion which I never felt before. At a point I knew I wasnt going back. On a few occasions I tried it again but it was just too dense, too heavy and it didn't energize me at all. On the contrary: it slowed me down and made me tired and uneasy.

It was pretty funny because in the summer of that year I did organized a presentation for the absolute necessity of eating meat and animal fat. I followed the advice of Weston Price and other Paleo-oriëntated guidelines to the letter. I really was into that. I actually was against eating a vegetarian or vegan diet because I found it dangerous and irresponsible, hehe. The switch also didn't come from my mind as I didn't do it for the best health and the greatest strength. It was a deeper part which made the choice.

Right now I absolutely can't think of going back. It's so strange. The whole paradigm of eating meat changed drastically. Right now I don't see a steak, I see a cow! I see the immense suffering and absolute sickness of the way we treat those beings. Quite revulsive actually. The other thing that has changed is my view of animals. First I made an unconscious distinction of let's say a cat and a cow. A cow was considered meat, and quite senseless and a cat was a loving sentient being. Right now all animals (and even humans in relation to animals) are equal. They are all sentient beings with inborn rights.

[The Freedom Train]

The Dalai Lama, who is the Buddha of Compassion incarnate, eats meat for health reasons.

"The Dalai Lama is considered to be the successor in a line of tulkus who are believed[1] to be incarnations of Avalokiteśvara,[2] the Bodhisattva of Compassion,[5] called Chenrezig in Tibetan."

I think the operative word here is Compassion.

The Blame and Shame campaign is so insidious that it hones living people's good intentions to be used as weapons against humanity.

[onawah]

United States Is Turning Into a Factory Farm for China, With Devastating Environmental Consequences
December 06, 2016
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/06/cafos-ruin-farm-land-waterways.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20161206Z1&et_cid=DM127610&et_rid=1784891955
Lfdm79V1-4M

By Dr. Mercola

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a major environmental polluter, destroying both soil and waterways. Making matters worse, a large portion of the food produced by American CAFOs is not even sold in the U.S. It’s exported to China.

What’s more, Chinese companies are increasingly buying up American farmland and U.S. food producers.1 So while China is reaping the best of what rural America has to offer, all of the pollution remains on American land and in our waterways.

The U.S. is also using up precious water to grow animal feed for export. In 2014, during the worst drought on record, California farmers were using 100 billion gallons of water to grow alfalfa (hay), destined for export to China, Japan, Korea and the United Arab Emirates. The combination of polluting streams, rivers and lakes while draining the aquifers is setting ourselves up for a disaster.

At the time, professor and water policy and law expert Robert Glennon, from the University of Arizona College of Law, told BBC News:2

"A hundred billion gallons of water per year is being exported in the form of alfalfa from California. It's a huge amount. It's enough for a year's supply for a million families — it's a lot of water, particularly when you're looking at the dreadful drought throughout the southwest."

China Has Made Major Agricultural Acquisitions in the US

-wHGPqiE4-c

Foreign corporations are also circumventing American farmers altogether by purchasing farm land in the U.S. In 2011, Chinese companies owned $81 million worth of American farmland.

By the end of 2012, Chinese ownership had skyrocketed by 1,000 percent, to $900 million.3 They’re also buying up food producers.

In 2013, pork processor Smithfield was bought by Shaunghui, the largest meat processing company in China.4 At $7.1 billion — 30 percent above its estimated market value — it was the largest-ever Chinese buyout of an American company.

Also included in the deal was $480 million worth of American farmland.5 With this buyout, the Chinese now own 1 out of every 4 pigs raised in the U.S.

The Chinese are also buying agricultural resources in Africa, Europe, Australia, Argentina and Brazil. ChemChina (a Chinese-government-owned company) is also currently negotiating a takeover bid for Syngenta, which makes agricultural chemicals.

One of the biggest concerns with trade agreements and farm bill subsidies is that they undermine local food production systems. Shipping agriculture products around the world amounts to shipping water and leaving a trail of pollution behind. The amount of water required to support CAFO meat production primarily by growing GMO crops is astonishing.

Politicians Are Facilitating Foreign Takeover

A mere 11 percent of China’s land is suitable for farming, and an estimated 40 to 60 percent of this arable land has been severely degraded by pollution, erosion, salinization and/or acidification. Chinese rivers have also dwindled, and 75 percent are severely polluted.

Factors such as these make food security a major concern for China, which also has a rapidly growing middle class.6 After a spate of food scandals, Chinese consumers have also lost much of their trust in the Chinese food supply and are willing to pay more for imported foods.

The solution is a clever one. Buy American farmland and meat producers, and then send the food back to China. Politicians are largely to blame for facilitating this foreign takeover of American agriculture and food production. As reported by TakePart.com earlier this year:7

“On Feb. 11, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts signed L.B. 176 into law, reversing a 1999 law that prevented meatpackers from owning livestock for more than five days prior to slaughter.

Pork processors like Smithfield … will soon be able to vertically integrate their operations. Instead of buying hogs from numerous independent farmers, farmers will contract with processors like Smithfield for the privilege of selling their pork.

It’s a big concern for farmers who worry the pork industry will be swallowed up by contract farming, like the chicken industry …

Chicken “growers” are paid to raise the birds on their land as well as pay for expensive poultry houses, labor and maintenance. But it’s the major poultry companies who own the chickens — as well as the hatcheries, slaughterhouses and feed.”

Smithfield Food Ranks No. 1 Toxic Polluter Among Agribusinesses

Smithfield Foods, now owned by a Chinese company, produces and releases vast amounts of waste into our environment.8

According to the 2016 report,9 “Corporate Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways” by Environment North Carolina, Smithfield discharged 3.6 million tons of toxic pollutants from its hog slaughtering plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina, in 2014.

That waste ultimately ends up in the state’s waterways. Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the world (with a total of 2,700 hog CAFOs in 12 states), ranks third in terms of the animal manure produced by hog CAFOs in the U.S., and No. 1 in terms of the toxic pollution released into water supplies.

When other sources of pollution related to Smithfield are taken into account, the company was responsible for the release of 7.4 million pounds of toxic pollution — more than U.S. Steel Corp or Exxon Mobil. The vast majority of this toxic water pollution is nitrates, which have been linked to:

Birth defects
Bladder and thyroid cancer
Blue baby syndrome
Autoimmune diseases
Reproductive problems
CAFOs Ruin Farm Land and Waterways

As noted by Dave Rogers, state director of Environment North Carolina:10 “When most people think of water pollution, they think of pipes dumping toxic chemicals. But this report shows how, increasingly, corporations like Smithfield are running our farms and ruining our rivers and bays.”

Travis Graves, a Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, added:

“We have, and have had, one of the largest industrial scale pollution issues in the world flowing right through our backyards, 24 hours a day — seven days a week, for decades. It’s no mystery why our rivers are sick and our fish are dying. The mystery to me is this; why do our elected leaders refuse to acknowledge that it exists, and why do they continue to chip away at our already inadequate environmental protections with bad legislation?”

North Carolina Politicians Choose CAFOs Over Residents’ Well-Being

Crazy enough, in 2015, Smithfield asked a federal judge to forbid people living near facilities from mentioning the fact that the company is Chinese owned when arguing nuisance lawsuits in court.11

More than 500 North Carolina residents have brought suit against the company, saying the manure lagoons are harming their health and lowering property values.12 They also object to Smithfield’s expansion. The company is increasing production in order to meet Chinese demand.

Meanwhile, all the waste remains on American soil. A single manure lagoon can contain 4.3 million gallons of urine and feces, which is then sprayed on nearby fields. The stench from the fine mist spreads much further, however, fouling up neighboring properties, which is the cause for the nuisance lawsuits.

Even crazier than forbidding the mention of Smithfield’s Chinese owners, the North Carolina General Assembly has proposed legal changes that would ban anyone moving into a neighborhood where a CAFO is already established from ever filing a nuisance lawsuit. Moreover, anyone filing a nuisance lawsuit would have to pay the legal fees of the CAFO should they lose their case in court. Clearly, this would effectively prevent anyone from ever filing a lawsuit against a corporate farm!


Investors Urge Meat Producers to Address Water Pollution
ayGJ1YSfDXs

Just before Thanksgiving, 45 leading institutional investors — all members of the sustainability organization Ceres and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, jointly responsible for managing $1 trillion in assets — called on American meat producers to address the water pollution risks associated with CAFOs. A joint letter13 was sent to Cargill, JBS, Perdue Farms and Smithfield Foods — four of the largest meat producers in the U.S. As noted in a press release:14

“The letters come one month after Hurricane Matthew inundated poultry and hog farms in North Carolina, flooding manure lagoons and killing more than [2] million chickens, turkeys and hogs. ‘As investors analyzing water risks in our portfolios, we believe that robust management of water quality challenges is a critical aspect of risk management in the meat industry, and one of increasing importance in the context of climate change and growing weather extremes,’ the investors wrote …

Last year, Ceres released a report that ranks major food companies on water risk management. Several meat companies including Tyson and JBS were identified among the worst performers.

A recent report from Environment America ranked Tyson as the biggest water polluter in the meat sector, releasing 104 million pounds of toxic pollutants into waterways from 2010 to 2014 from its slaughtering and processing plants, and buying livestock that generates approximately 55 million tons of manure per year.

During the same time period, it is estimated that collectively Smithfield (27.3 million [pounds].), Cargill (50.4 million [pounds]), JBS (37.6 million [pounds]) and Perdue (31 million [pounds]) directly released 146.3 million pounds of toxic pollutants into U.S. waterways.”

Taking Control of Your Health Is Part of the Solution

There's absolutely nothing sustainable about our current farming model. Buying up American farmland may be a short-term solution for China, but eventually, the end result will still be the same. Instead of producing ecological balance and food for the masses, the result is global hunger, pollution and water scarcity.

For Americans, the sale of farmland and food production to foreign nationals is an absolute disaster, and may make efforts to improve sustainability even more difficult than it already is. A foreign company is likely going to be less concerned about environmental and human health since they don’t have to live with it. There are no really easy answers here. I believe selling American farmland to other countries is an extremely unwise move.

While there’s little you can do about this situation, what you CAN do is take control over what you and your family eat each day. Growing some of your own food is a foundational step toward creating greater food security, but unless you own a farm, you probably will not be able to produce all of what you need. Connecting with a local farmer who grows food according to organic or sustainable standards is your best bet. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

EatWild.com

EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce wholesome raw dairy products as well as grass-fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass-fed products.
Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass-fed meats across the U.S.
Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats and many other goodies.
Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes

The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.
The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products, and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices.
RealMilk.com

If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area.

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund15 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.16 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

[LoveTones]

A very very sweet Native American Elder in California in the kindest and gentlest of tones, once said to us that the deer and the salmon are sacred foods (also, go back and re-read Carlos Casteneda...Don Juan also said this about deer meat being sacred food). To stop our connection, stop taking in these sacred foods, stop hunting them, they would feel they are un needed, and disappear.

We live in a beautiful tapestry called life. All beings, the rock people, the root people, the standing ones, the swimmers, walkers, creepers, crawlers, and flying ones, we all share consciousness. If being a vegetarian, you are eating products that are mass produced, you also are contributing to the degradation of the soils...ruining habitat for animals, worms, other living beings, including the living plants. We have been sold a pack of lies in the genre of "death" culture. This includes the fear of "death". My Native Elders strongly speak of this lie. We are all living beings, no matter that we shed this cloak, this body, be we a carrot, a tree or a deer or a human. We will all become food for the future life force, the beautiful tapestry of life in which we are a part. Life does not stop when a being "dies", simply lends the energy we are engaging in to a future form of life. Yes, turn away from sick factory farms, sick soy filled slop that is dangerous (Not true that Japanese and/or Chinese eat lots of soy products as unfortunately for many veg/vegans and omnivores too, believed...only small amounts of fermented soy...), and return to small farms. Small farms are dependent on embracing a wide range of life like chickens, pigs, cows\s plants, herbs, flowers, people...All of us will one day become food for the future. Death does not exist. When I recently spoke to a group of "Chrones", my Native Grandmother counseled me to make sure that message was well understood. Do not fear death, which is why I think many people want to only eat vegetables, because they think they don't "die".

I am glad to see that some people were brave enough to speak differently than the vegan beliefs that seem prevalent on this site and others that seek to make the more "spiritual" diet be vegan. This is not true. Go to any indigenous people on this planet and see for your selves. Weston A Price was a dentist in the 1930's who went to many isolated indigenous culture looking for a VEGETARIAN group of people who would exemplify the highest living standards in view of their spiritual, emotional, and physical health. He never found this. What he did find was across the globe, principles of eating that venerated animal fat. Of course, organic, pasture raised, in touch with the elements in their lifestyles. Check it out. I have actively worked in the Natural Health field for over 30 years, and can tell you first hand that vegans are my most difficult cases health wise.
Thank you for reading this if you have a differing view or not.
Peace on Earth and yes, Freedom Train, let's be gentle on each other and ourselves. Un-slave your powers of discernment for yourselves. Listen to your bodies and then enjoy this life train.