ON THE MORALITY OF DIET

[brimstoneSalad]

If it's true that veganism is only 10%, then I am probably going to stop arguing for people to go vegan in general. Vegetarianism is just so much easier to sell to people.

Right, and you can probably sell two or three people on vegetarianism in the time it takes to sell one person on veganism. And like the article and PsYcHo said, it's an important step for many to veganism.
Once somebody goes veg, it may be easier to convince that person to go vegan a year or so later.

If anyone finds evidence backing this up, I would love to see it.

I have not followed through on their methodology to confirm.
I think the assessment probably comes from the notion that somebody quits eating meat, but doesn't subsequently increase egg and dairy consumption. In the cases where egg and dairy are substantially increased, this may not be the case. I'm not sure if they looked at the average vegetarian diet or not.

[maximo hudson]

brimstoneSalad wrote: "This is a one time major cost, unlike animal agriculture which commits a continuous mass killing of animals."

This was written in response to my claim that humans destroy ecosystems to create farms. Of course this is not true as I pointed out in my post. Because I now live in the country where I can observe such actions occurring by just turning my head from where I now sit and looking out the widow, I see that actually for the land not to revert back to a previous state from farmland, insects, rodents and native plant life must be killed OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. So, brimstonesald, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, the destruction of life that occurs in the creation of a farm is not a one time occurrence. A farm is sort of like a car or a house or a bicycle or a lawn mower - IT REQUIRES MAINTENANCE which means that lots of life forms are being killed CONSISTENTLY AND AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

brimstoneSalad wrote: "This is a lower level of killing, and has actually been investigated a number of times."

For some reason, when I mention that a vegan diet inevitably results in the deaths of innumerable sentient beings the vegan fall-back position is ALWAYS that a vegan diet kills less beings than one that includes meat. I find this an absurd position. First of all, eating a sardine saves lives. Now, I'm not saying one should actually go out and eat a sardine to save lives, but if one is going to base the morality of their diet on how many lives their diet ends up saving then that individual should logically consider eating a sardine. Here is why.

""Sardinops Caeruleus

“Coastal,pelagic, in large (or in the past very large) schools (up to 10 million individuals estimated in times of abundance);migratory, with a definite northward movement between California and British Columbia waters in summer and return (autumn, winter).Feeds on zooplankton (chiefly small crustaceans), also phytoplankton, mainly by filter-feeding; also by pecking at individual animals.

Breeds mainly off the southern California coast about 80 km offshore between Point Conception and San Diego; January to June, but a peak in April to May (at night); eggs pelagic; some individuals spawn in their first year, but most in their second; scale studies suggest that some fishes live 20 to 25 years."

-http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2894/en

"Zooplankton are tiny animals that can live in all kinds of water, whether it is salty like the ocean or fresh like a lake. Even though the first three letters look like 'zoo,' it isn't pronounced that way. Instead, you say 'zoh-oh-plankton.' In Greek, the 'zoh-o'" part of its name means 'animal,' and the 'plankton' part of its name means 'drifter.'

-http://www.primack.net/animals/zooplankton.htm

Okay,so we are told that Sardines live for 20 to 25 years and that they eat "tiny animals" called zooplankton. If one desires to have a moral diet, that consists of animals one has saved through this moral diet, a logical argument can be made that such an individual should eat a single sardine and thereby save the lives of, what, hundreds of millions of zooplankton over the course of twenty-five years? Now, I'm not suggesting folks run out there and start eating sardines, but I do note the silliness of the argument that not eating animals saves a net number of lives.

***************

ON VEGANS HAVING KIDS

Sooo, why stop at diet? Having kids causes avoidable deaths of animals and yet vegans have kids all the time. I don't have kids and I'm an omnivore, so I save many more lives now and in the future than a vegan who has kids. I'm not what one would consider a big meat-eater by any stretch of the imagination, HOWEVER, I could eat steak three times a day, and still have a less over-all killing ratio than a vegan who has kids.

And as far as studies go that vegans like to wave around, I had to listen for years about how cows were destroying the planet by deforestation and the production of methane and yet we ACTUALLY KNOW that rice production is the largest agricultural source of methane production and the greatest destructive force in terms of deforestation is PALM OIL PLANTATIONS.

It is maddening to see vegans who are so insecure in regard to their diet of choice that they have to justify it to themselves by imagining the non-vegan diets of others are somehow morally inferior. Really, only vegans who have decided not to have kids in order to benefit the planet should talk to me about how concerned they are about not killing other beings with their diets. If you have kids and you wish to make the argument that you are trying to eat your way to some higher moral ground - then I'd say you're a bit of delusional hypocrite. Of course we all fall into this boat of being delusional and of being hypocrites. From my experience, however, vegans have a very hard time seeing this to be the case in terms of their diets - just like soldiers do in regards to nationalism. I'm just here to help.

Be a vegan to your heart's content (till the cows come home), just don't try to justify your diet of choice on absurd fanciful notions about how agriculture works and then claim that this indicates some higher moral ground in terms of your diet of choice. I'm telling you, you pay a farmer to kill worms, insects and rodents just like an omnivore pays a farmer to kill chickens, cows and sheep. That's just the way it is. Your intentions are good but so were the intentions of preachers who headed out into the wilds to "tame savages." You guys really need to break down all your actions and the consequences of them and come to terms with the REALITY of your diets instead of just jumping on the group-think self-congratulatory fuzzy-logic bandwagon.

Again, I have absolutely no problems with folks being vegans. I just think some of the mythos surrounding it occasionally needs to be addressed - and this is my good intention (thankless though this task proves to be). I'm stepping up to the plate for you here folks. "Love the vegan, hate the fuzzy logic," is my motto.

There are many more points to address here, but the missus (who also doesn't have kids) is insisting I get back to her NOW!!! I will therefore catch you all later. Thanks and pax. -mh

[brimstoneSalad]

brimstoneSalad wrote: "This is a one time major cost, unlike animal agriculture which commits a continuous mass killing of animals."

This was written in response to my claim that humans destroy ecosystems to create farms. Of course this is not true as I pointed out in my post.

Your assertions are meaningless and incoherent. Provide some evidence for what you're talking about. English may not be your first language, but when you say "destroying ecosystems" it means an overall loss of available natural space, which I debunked. If you communicated poorly, you need to clarify what you mean.

Are you talking about the practice of some farmers to leave land fallow and let it overgrow, then burn it?
Are you talking about the expansion of agriculture into virgin land? (This is what would be called ecosystem destruction)
Are you just talking about normal ploughing of fields and turning the soil? It sounds like it.

I already covered this, and you're wrong.

As I said and you quoted:
"This is a lower level of killing, and has actually been investigated a number of times."

For some reason, when I mention that a vegan diet inevitably results in the deaths of innumerable sentient beings the vegan fall-back position is ALWAYS that a vegan diet kills less beings than one that includes meat.

I already made it clear that it's not innumerable: stop lying.
And they make this argument because they're being logical. They realize there is no perfection. And quite importantly, it kills both fewer AND lesser beings -- something you are failing to grasp. The beings killed are fewer in number, and they are less sentient.
It's not complicated, you only confuse yourself with bad analogies.

I find this an absurd position. First of all, eating a sardine saves lives.

That's because you don't understand it.

Eating a sardine only saves lives compared to eating a shark that ate sardines. Eating vegetables saves lives compared to eating a cow that ate the vegetables.
That is a proper analogy. One you will not understand because you don't understand ecology.

In the aquatic "food chain" the way you save the most lives is by eating the zooplankton directly, or even the phytoplankton directly. You go to the "bottom" of the food chain, and eat what's there.

If there's no phytoplankton, there's no zooplankton (fed on the phytoplankton) to be eaten by sardines. If there's no zooplankton, then there are no sardines (which can only grow and reproduce if there's food for them) to be eaten by sharks, and so on.

No food, no animals, no death.

THAT is destruction of an ecosystem. It's not inherently a bad thing IF that ecosystem is bad. It's pulling the rug out from under it by eating the primary producers, resulting in substantially less biomass all the way down the chain. Humans just take the place of other animals and create a human dominated ecosystem instead.

The bottom of our terrestrial food chain is plants. Feeding plants to animals and then killing those animals only creates more death and suffering.

Now, I'm not saying one should actually go out and eat a sardine to save lives, but if one is going to base the morality of their diet on how many lives their diet ends up saving then that individual should logically consider eating a sardine.

Eating sardines doesn't save the lives of zooplankton unless you eat ALL of the sardines, and then eat ALL of the other fish until the oceans are nothing by phytoplankton and zooplankton. Sustainable farming or catching of animals does nothing but perpetuate death.

Again, something you won't understand.

There are cases where eating in this way IS beneficial. It's called being an invasivore.
These are people who eat invasive species that are damaging an ecosystem to save that ecosystem.
These are particular species in particular locations.

Lionfish are a good example:
http://www.reef.org/lionfish

Maybe you will understand that. But you won't understand the analogy.

Okay,so we are told that Sardines live for 20 to 25 years and that they eat "tiny animals" called zooplankton.

It should be noted that zooplankton are probably too small to be sentient, so it doesn't really mean much to "save" them.
As I said, it's not just quantity of animals, but quality.

An insect is worth less than a mouse, a mouse is worth less than a cat, a cat is worth less than a pig, a pig is worth less than a human.

You may have been misled by some crazy vegans who claim that all life is equal. This simply is not true.
Sentience, and crudely intelligence, varies greatly from lifeform to lifeform.

Better to kill many insects than a mouse. Better to kill many mice than a cow. Better to kill many cows than a human.

If you believe the claim that all life forms are morally equal, then you're probably a crazy person and you won't understand any of the arguments I'm making.
If you can understand that concept -- that some life forms are morally worth more than others -- then go back and read my prior posts and attempt to understand my point.

If one desires to have a moral diet, that consists of animals one has saved through this moral diet, a logical argument can be made that such an individual should eat a single sardine and thereby save the lives of, what, hundreds of millions of zooplankton over the course of twenty-five years?

That only makes sense if you are both:
1. Insane and believe that all animals, no matter how marginally sentient, no matter how intelligent, are equal
2. Planning to commit a genocide of all sardines and fish in the ocean such that none survive to take the place of the ones you have eaten.

The ocean is an open ecosystem. Take one fish out, leave more food for others to reproduce and grow faster (as long as there's enough of a population to provide that elasticity).
Likewise, killing a cow does not save grass or corn or mice, it merely increases demand and more cows are forcefully bred to replace those eaten at the rate consumers demand.

However, if you eat the plankton instead, then there will be fewer fish eating plankton and being killed by other fish because there's less food: a smaller overall ecosystem with less energy in it. If you eat vegetables instead of cows, farmers will breed fewer cows since demand is lower and there will be fewer cows being killed.

It's not complicated. But still, you probably will not understand it. My hope is that others reading this will. Maybe somebody can explain it in a more dumbed down way.

Now, I'm not suggesting folks run out there and start eating sardines, but I do note the silliness of the argument that not eating animals saves a net number of lives.

If it seems silly, it's because you have no grasp on ecology, economics, or basic reasoning. Has what I said helped? Probably not. I'll be extremely surprised if you actually learn from this by now.

ON VEGANS HAVING KIDS

Sooo, why stop at diet? Having kids causes avoidable deaths of animals and yet vegans have kids all the time.

There's every reason to believe that vegan children prevent more death and suffering than they cause by being positive influences on the world, due to the social nature of moral progress.

See my thread on debunking Benatar: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2215

Some crazy vegans want to kill everybody in the world to end all suffering "forever". However, the sensible ones recognize that life also has positive value, and that even if it didn't destroying it is not possible. Read that thread I linked to above in full to see a more complete argument.

I don't have kids and I'm an omnivore, so I save many more lives now and in the future than a vegan who has kids.

No, you're just a moral and evolutionary failure, and a resource sink that you'll never pay back. Society spent resources making you, and now you're just going to do as much damage as you like while you're here sitting on your delusional moral high horse and then die leaving nothing but destruction in your wake. You just do harm to the world without paying anything forward to the future generation. Read the Debunking Benatar thread.

There's also another longer discussion here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1407

And as far as studies go that vegans like to wave around, I had to listen for years about how cows were destroying the planet by deforestation and the production of methane and yet we ACTUALLY KNOW that rice production is the largest agricultural source of methane production and the greatest destructive force in terms of deforestation is PALM OIL PLANTATIONS.

This issue is more complicated than you assume it is due to differences in yield. Meat is actually the worst thing in terms of damage to the world relative to how many people it actually feeds. Rice actually has good yield, so it can be justified somewhat as preventing starvation: meat is a vessel of gluttony.
However, I avoid eating rice and palm oil.

It is maddening to see vegans who are so insecure in regard to their diet of choice that they have to justify it to themselves by imagining the non-vegan diets of others are somehow morally inferior.

It's not imagination, it's empirical evidence, backed up by independent research by NGOs, basic thermodynamics, and logic. If you have no knowledge of or respect for science and logic, as it seems, then of course you can deny that all you want; but you're delusional.

Yes, your diet is more harmful. Yes, you are a worse person (all other things being equal) for choosing such a harmful diet when you could do better.

Are all vegans better than all carnists? Maybe not. There may be vegans who eat nothing but palm oil, drive around in hummers, and rape neighborhood children for fun. Perhaps there's a vegan out there somewhere who is a worse person than you are.

Generally speaking, though, all other things ARE more or less equal. Neither carnists nor vegans are running around raping people, and for the most part the only difference in diet is a reduction in animal products and replacement by more sustainable agricultural products like beans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land

Really, only vegans who have decided not to have kids in order to benefit the planet should talk to me about how concerned they are about not killing other beings with their diets. [...] I'm just here to help.

You're not here to help, you're here to be an asshole trotting out the same old straw man arguments based on ignorance and flawed logic, in some attempt to make you feel good about yourself on your twisted antinatalist moral high horse.
You've misrepresented the rational vegan position time and again, refused to accept correction, and refused to provide any evidence for your baseless assertions.

I'm telling you, you pay a farmer to kill worms, insects and rodents just like an omnivore pays a farmer to kill chickens, cows and sheep.

No, an omnivore pays a farmer to kill chickens, cows, sheep, and MORE worms, insects, and rodents than the vegan on top of that. The vegan only pays the farmer to kill worms, insects, and rodents in a lesser quantity, and no chickens, cows, or sheep at all.
The difference is easy to grasp by anybody who isn't a complete moron and has even the most basic operating knowledge of agriculture, economics, and ecology.
Something is missing on your end. Whether it's a matter of borderline retardation or profound ignorance, that's yet to be seen. Or maybe you're just trolling.

I have corrected you on your misconceptions multiple times. You're just being lazy or dishonest by continuing to make this straw man fallacy.

Your intentions are good but so were the intentions of preachers who headed out into the wilds to "tame savages."

Sure, and so probably were their consequences in many cases. The notion of the "noble savage" is largely mythical.
Read/watch some of Steven Pinker's work:
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

You guys really need to break down all your actions and the consequences of them and come to terms with the REALITY of your diets instead of just jumping on the group-think self-congratulatory fuzzy-logic bandwagon.

We do.
That's why we don't worry so much about oysters and even insects. It's why we're concerned about things like Palm oil too. Veganism is not a dogma, it's a practice of reducing harm, and that means knowledge. You have to know what does harm in order to reduce it: you can't just guess or base your actions on whatever you want to do.

Again, I have absolutely no problems with folks being vegans.

You clearly do, because you haven't even taken the time to understand what that means or what we're advocating.

I'm stepping up to the plate for you here folks. "Love the vegan, hate the fuzzy logic," is my motto.

You're probably just trolling with your narcissistic bullshit; it's hard to believe anybody is that full of himself as to say something like that seriously.
There's no fuzzy logic here. If you'd actually take the time to read rather than pleasuring yourself all over this thread with your narcissistic lectures, you'd see that. You're a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect; your ignorance is so profound you think you're some kind of savant or prophet who sees that which everybody else is blind to.

Open your mind to the possibility that you're wrong and have completely misunderstood veganism, and you might learn something.

[maximo hudson]

EquALLity on Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:26 pm queries: "So you have two main arguments:

1) Vegans cause the same amount of harm towards animals as meat-eaters.
2) Plants are sentient."

POINT ONE or Do VEGANS CAUSE THE SAME AMOUNT OF HARM TOWARDS ANIMALS (THE ENVIRONMENT) AS MEAT-EATERS (OMNIVORES)?

As to number one, sadly vegans actually cause more damage than traditional hunter-gatherers. One example of this would be to study the history of California where hunter-gathers were very light upon the land eating a variety of plant and animal life and little more than shell mounds and grinding stones (rock outcroppings where acorns were ground) mark the passing of their traditional way of life. Let us then look at the effects of traditional Western agriculture in the same area. In less than a hundred years of becoming a state agricultural practices related to the growing of food had pretty much transformed the place into a land of dammed and diverted rivers, flooded valleys and drained wetlands. The movie Chinatown with Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway deals with the diversion of water from Owens Lake. This water was originally slated for use by the citrus industry there. Since this is not an academic paper for publication I don't believe I should be required to footnote my claims, but since I am witnessing histrionics (worthy of the most flamboyant of drama queens) when I don't, here's a link http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewart ... orID=89901 from which we may read the following quote.

"Depending on southern California rain to water one's orange grove would be quite a gamble. On that basis, irrigation made sense for citrus agriculture as well as other water-intensive crops. A controlled water supply also meant that farmers could do well on as little as 10 acres if those acres were irrigated." - above link

POINT TWO or ARE PLANTS SENTIENT?

Plant Intelligence

"Plants do not have a brain or neuronal network, but reactions within signalling pathways may provide a biochemical basis for learning and memory in addition to computation and problem solving.[27] Controversially, the brain is used as a metaphor in plant intelligence to provide an integrated view of signalling."

- Plant perception (physiology) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_per ... hysiology)>

There are also the documentaries "The Secret Life of Plants" (1979), "The Private Life of Plants" (1995) and "What Plants Talk About" (2013) which can provide insight into the ability of plates to perceive, decision make and communicate. The work of the pioneering Indian scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose (30 November 1858 – 23 November 1937) one of the MOST FAMOUS of all Indian scientists who "hypothesised that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose

Are plants intelligent? Honestly I don't know. I know I can observe plants tracking the sun which to me demonstrates awareness. I have also noted the results of experiments in documentaries which indicate that plants make decisions, are aware of their own species as well as their own "relatives" Plants have also been observed communicating with members of their own species notifying them through the use of airborne chemicals of insect attack and as well as with other species. In the latter case a chemical was sent out which world alert a species of wasp that an insect it liked was attacking the plant. Are these signs of intelligence? You tell me. I don't like dismissing the idea out-of-had, but I have, sadly, observed, vegans becoming irrationally unglued at the suggestion BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE, which is that they have a morally superior diet to that of omnivores.

We humans kill other lifeforms to survive and even when eating only plants part of the process in growing them as crops involves the killing of sentient beings (worms,slugs, insects, rodents etc). Now, BEFORE I MOVED TO THE COUNTRY, I (like many folks who know absolutely nothing about how our food is produced) would have said, "Why of course vegans kill less sentient beings than omnivores." Now, I'm not so sure. From my PERSONAL OBSERVATION I can see the land of my next door neighbor being fussed with throughout the year: Preparation of the ground, the planting of crops, maintenance of the crops (spraying) and harvesting. My other neighbor has fields on which his dairy cattle graze. The only fussing I see taking place there is that he dumps manure on his fields for fertilizer - though he probable occasionally limes the fields as well. I don't know what kind of insects and critters are drawn to the mono crops of soy (one year) and corn (the next), but I can tell you it is not as diverse or as healthy as that which exists on a grass field which is not unduly disturbed or worked and has a far greater diversity of plant life (including "weeds").

Be a vegan, Enjoy your diet. Just don't believe all the hype about it being cruelty-free or somehow morally superior to the diet of an omnivore. A vegan diet is a diet of choice and is carried out to a certain comfort level. For example, many vegans will drink tea, coffee, wine and beer even though by drinking these optional beverages they are contributing to the destruction of countless animals lives. For example, I worked at the Redhook Brewery in Seattle for a time and you wouldn't believe the number of fruit flies that are killed in the process. Now, if knowing this a vegan still chooses to drink a beer then they aren't ABSOLUTELY concerned with a diet that saves lives, they are simply concerned with a diet that fits their comfort level. The same can be said of an omnivore who doesn't eat cats, dogs, horses, dolphins or beef etc.

Now if you are a vegan who doesn't have kids and only drinks water, then I feel we are starting to get to another level here altogether and i kowtow to the sincerity of your practice. Then again, my Tibetan guru would eat beef. So there you go. Pax y'all. - maximo

P.S. It is indeed my intention to address other points that have been brought up, but I can only do so much at one time. Thank you for your patience. -m.

[PsYcHo]

Be a vegan, Enjoy your diet. Just don't believe all the hype about it being cruelty-free or somehow morally superior to the diet of an omnivore.-m.

I'm not a Vegan myself, but I fail to see how an omnivore's diet is morally equivalent to a Vegan one. Sure, sentient beings die incidentally due to crop production, but they are not actively imprisoned in often terrible conditions first, and then actively killed. And to your query about plants possibly being aware, I have read some really interesting studies on the subject and there is some merit to the possibility. And yes, some Vegans hate to hear it because it does go against their position, but some meat eaters refuse to accept that their food can actually feel pain and suffer.

A lot of popular Vegans are freaking insane, but most of the ones on this forum try to be rational, and they have just as many issues with "militant" Vegans as they do with meat-eaters who try to use the excuse that "plant's might be aware, so taking an animal an locking in a box where it can't even turn around is the same as eating a carrot." If my family was starving, I would kill and eat my dog if needed, but I have a choice right now so I just order take-out instead.

[DarlBundren]

Hi Maximo Hudson. I don't want to sound rude, but you have failed to address many of the replies you have received so far and you are now posting arguments that have been covered multiple times in this very forum. Shouldn't you try to read other threads before posting them again?

[maximo hudson]

On Gardens, "Lesser Beings" & Grass-Fed Cattle

[Please note, I am attempting to respond to each point raised about my observations in detail and with due consideration, so please be patient as I address the Gish Gallop that has been laid before me. Rome was not built in a day! -PAX ]

on Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:26 pm brimstoneSalad wrote (Regarding the number of beings a vegan diet kills vs that of an omnivore) the following:

"And quite importantly, it kills both fewer AND lesser beings -- something you are failing to grasp. The beings killed are fewer in number, and they are less sentient.
It's not complicated, you only confuse yourself with bad analogies."

What I have actually observed is a gardener going out at night and killing slugs and snails to protect a vegetable garden. By comparison I do not see my neighbors, the dairy farmers, killing slugs and snails on their pastures. I have also observed that on another neighbor's land where soy and corn is planted the soil is turned over to prepare it for planting. Again, I do not observe this same action taking place on the neighbor's grass pastures. The land in very healthy where I live and there are many worms in the ground. Therefore what I have actually observed demonstrates to me that just in regards to worms and slugs and snails the diets of vegans seems to be killing a lot more life in gardens and on fields where food crops are grown than on pastures upon which grass-fed cattle are kept.

As far as "lesser beings" with "less sentience" go - really? Perhaps what we are really talking about isn't "lesser beings" with "less sentience," but rather a form of chauvanism related to certain life forms. Cows and seals do indeed have big brown eyes which humans can easily identify with, but does this mean a cow has a greater right to life than a worm? I certainly don't think so and there are actually a lot of people out there who would agree with me; who believe that all life is sacred and for some this also includes plants!

I began writing from the point of view of a Buddhist omnivore. As a Buddhist I don't have less compassion for a worm than I do for a cow. "Lesser beings," and "less sentience" is basically what eugenics is based on and personally I find the notion of "lesser beings" with "lesser sentience" a matter of grave concern.

And if plant life is not sacred, then why don't people just go around jumping up and down on flowers for the heck of it? It's not illegal. Last time I checked there wasn't anything in the Bible or the Buddhist Canon that forbids the killing of flowers. Yet most mature humans will admire a flower and not go out of their way to stomp on it.

Do we not feel the loss if an ancient Redwood is cut down? Is a life form that has lived for thousands of years a "lesser life form" simply because someone who can write things like "something you are failing to grasp" or "you only confuse yourself with bad analogies" says that this is so?

Wow, an old growth redwood tree is a "lesser life form." Unbelievable. The vegan mythos is a powerful commixture of Kool-Aid indeed. It consists of a universe that has humans at its center surrounded by other "higher" life forms then comes a ranking of "lower and lower" life forms till we get to plants which are apparently the "lowest" life forms of all and are therefore considered appropriate for consumption. Frankly, my view of the workings of life upon the planet is a little less hierarchical and bit more integrated.

[brimstoneSalad]

Would somebody with time and patience take over in this thread for me please? I need to focus on other threads and this is a broken record: maybe somebody can communicate better with maximo than I can.

[PsYcHo]

On Gardens, "Lesser Beings" & Grass-Fed Cattle
And quite importantly, it kills both fewer AND lesser beings -- something you are failing to grasp. The beings killed are fewer in number, and they are less sentient.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the animals killed by crop production is massive, so because animals die to feed Vegans, that is no worse than killing other animals to eat? I am not a Vegan, so my answers may not encompass all of your questions, but I will try.

The difference is the animals killed to to grow crops are not killed on purpose, and they are not forced to live in tiny enclosures before they are killed.

It's not complicated, you only confuse yourself with bad analogies."

If you do some research on the conditions animals held for mass consumption face, you might actually feel bad for eating them. (Before I started talking to these Vegans, bacon was just a food group to me.) I agree that some small animals die to plant a field with corn, but if you eat beef, they need so much more corn to survive, so by eating beef, not only are the cows being killed, but you kill a larger number of animals just to have a meal.

If you don't want to be a Vegan, that is understandable, but why are you trying to say that your decision to eat a cow or a pig is no worse than them not wanting to eat a cow or pig? They aren't going out and killing field mice to eat, they just don't want to make an animal suffer on purpose.

Is that really a bad thing?

What I have actually observed is a gardener going out at night and killing slugs and snails to protect a vegetable garden. By comparison I do not see my neighbors, the dairy farmers, killing slugs and snails on their pastures. I have also observed that on another neighbor's land where soy and corn is planted the soil is turned over to prepare it for planting. Again, I do not observe this same action taking place on the neighbor's grass pastures. The land in very healthy where I live and there are many worms in the ground. Therefore what I have actually observed demonstrates to me that just in regards to worms and slugs and snails the diets of vegans seems to be killing a lot more life in gardens and on fields where food crops are grown than on pastures upon which grass-fed cattle are kept.

Some Vegans see killing slugs and snails as a bad thing. But are you trying to say because someone kills slugs, that means it is ok to kill other animals? Pigs show the intelligence of a three year old child; I would kill a slug in an instant to save my garden, but I would not kill a two year old who is capable of doing way more damage to my garden.

I began writing from the point of view of a Buddhist omnivore. As a Buddhist I don't have less compassion for a worm than I do for a cow. "Lesser beings," and "less sentience" is basically what eugenics is based on and personally I find the notion of "lesser beings" with "lesser sentience" a matter of grave concern.

And if plant life is not sacred, then why don't people just go around jumping up and down on flowers for the heck of it? It's not illegal. Last time I checked there wasn't anything in the Bible or the Buddhist Canon that forbids the killing of flowers. Yet most mature humans will admire a flower and not go out of their way to stomp on it.

If this is something you believe, your argument against Vegans holds no merit. They don't go out of their way to kill small animals in a field to grow crops. They do make the choice to not eat any animals when they can. Just as you avoid killing flowers, they avoid killing animals. They don't avoid killing animals because that is required, they do it because killing an animal is a bad thing if you have a choice. Most humans admire a flower, but some humans admire animals as well. They are just trying to be "mature".

Is it wrong that they don't want to kill an animal when they have a choice not to?

Do we not feel the loss if an ancient Redwood is cut down? Is a life form that has lived for thousands of years a "lesser life form" simply because someone who can write things like "something you are failing to grasp" or "you only confuse yourself with bad analogies" says that this is so?

Wow, an old growth redwood tree is a "lesser life form." Unbelievable. The vegan mythos is a powerful commixture of Kool-Aid indeed. It consists of a universe that has humans at its center surrounded by other "higher" life forms then comes a ranking of "lower and lower" life forms till we get to plants which are apparently the "lowest" life forms of all and are therefore considered appropriate for consumption. Frankly, my view of the workings of life upon the planet is a little less hierarchical and bit more integrated.

Da fuq? Perhaps I don't have the mental capacity to see your point here, but are you trying to say killing a tree is really bad, and Vegans kill trees, so they can't have a problem with eating an animal? (Sometimes I don't word so good, and your last paragraph has a bunch of words that seem pretentious, so please spell it out for me if I get it wrong.)

Hmm, humor me with a game that everyone here can comprehend.

You disagree with Veganism. I disagree with some forms of Veganism, so this game should have a level playing field.

Using 42 words or less, explain why you have such a problem with Veganism. I will respond within the same parameters.....You in?

[maximo hudson]

IGNORANCE and the Teapot of Histrionics

On Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:17 pm brimstoneSalad wrote:


"Another point of ignorance on your part. Virtually NOBODY was vegan at that time: it was not a thing that was typically considered possible, because it wasn't reliably healthy to do so. People need B12, and it's very rare in plant and fungal sources. It was probably important in ancient times for people to consume some dairy to avoid B12 deficiency."

Jains trace their spiritual tradition at least as far back to the time of the Buddha. For example we are told that Mahavira <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira> was born in 599 BCE. Taking this into consideration as well as the strong ascetic traditions prevalent then as now, I think it is rather presumptuous and overly Western-centric to claim that there was no equivalent of a vegan diet in ancient India.

Staying on topic, I have found a VERY interesting article on Jain dietary practices which because they are based on observation and logic and consistency I can whole-heartedly respect. I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article (the statement that plants are not aware for example), but it does cover a lot of important points concerning the death of beings associated with a vegan/vegetarian diet as well as the idea that plant life must be considered when consuming. I will quote the beginning of the article by way of introduction and then provide a link for the whole piece which I greatly encourage those unfamiliar with Jain dietary practices to read.

A - "I will answer only the first part from the angle of modern science in favor of Jainism's restriction towards plants. Yes eating plants attaract bad karma but they are immobile and only have one sense organ(JIVA TATTVA), hence their capability of feeling pain/torture is less hence lesser amount of karma. They show their experience of touch by turning towards the sun and flourishing, by withering when cut and eventually dying." - Nitin Jain

- https://www.quora.com/According-to-Jain ... for-moksha

The following is also on topic:

"The strictest forms of Jain diet are practised by the monastic ascetics. It also excludes potatoes and other root vegetables.[42][43] The scrupulous and thorough way of applying nonviolence to everyday activities, and especially to food, shapes their entire lives and is the most significant hallmark of Jain identity.[44][45][46][47] For Jains, lacto-vegetarianism (generally known simply as vegetarianism in India) is mandatory. Food which contains even small particles of the bodies of dead animals or eggs is absolutely unacceptable.[48][49] Some Jain scholars and activists support veganism, as the production of dairy products is perceived to involve violence against cows. Strict Jains don't eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions, roots and tubers. This is so because tiny life forms are injured when the plant is pulled up and because the bulb is seen as a living being, as it is able to sprout.[50][51] Also, consumption of most root vegetables involves uprooting and killing the entire plant, in contrast to consumption of most other terrestrial vegetables, upon which the plant lives on after plucking the vegetables (or it was seasonally supposed to wither away anyway). Mushrooms, Funguses and Yeasts are forbidden because they are parasites, grow in non-hygienic environments, and may harbour other life forms. Alfalfa is the only known plant that contains vitamin D2, which they may use directly or make vitamin D2 supplements from. Honey is forbidden, as its collection would amount to violence against the bees.[52][53] Jains are also not supposed to consume food left overnight because of contamination by microbes. Most Jain recipes substitute for potato with plantain."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism

I would like to highlight the following from the above quoted article, "For Jains, lacto-vegetarianism (generally known simply as vegetarianism in India) is mandatory."

It would seem that the claim that a vegan-like practice did not exist at the time of the Buddha cannot be made because it would have simply been called vegetarianism. Also simply because something is unhealthy (consuming no B!2) does not mean humans will not undertake the action. The smoking of cigarets and the use of lead pipes to convey drinking water are two of many, many examples of this.

Also, since I have approached this topic from the point-of-view of a Buddhist omnivore, I actually do believe that the historic Buddha was an enlightened being and therefore could have been and insisted his followers be vegans (the Buddha's omniscience would have alerted him to the vegan diet even if it did not currently exist). I have also done some research and it appears that the jury is still out on the need historically for humans to consume animal products in order to obtain B12. Here is one article I came across related to the topic titled "Vitamin B12 and Human Nutritional Evolution." It is from a site called "Vital Wisdom, A Journey of Food, Fitness, Freedom and Philosophy."

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/12/v ... ional.html

I would like to conclude by saying that many of the points I find myself needing to address here appear related to a rather shallow understanding (on the part of others) of the philosophical nuances related to a diet which attempts to embody ethics. That said, I find the ongoing dialog on this topic to be informative - even if at times the responses (of others) seem excessively steeped in a teapot of histrionics. -pax