Philosophical Vegan Forum

My name is zach cook and I am 23 years old. I am on this site to meet people that share the same values that I do. I value all life, I value being calm and logically talking things out instead of having blurred communication through heated arguments, and I value expressing myself in creative ways.

I eat a vegan diet mostly for the emotion I have for the billions of lives that do not experience well being, both animals and humans. I have been eating a vegan diet for only 4 months now. Before I switched to this diet I had little to no knowledge about it. I also knew little about the harsh realities of the mass production of animal products.


The more I learned the more I wanted to help others reduce the amount of animal products they use and mostly I just want to help others reach well being. I personally never like harassing or lecturing anyone but emotionally and logically I want to do something to help others take the more logical and sensible choice (Go vegan). At the same time I realize this is my opinion and even though I may strongly feel it is the most logical thing I am always open to discussion about it.

So I hope to learn a thing or two from the discussions I partake in here and possibly be one step closer to helping others reach well being or at least understanding the perspective of those that I currently do not understand at all.


I will end this post with a quote "The security of all nations is the only way to achieve security for any of the nations." In other words as long as something is out of balance in this world we will all be out of balance together in some way.

I am dedication my life to the birth of world peace and I believe it is possible this will happen in my life time or I can at least do my best to make it happen. I believe eating a vegan diet is helping me create world peace by helping me be the healthiest I can be so I can work even more efficiently.




Other facts about me

I strive to be completely open to every aspect of life and to live joyfully in every moment. I have been at a practice of harvesting joy from the life that is inside of me instead of through the outside world. As in instead of getting joy from having a stable income, having success in my career, or even through my family. I simply get my joy just from every breathe I breath and then I take that joy and share it with every other aspect of life.

-I am attempting a career as a singer songwriter

-I am engaged

-I have a son

-I have a YouTube channel, a website, and a couple albums coming out soon... which I will not post on here but if your interested give you my website URL.

Welcome Zach. Do you write songs about veganism?

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:18 pmFor world peace to happen we will need...

-A majority of the world population going to a vegan diet

Unfortunately, I don't think the world will be a peaceful place once vegans reach majority. For sure, the animals will be better off but I anticipate big problems between vegans and carnists. Vegans would actually be the ones initiating the violence.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:18 pm-A majority of the world religions accepting and loving each other like family

This will never happen. It's much more likely that religions will die out over time.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:18 pmA majority of the world reaching a certain level of awareness in their actions that stem from the way they handle their emotions that stem from their minds

I didn't understand that.

Welcome Zach. Do you write songs about veganism?

I have a couple coming up and I wrote a couple before none of them are of good enough quality to share.

I have a video series called (comment to song) where I take peoples comments and turn them into a song. One week the topic was (why are you vegan) I had no comments on the video so I decided to reach out to vegans to have them comment their story on the video so I could turn their comments into a song. That is how I found this site because I have been searching for communities based on people with vegan diets.

Unfortunately, I don't think the world will be a peaceful place once vegans reach majority. For sure, the animals will be better off but I anticipate big problems between vegans and carnists. Vegans would actually be the ones initiating the violence.

I reflected on this and found that I agree with you. I believe a vegan diet in a majority of the population would be something (that follows) world peace because it is logical and when people have calm peaceful minds they act with more sense. So I may just go edit my post because I agree with you, a vegan diet will not really help in world peace but it is likely more people will turn vegan once world peace happens.

I have to disagree that "vegans" would initiate the violence. I am not saying that the people who activily protest in agressive ways will not use that aggression... I am saying I am not one to word things in a way where some people are classified as "vegan" and others as "carnists"
To me those are diets and "People" are what cause violence, also really there is no way of telling who would initiate it because people are unpredictable. Simply anyone who is unbalanced, or not experiencing well being is prone to being violent and taking unnecessary actions.

I do agree that many people with a vegan diet and a strong passionate drive to turn others into "vegans" are willing to get violent but such a thing is in all groups of people simply because of how they manage their minds ad their emotions.

This will never happen. It's much more likely that religions will die out over time.

I disagree that it could "never" happen but I agree it is more likely that they will die out over time or kill each other before getting along. Simply there has to be a solution to this problem and maybe it isn't the hippie mumbo jumbo stuff I put on that post "getting them to love each other" but logically just like the ocean doesnt seem to have a bottom or space doesn't seem to end.. I am sure there is a solution to the conflict between religions, nations, and individuals even if it may not be very clear right now. That is something I want to pursue.

Maybe if we descale the world and think of the nations as individuals. If it is possible to get enemies to turn into friends and if we incorporate that into a strategy to use on world leaders then this may be one way to go at it.

I didn't understand that.

I'll try to word it in a simpler way. The third thing that can help achieve world peace is a universal inclusiveness in a majority of the population. As in a greater since of a global community between all societies and all world leaders. This inclusiveness can be created once a majority of the global population " mostly world leaders" take responsibility for their actions, their emotions, and how they use their minds. If the global leaders could work together then half the goal would already be achieved. Again this is another seemingly impossible task that can only be achieved when a majority of the population at least believes it is possible. Just like man kinds journey to the moon seemed impossible once we gather the right amount of knowledge and resources it will then appear very realistic.

Welcome Zach, glad you posted an intro. I moved your other thread to the vegan forum section.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:45 pm I disagree that it could "never" happen but I agree it is more likely that they will die out over time or kill each other before getting along.

Most religions as they are, are divisive. What's the difference between a religion dying out, and it changing so much that it does not even resemble its original form?

For sure we could have world peace with a world of Unitarians and Humanists and Jains, and maybe Sufis... but many sects are founded upon being naturally divisive with core dogma that is exclusionary. Many Christian sects, for example, believe their way is the only way to heaven and that others will go to hell; these are high stakes, and promote violence even for the sake of altruism to save people from a much worse fate.

See John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And what's worse:

Matthew 28:19-20

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Matthew 10:34

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

There's a lot of precedent for jihad in Islamic Scripture too, although it's arguably more tolerant of some Christians and Jews who live under Islamic rule (being an older work, it's naturally more progressive, but not by very much).

These scriptures do not enforce non-violence strongly enough when they demand proselytism and even sometimes call explicitly for violence and echo examples of god using violence as an ideal.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:45 pmbut logically just like the ocean doesnt seem to have a bottom or space doesn't seem to end.

The ocean has a bottom, and we're bound in space within our causal sphere by relativity. Just saying.
There's not always a viable answer, and not always some possibility just around the corner, particularly that retains religious identity. Most religions formed from tribal identity, and they bring with that pros and cons that are pretty much inextricable without changing them from the ground up in a way that most adherents would oppose.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:45 pmJust like man kinds journey to the moon seemed impossible once we gather the right amount of knowledge and resources it will then appear very realistic.

It didn't seem impossible. It was just thought to be cost prohibitive. And it should have been; around 200 billion dollars in today's money... and it didn't really do anything beyond show up those soviets.
Satellite technology is very useful... human space exploration is much less so. Imagine what they money could do if devoted to humanitarian efforts. When we look back on 'achievements' like this, from the perspective an altruists rather than nationalists, we should probably see gross waste.

The point is, maybe it would be possible to reform religions somehow, and we should if that's the path of least resistance... but just letting them mostly die out and promoting the already less violent ones in their places, and secularism, may just be a much more practical use of resources.
Religions in themselves probably have no value to preserve. We need to look at the effect on humanity.

Hi!!!

Most religions as they are, are divisive. What's the difference between a religion dying out, and it changing so much that it does not even resemble its original form?

For sure we could have world peace with a world of Unitarians and Humanists and Jains, and maybe Sufis... but many sects are founded upon being naturally divisive with core dogma that is exclusionary. Many Christian sects, for example, believe their way is the only way to heaven and that others will go to hell; these are high stakes, and promote violence even for the sake of altruism to save people from a much worse fate.

My knowledge is very limited in every piece of information you put in this reply but I will say that I agree with the main point. Some Religion is inefficient for the well being of humanity and letting it die out is more efficient that trying to create some type of harmony between them.

The ocean has a bottom, and we're bound in space within our causal sphere by relativity. Just saying.
There's not always a viable answer, and not always some possibility just around the corner, particularly that retains religious identity. Most religions formed from tribal identity, and they bring with that pros and cons that are pretty much inextricable without changing them from the ground up in a way that most adherents would oppose.

My point here was that the ocean does stop and at one point many people may have pondered if it had a bottom or not. As in there could be a viable answer for creating world peace in the short term, maybe not but it is a possibility. Not believing it is possible means to a certain extent it won't have as much of a chance of happening.

So those who believe world peace is not attainable in the short term may cause a less efficient way of achieving it even if they have current realistic facts to back up what they believe. Although at the same time those who believe it is possible in a unrealistic manner can hinder it as well. They both have pros and cons and I am personally trying to find a balance of the two in my life as of right now. One helps you take risks and the other helps you make more precise and stable strategies.

I kind of just want to soak up every main point you put out there and reflect on it for a while, at the same time part of me wants to keep the unrealistic approach because I still have a belief in me that it could solve the problem. Maybe there is a balance of the two.

What do you think about this?

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:45 pmJust like man kinds journey to the moon seemed impossible once we gather the right amount of knowledge and resources it will then appear very realistic.

It didn't seem impossible.

That really matters who you ask, I'm sure to some it did.

It was just thought to be cost prohibitive. And it should have been; around 200 billion dollars in today's money... and it didn't really do anything beyond show up those soviets.
Satellite technology is very useful... human space exploration is much less so. Imagine what they money could do if devoted to humanitarian efforts. When we look back on 'achievements' like this, from the perspective an altruists rather than nationalists, we should probably see gross waste.

Yeah, I never thought about it like that. I think I learn a new word in every sentence you type.

I used the moon landing as a example because to many it was a exceptionally difficult achievement (a wasteful one or not).

Just like the moon landing, world peace can be achieved if a certain amount of knowledge and resources is acquired to people with a humanitarian intention.

The point is, maybe it would be possible to reform religions somehow, and we should if that's the path of least resistance... but just letting them mostly die out and promoting the already less violent ones in their places, and secularism, may just be a much more practical use of resources.
Religions in themselves probably have no value to preserve. We need to look at the effect on humanity.

[/quote]


Well said, Your posts have helped my perception grow so thank you. Like stated before my intention is to help create word peace in the most efficient way possible. Much of the time I find my logic and my intention seem to clash.

Logic and knowledge are great tools, they are not my strong suit. I believe how I can really help create world peace isn't by explaining how because there are plenty of other people who have a smarter and more elaborate plans tan I. My place may not be logically debating it but instead inspiring people through emotional content that I create. Inspiring them to live in a more conscious way so they can help achieve the goal of world peace in the most efficient way.

I may not know the best route there but I have the energy and the skills to share that energy with others to help us get there.

So how would you go about helping create world peace. What actions would you take?

Thank you again for helping me realize I really don't know what the hell I am talking about but my intentions are what I should focus on.

I would not aim for world peace; in absolute terms it's impossible, but in relative terms this is already the most peaceful the world has ever been (look at per capita data).
Like harmful religions, some conflicts just need to burn themselves out (and they're usually tied to ideology). What I would say is if we just aim for reducing suffering where we can, and improving people's lives, they'll lose most of their reasons for fighting eventually.

zachadamcook wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:59 pm So those who believe world peace is not attainable in the short term may cause a less efficient way of achieving it even if they have current realistic facts to back up what they believe. Although at the same time those who believe it is possible in a unrealistic manner can hinder it as well. They both have pros and cons and I am personally trying to find a balance of the two in my life as of right now. One helps you take risks and the other helps you make more precise and stable strategies.
. . .
Logic and knowledge are great tools, they are not my strong suit. I believe how I can really help create world peace isn't by explaining how because there are plenty of other people who have a smarter and more elaborate plans than I. My place may not be logically debating it but instead inspiring people through emotional content that I create. Inspiring them to live in a more conscious way so they can help achieve the goal of world peace in the most efficient way.

Love this, keep at it:

Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. - Percy Bysshe Shelley

Philosophy is all about learning how to ask the right questions:

Think for a Change (11): Freedom to Think Differently, or At All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZN4wI3ayck

Following our interests to arrive at the best consequences may be the most stable grounding we have now to come to the best solutions for everyone, but the existential absurdity of our existence being what it is I have high hopes our 'zones of proximal development' are going to keep expanding outward. Watch closely as I blow forum members minds with rage (jokes) as I both propose a theory that is completely speculative and almost entirely unverifiable and quote from other peoples ideas without reformulating them into my own argument aha:

Deontology: Actions
Virtues: Character
Consequentialism: Ends

Zone 1: Amoral Nihilist - Born into the world entirely self interested.
Zone 2: Absolutist Deontology - Are told certain absolute truths in order to make your parents lives easier.
Zone 3: Divine Command, fatalism and piety - Flirt with some divine command narrative (optional),
Zone 4: Cynicism allied to Utilitarianism - The shitty situation we're in is the best that we're ever likely to muster.
Zone 5: Interest Consequentialism - Come on guys, there's a simple formula to effective altruism, please sign up here. Only problem being those trying to give ethics a hard ceiling here because the other stuff you can't get an adequate metric of all people's subjective needs and as such can't best know how to draw people in through desire to be good.
Zone 6: Virtue ethics - But what about the virtues? “What does it hurt to pursue value and virtue? If there is value, then we have everything to gain, but if there is none, then we haven’t lost anything."
Zone 7: Subjective Deontology or a Quasi-Utilitarianism - eek this is where forum members heads explode, it just may be that we can pick up faster what it means to be a decent human being by watching how others character virtues succeed and fail in a complex system that on face value looks like rule based obligations.
Zone 8: Liberation Theology or similar Buddhist not-self teaching - this is where I throw forum members a bone to disregard my ramblings. Though the meta-physics of these traditions are all wrong, the fundamental contention is a right one that; a subjects abilities can never be reduced to an object of bare life within a reductionist system. See 'The Scientific Image of Man'
- http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3283
Zone 9: Ethical nihilism - "When we use the term 'ethical' we’re never referring to a set of precepts capable of formulation, of rules to observe, of codes to establish…. No formal ethics is possible. There is only the interplay of forms-of-life among themselves, and the protocols of experimentation that guide them locally."

. . . The essential element of historical materialism as applied to ethical and social matters was (and actually still is) this: it demonstrated how much unhappiness and injustice and irrationality was man-made. Once the fog of supposedly god-given conditions had been dispelled, the decision to tolerate such conditions was exactly that—a decision. “The West,” at least, has happily never recovered from this discovery; you would be astounded if you looked up the books and commentaries of only a century ago and saw what was taken for granted before the Marxist irruption. Fatalism and piety were the least of it; this was cynicism allied to utilitarianism. Don’t let yourself forget it, but try and profit also from the hard experience of those who contested the old conditions and, in a word or phrase, don’t allow your thinking to be done for you by any party or faction, however high-minded. - Hitchens

What I would say is if we just aim for reducing suffering where we can, and improving people's lives, they'll lose most of their reasons for fighting eventually.

Then the question is simply how to eliminate the reasons they have for fighting. I would say aim to reduce suffering on a small scale but also search for a more efficient way to do it on small scale(long term) and a big scale(short term).

I will continue to keep myself open to finding out how I can do more while I also continue to do the smaller actions. I am not going to play it off like I know any answers but I will keep my heart and mind open to many different perspectives so I have a more flexible way of navigating to some type of efficient answer.