Over the last few years I have dramatically reduced my meat intake and over the last few months I have started to follow a strict vegetarian diet for moral, health and environmental reasons.
I would just like to start a discussion about how Ozbargainers view the topic.
This isn't an attempt to convert anyone or a means by which to make vegetarians and vegans feel superior. Rather I would be interested to hear peoples opinions.
Please lets keep the discussion rational and civil! :)
If something like this was to happen let's be realistic here- we'd be at war and our understanding of humanity wouldn't matter much to them.
And you really don't need to look at aliens.. look at our history we were predators but we were also preys. In the wild we would still be food in the eyes of some animals and our sense of humanity won't change that no matter how you look at it.
Let's be realistic here:
Over 10,000,000,000 land animals were slaughtered in the U.S. alone in the year 2011. If aquatic animals are factored in the total number of animals killed for human consumption in the U.S. in just this one year was nearly 65,000,000,000. Worldwide figures place total number of animal deaths at human hands in the year 2011 alone to be well over 150,000,000,000.
Ask yourself the question:
What is this doing energetically to the field of Consciousness in which we are all living?
oh no, a hippie.
You do realize we are part of the food chain right ? Your numbers don't really mean much. Do you go around counting how many living things other life forms have consumed ? Its pointless.
You're free to consume as you wish but the issue in this planet is not our consumption of animal products. I don't even understand how one day some decided they will place value on one life form but not the other. An animal is just as 'LIVING' as a plant. So the ability to move makes them more complex ? You can argue plants don't possess a consciousness but how sure of that can you really be ? Plants respond to their environment including sounds, touches etc the same way other life forms do - so just because their reaction is different, its okay to consume them but not other life forms.
Another argument is clearance of land for animals but really even thats not honest. We destroyed and continue to damage the planet in so many other ways. Housing, roads, mining.. list goes on and on. And if you look at how people who were in tune with the land and the environment lived before us - you'll see that the damage was not caused by consumption of animals. Humans can change a lot of their actions in order to address a lot of the issues we have today without removing animal products all together
@zine21:
It's not pointless to see the bigger picture of the unnescessary slaughter of animals for human consumption.
Our Free Will choice to kill and consume does not mean we are free from the consequences of that behaviour.
Sometimes the objection is made that life is also taken when vegetables and fruits are eaten, but that statement is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the facts. When the fruit is ripe, it has accomplished its purpose, which is to act as a womb for the ripening of the seed. If not eaten, it decays and goes to waste. Moreover, it is designed to serve as food for the animal and human kingdoms, thus affording the seed opportunities for growth by scattering it in fertile soil. Besides, just as the ovum and the semen of human beings are ineffectual without the seed of life essence/soul so any egg or seed, of itself is devoid of life.
If it is given the proper conditions of incubator or soil, the spark of life is then poured into it, thus grasping the opportunity so afforded of producing a dense body. If the egg or seed is cooked, crushed, or not given the conditions necessary for the life, the opportunity is lost, but that is all.
At the present stage of the evolutionary journey, everyone knows inherently that it is wrong to kill, and man will love and protect the animals in all cases where his greed and selfish interest does not blind him to their rights.
How much more beautiful it would be for man to play the role of friend and protector of the weak.
You're also missing the knowledge and understanding of the Law of Assimilation and I would like to share this with you.
There is life in every particle of food that we take into our bodies, and before we can build that life into our bodies by the process of assimilation, we must overcome and make it subject to ourselves. The more individualized is the particle to be assimilated,the more energy will it require to digest it and the shorter time will it remain before seeking to reassert itself.
If it were possible for man to use minerals as food, they would be ideal for that purpose because of their stability and the little energy required to overcome and subject them to the life of the body. We should be compelled to eat very much less in quantity and also less often than we now do.
The plant kingdom is next above the mineral. It has an organization capable of assimilating the mineral compounds of the Earth. Man and animal can assimilate the plants and thus obtain the chemical compounds necessary to sustain their bodies, and as the consciousness of the plant kingdom is that of dreamless sleep, it offers no resistance. It requires but little energy to assimilate the particles thus derived, and having little individuality of their own, the life ensouling the particles does not seek to escape from our body as soon as food derived from more highly developed forms, therefore the strength derived from a diet of fruit and vegetables is more enduring than that derived from a meat diet, and the food supply does not require as frequent replenishing, besides giving more strength in proportion because less energy is required for assimilation.
Food composed of the bodies of animals consists of particles which have been worked upon and inter-penetrated by an individual desire body, and have thus been individualized to a much greater extent than the plant particles. There is an individual cell-soul, which is permeated by the passions and desires of the animal. It requires considerable energy to overcome it in the first place, so that it may be assimilated, yet it never becomes so fully incorporated into the polity of the body as do the plant constituents, which have no such strong individual tendencies. The result is that it is necessary for the flesh-eater to consume a greater weight of food than is required by the fruitarian; also he must eat more often. Moreover, this inward strife of the particles of flesh causes greater wear and tear of the body in general.
If the flesh of the herbivore were the essence of what is good in plants, then, logically, the flesh of the carnivore should be the quintessence. The meat of wolves and vultures would thus be the creme de la creme, and much to be desired. This we know is not the case, but quite the reverse. The nearer we get to the plant kingdom, the more strength we derive from our food. If the reverse were the case, the flesh of carnivorous animals would be sought by other beasts of prey, but examples of "dog eat dog" are very few throughout nature.
These are the basics that needs to be understood before one can consider changing their eating habbits and Take Action.
If it requires brainwashing to stop people from killing animals and other people then what does that say about our moral education and moral principles?
@sintro: I'm sorry what ? So you're basically arguing that plants should be consumed because they require less energy to obtain greater volume of energy ? Um no.. Yes we have remnant organs that suggest we possibly could do this once but we have evolved into our current form which isn't capable of extracting the full potential energy out of plants - we are not herbivores, we can't break down cellulose nor can we extract the energy from it. We require higher volumes of plant based products to obtain comparable energy.
Theres so many points in your long comment that I can correct but theres no point. I mean you're talking about the animals passions and desires.. Yeah do you know why animals don't get ulcers ? (find the book on zebras - its a biology book, maybe will give you some context regarding animal nature and how its actually not that different to plants).
@sintro:
"There is life in every particle of food that we take into our bodies"
Do you realise the unscientific nonsense you are writing spiral bound manifestos/blending juicer infomercials about? Where is the life in iron?
I'm not here to argue. Just sharing simple eternal TRUTHs.
"DO NO HARM" / "DO NOT KILL" is the main reason for one not to eat meat. This is basic moral TRUTH. You don't OWN the life of animals for you to do as you please with them, let alone kill them and consume them.
You also don't nescessarily need to kill the plant to use its fruit or use its leaves.
Have you ever considered that we have actually devolved into our current form and it's based on violence, agression and domination? We might've adapted to killing animals and eating their meat but that's not evolving as it actually feeds the condition of enslavement and the state of chaos. It does NOT always have be this way.
Break the (food) chain (pun intended), learn proper vegetarian way of eating, this leads to positive change and direction for us to evolve.
It's not easy to break our eating habbits, it requires contemplation, reflection, worldview healing, learn to say NO and TAKE ACTION to change our behaviours.
You don't OWN the life of animals for you to do as you please with them, let alone kill them and consume them.
my pet registration says otherwise.
@sintro:
There is no chance of me following the orders of someone who cannot even spell "necessary" or "necessarily". Work on the basics before tackling enlightenment.
@insular: If your pet is a cat, it owns you.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/cats-eat-your-face-afte…
@sintro:
How about bacterium and viruses. They also have lives. Just where do you draw the line? Vegetarians seem to draw the line at animals but I see a critical flaw in that argument as they make themselves the ultimate moral judge. Who made you the judge? Know this: You do not have the ultimate moral sense and your moral sense is not better than the average. Correct description would be that you have different moral sense. Human-derived ultimate moral sense does not exist as humans change.
You have used the word eternal. Are you religious? That would make a lot more sense.
My religious belief tells me to kill and eat animals as I am given dominion over other creatures.
oh my, it's a typo!
This isn't about enlightenment but if you are interested then watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8e41iXn4qI
No religion.
We are not the judge. Nature/The Universe with the unseen Laws that govern the consequences of behaviour will provide the effects/results. It's just the inner workings of nature, like a program input and outputs.
What religion do you subscribe to? Christianity? No, we don't have dominion over other creatures.
How much more beautiful it would be for man to play the role of friend and protector of the weak.
So your religion's "god" is suggesting that you can go and murder as viciously, violently and abundantly as you want as long as you’re doing it to animals and not other human beings. "Just go do it to the animals as they are completely separate from my creation. You’re my favorite ones, but the animals? I don’t really care about what you do to them, just go right ahead."
If you think like that, I call that the state of "negative knowledge" not only do you not know anything and you put a whole lot of erroneous beliefs on top of the zero point you so you have to dig your way back to zero.
"We have dominion over other creatures" is a false religious justification that doesn't consider suffering as the main guiding point to bring you to the Truth of what actions you should or should not take. If it is generating suffering you shouldn’t be doing it.
Take a look at Genesis 1:29-30 for yourself but I'm sure you'll find contractions to this chapter but you know why? Cos it's a man written book to justify human agendas. They put a lot of spiritual truths in it so the people will accept it but also in doing so accept the other stuff that they were throwing in the mix and if you don’t understand that’s what that book is, you are very very naive or just trapped in that a modality of mind control called religion.
"How much more beautiful it would be for man to play the role of friend and protector of the weak."
Could not possibly agree more. I appritiate your definition of beauty. Thats why we should look after those in need by giving and helping in anyway possible.
May I invite you to answer my questions? Who made you the judge and where do you draw the line? If we are not the judge or possess some form of authoritive mind no one can tell people what to do and you are telling us to stop eating meat becuase of your opinions.
I'm saying the creator is the judge and He tells us to eat animals. Humans are God's favourites becuase He made us in His image. He also tells us to look after them. These are some of the verses:
Proverbs 12:10 “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.”
Proverbs 27:23 “Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds.”
Matthew 6:26 “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Deuteronomy 22:6-7 “If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.”
Luke 12:6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.”
So I do believe that there sholud be better and more humane methods to raise and kill animals for meat. I believe we should take care of the Earth and all creatures in it for it is made by God with love and He put us in charge over them. We can use them to our will but this does not mean we can trample over them.
We do have dominion over other creatures. Even without the Bible it is a fact that humans are at the top of the food chain.
You call it negative knowledge, I call it faith. Your claims and beliefs against my faith is also faith. No human knows the absoultes. God does. The Bible is a God inspired book. You have the absolute freedom to believe it or not for you are a free thinking and conscious man not solely driven by instinct.
I sense a thirst for spirituality from you.
Incredible ignorance led Christians to believe that their god was providing an unlimited supply of dodos for slaughter. It took decades after the last dodo to convince them that extinction was real, as faith was leading them up the garden path.
So I do believe that there sholud be better and more humane methods to raise and kill animals for meat.
Killing is not humane. PERIOD.
I call it faith. Your claims and beliefs against my faith is also faith.
If your faith is STOPPING you from discovering what is TRUE and what is NOT TRUE in your own religion then you don't know what spirituality is AT ALL.
Watch this and we can have a discussion in another thread
Mark Passio - Street-Wise Spirituality - St. Louis, MO
I kill mosquitoes and marsh flies. Not sorry that I don't relocate them.
Read the title "Is It Ethical to Eat Meat?"
Shan't. I let preachy, overbearing vegans do all my thinking for me.
Everyone inhales insect body parts and dried cat spit anyhow. No one is a vegan.
dried cat spit? nothin like some pusssy secretions for wellbeing and vitality.
@Frugal Rock. still not eating.
@hobbsthetiger:
But alien banquet hypotheticals meet your officiousness standards?
Where do you think insect and cat spit dust goes after it collects in the lungs? It's ingested allright, unless it's spat out, which has it's own ethical and TB problems.
Everyone also eats their own mites, and yeah you have them.
@Frugal Rock: I actually thought you were joking. Now, I think you are mistaken at best.
The gist of the question is whether killing sentient beings for human consumption is good. Cat spit or insects that files into your lungs aren't in that category.
@hobbsthetiger:
It might be lost on you, but the fact is that all people ingest countless living and dead animals and living things every day. Vegans and vegetarians just get hypocritical about it in denial and/or ignorance. There is no basis for a superiority complex. Eating microscopic animals and bacteria is involuntary, so this debate is merely whether vegans can base their broadcast superiority complex on avoiding eating the cute, doe-eyed big ones.
@Frugal Rock: Mate, I do not have access to what you are thinking when you write stuff, I only see what you have written.
How am I to know you are talking about vegans and their superiority complex. OP talks about eating meat, he didn't say he doesn't drink milk or cat piss.
Also, your argument about vegans wrong too. I don't think vegans eat snails or frogs either. It is about consciously avoiding animal produce.
@hobbsthetiger:
Then why did you pull me up on relevance but indulge the alien banquet? You have your own motives and bias.
I catch flies and spiders with a net then relocate them. its fun.
for every fly and spider you catch and release, i kill 100x with insect spray
why bother
I bother because it's fun and less chemicals around the house… I'm not worried about killing them. Death can be fun too but not as fun as catching and relocating them.
I didn't read through the whole post so i don't know if this point was made… but if you aren't growing your own vegetables… you should consider the number of animals killed by harvesters and other farming equipment in the effort to get copious amount of vegetables on your plate.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill
So because insects are killed harvesting vegetables, meat-eaters are totally off the hook?
Meat eaters aren't 'on the hook' anywhere except in your hangry mind. Vegans aren't even an effective lynch mob due to your brittle bones and stunted growth.
There's plenty of wildlife that get mashed up in harvesters. Rabbits, cane toads, foxes?… Ands nobody even eats them. All to get some vegetables.? If you want to be a true vegan. Then grow your own vegetables and donate part of your salary to scientific research to grow animals without central nervous systems or brains.
I have no doubt that is an issue but I think factory farming practices etc. are cause for more concern at this stage
Firstly, do not confuse 'ETHICS' with 'MORALS'.
You ask: "Is It Ethical to Eat Meat?"… Simple answer is YES; because IT IS NOT ILLEGAL nor against a code of conduct within the LEGAL confines of Australia.
However, you go on to say "I have started to follow a strict vegetarian diet for moral, health and environmental reasons." This is MORALITY. You own guiding principals and the accepted principals of your 'community'. I shall assume you have chosen to take on this vegetarian diet as a result of new knowledge that was not passed down from your parents etc….good on you for opening your mind to new ideas, whatever it may be.
All in all, we live under TWO sets of restrictions (or guidance) ETHICS: laws/codes(legal/illegal) and MORALS: societal/self directed confines(right and wrong).
I just ask…. when fertilising the vegetables with organic material, does it matter if the animals are raised on farms meeting YOUR moral coded in animal husbandry?
give this man a prize
@ trinidaddy: you seem to have confused ethics with lawful behaviours, the latter usually is part of ethics.
Huh? You seem to confuse ethics with law, and don't understand that ethics = morals for all intents and purposes, see below:
ethics
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues, dictates of conscience
"the ethics of journalism"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
"neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion"
What I learned in philosophy is that morals is about what is thought to be right or wrong (Descriptive ethics), while ethics is what is ought to be done (Normative ethics)
Even within those links… they both basically say they're entertwined with morals.
Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
Also, you can't say that ethics is what is ought to be done.. then link to two different sets of ethics, where one branch of it describes morals….
This just really highlights how interchangeable the words morals/ethics are.
We get it, you want a clear conscience, if you want to be vegan be vegan if you don't you don't. There are plenty of ways to get organic free range meat if that makes you feel more at ease.
I believe it's not ethical to eat meat but still eat meat. I try to find sources that are as sustainable and treat the animals as well as possible given what knowledge I have.
I find it's a good balance between vitamin deficiencies and being social with others, whilst also being ethical for the planet.
It's also just practical -> I have hardcore vegan friends who have to eat meat on occasion. They travel around the world as volunteers to elephant reserves etc. etc., and in some places in Africa you just have no choice but to eat what is given to you else you will starve.
If you live in a society that is Western (eg. Australia), you directly support the funding of military interventionism which directly contributes to death and struggle by virtue of being a tax-paying citizen. Is that being ethical?
Good question but not what this thread is here to discuss
Not at all, but trying to not fund military interventions is much harder than becoming a vegan.
Can't really deduct that from your tax payments.
Kudos to you!
I too have started weaning myself off meat, especially red meat.
And it's for moral, health and environmental reasons. Win-win-win.
Eye fillet medium rare is win-win-win-win.
Good luck it gets easier! :)
Plants got life also.
You can eat the fruits and the leaves without killing the plant.
Especially the fruits are to be eaten so there is a chance for the seed to meet fertile conditions to sprout.
"This isn't an attempt to convert anyone"…BS…Even the title of your post is forceing the issue otherwise it would just be "should we eat meat"… and then u say "I have started to follow a strict vegetarian diet for moral, health and environmental reasons" So anyone who does is immoral? I call BS
You're free to believe whatever you like but that is not my intention
I can't stand Vegans and Vegos preaching about moral this and that………..think of all the animals killed to make your house, your clothing, your roads, your furniture, your electrical appliances…. and the list goes on and on and on. Give us all a break and stop preaching…..at the end of the day….what is your point….seriously?
they feel insecure being veggie people, so they act all mighty and tough to look like they are better then us meat eater.
they also try to convert you so they feel they made the right choice lol.
My point is an attempt at rational discourse
There's a case for removing animals for purpose of housing and infrastructure though. There's no other option and we need housing and infrastructure for adequate survival.
Are you saying that animals have to be killed to make furniture and clothes? Because that isn't true.
Not choosing a side here it's just common sense. "What is your point"? It's pretty obvious. Minimise animal exploitation.
I only eat animals thay have already been killed, so yes it's ok.
Yea, u are a reformed man now Ozzy, no more live animals for you :D
I'm gonna use all the salt here to season my steak and preserve some veggies…
Enjoy!
Being vegan is definitely good, but easier said than done..
It can be difficult at times.
I don't think it is bad to kill the animals because we have to follow a food chain. Otherwise, our biodiversity may get damaged.
I went from being a twice daily meat eater to abruptly going strictly vegan (after watching cowspiracy), which I managed successfully for a year… Though over the last 6 months I've relaxed and decided a monthly treat of fish or the occasional baked good that contains milk is a better approach. It's really tough to have such strict limitations placed on yourself, and can often set you up to fail. To anyone who is saying it isn't healthy, I feel way less lethargic since going (mostly) vegan. It's very easy to get everything you need (except b12, which you need to supplement) from a vego or vegan diet.
@sintro: maybe you should read some of my other posts….