NDE Life Review and Eating Animals

Thank you for posting that Steve, I still have a lot more to listen to, but I have watched the part that you drew our attention to and more. I can relate so strongly with what says about a general feeling of "do no harm.

Thanks for that, Red. It was a revealing and quite personal look into your thoughts on the subject.

I went shopping at Aldi yesterday, mainly to be buy fresh fruit for breakfast that I eat most mornings. My usual guilty feelings gripped me as I approached the meat counter and started to discuss with myself what I should buy, it's like looking at porn! Maybe I am too weak or maybe too considerate of others? I think it might be easier if I were living on my own, but I'm not. I held up some relatively expensive bacon, supposedly it came from animals reared with some kind of 'freedom', I wasn't convinced. I bought some gammon and chicken breasts. I don't much trust anything the package says. It didn't feel comfortable.

Life is full of choices such as this which appear to cause us difficulties, it seems to me to be too much of a coincidence. Perfect for spiritual learning, no? There is a problem for everyone, eating meat, sex drive, relationships, religion,etc. Need it on a bigger scale- war, famine, corporate greed...the list is endless. Many of the choices are forced upon us, or might appear that way. As I said- many problems for all of us to wrestle with. And even psychopaths who maybe don't give a shite about others - surely another valid learning experience, are part of the mix.

I only listened to this BATGAP episode yesterday while I tried to decide on a suitable video to watch using apple tv while I was on my exercise bike. It was a good choice for me, I haven't finished listening, but I really enjoyed listening to David Spangler. But even though I did enjoy it, my inner sceptic (or is it cynic) is never fully convinced
that what he's saying is 'true'. I think one needs personal experience to bridge that gap, something I don't have. Interesting, he talks about that too.

I listened to the more recent episode the day before, about the hugging guru. I didn't warm to the interviewee, nor was I convinced about Amma or whatever her name is! I'm a tough crowd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Thank you for posting that Steve, I still have a lot more to listen to, but I have watched the part that you drew our attention to and more. I can relate so strongly with what says about a general feeling of "do no harm."

As far as the vegetarian/vegan option I don't think he was giving the full picture, but the groundwork that he outlined is something I can understand.

From age 15 to 43 I was vegetarian, with an attempt at veganism in there somewhere. I found it difficult to give up milk in my tea - soy milk just is not the same. But really, it is what we can manage emotionally, politically, but mainly personally. My partner and I raised our kids as vegetarian (on my asking) but my partner was not a vegetarian. We recognized that we were still making a choice for them, so as soon as they were able to make a choice they made it - they both chose to eat meat from 3 years old until early teenhood. Then at 15 (ironically) my daughter became a vegan, partly conscience and health, partly eating disorder. It worries me everyday.

I used to think that being a vegetarian was the most obvious of primary moral choices. I think it is a very important action to consider, and I'm sure the world world would be a better place without factory farming. But why create man to have such a bodily dependence on meat? It is in some ways wretched that man is an omnivore. There is nothing definitive to be found in biology! It really is a choice for some, but not for all, and humans have been eating meat since the dawn of the ages. If vegetarianism part of our future, then why are the most spiritual people that I know not vegetarian? No matter what, recognizing and respecting any animal that a is consumed is important. But is it enough? I don't know. But thanks (all) for starting a conversation about it.

Hi Red

Interesting comment, got a couple of questions/responses. I certainly think being Vegan is the ultimate moral choice around diet (a Jain diet goes a little further so arguably there's is better). I have to ask - what bodily dependence do we have on meat? There are all sorts of illnesses associated with meat consumption, red meat and processed meat is now classified as carcinogenic and causes cancer. We also get sick if we don't cook most meats and we have long digestive tracts, most animals that eat meat have short digestive tracts to get the meat out of their system before it starts rotting badly and makes them ill. In terms of why the most spiritual people you know eat meat, I would argue that it's because they're human, so they are still inconsistent and our 'normal' diets are the result of powerful conditioning which is hard to overcome. That conditioning is what makes us drink cows milk but not human milk as adults, and what makes people think eating a cow is normal but eating a dog by most people would be considered abhorrent. The spiritual people I know are Vegan/Vegetarian at a higher rate then the rest of the population though.

Anyway would be interested in hearing your response - cheers!
 
Hi Red

Interesting comment, got a couple of questions/responses. I certainly think being Vegan is the ultimate moral choice around diet (a Jain diet goes a little further so arguably there's is better). I have to ask - what bodily dependence do we have on meat? There are all sorts of illnesses associated with meat consumption, red meat and processed meat is now classified as carcinogenic and causes cancer. We also get sick if we don't cook most meats and we have long digestive tracts, most animals that eat meat have short digestive tracts to get the meat out of their system before it starts rotting badly and makes them ill. In terms of why the most spiritual people you know eat meat, I would argue that it's because they're human, so they are still inconsistent and our 'normal' diets are the result of powerful conditioning which is hard to overcome. That conditioning is what makes us drink cows milk but not human milk as adults, and what makes people think eating a cow is normal but eating a dog by most people would be considered abhorrent. The spiritual people I know are Vegan/Vegetarian at a higher rate then the rest of the population though.

Anyway would be interested in hearing your response - cheers!
I'm not sure they have short digestive tracts to get rid of meat before it rots. What makes you say that's the reason? Perhaps it's just because it needs less digestion?
 
I have to ask - what bodily dependence do we have on meat?

The fact that we can process/digest meat and have done since the dawn of mankind is all I mean. Not all animals are omnivores, but we humans probably have the widest ranging diet of all animals and a large part of that diet across the globe includes meat.

There are all sorts of illnesses associated with meat consumption, red meat and processed meat is now classified as carcinogenic and causes cancer.

That probably has more to do with our modern animal husbandry practices and the additives in processed meat than anything else.

We also get sick if we don't cook most meats and we have long digestive tracts, most animals that eat meat have short digestive tracts to get the meat out of their system before it starts rotting badly and makes them ill.

Indeed, we must cook a lot of our proteins including beans and legumes. As far as human adaptation to meat eating vs beans/grains etc I don't wish to get into a back and forth as information is abundant for both sides of the argument. I visited that debate many times before and reached no conclusions.

In terms of why the most spiritual people you know eat meat, I would argue that it's because they're human, so they are still inconsistent and our 'normal' diets are the result of powerful conditioning which is hard to overcome...The spiritual people I know are Vegan/Vegetarian at a higher rate then the rest of the population though.
I don't disagree with you here. However, several other factors should be taken into consideration. First, vegetarianism is much more prevalent and accepted in the UK than it is in North America. I am assuming you are British, correct me if I'm wrong). When I first moved to Canada there was no such thing as a vegetarian option in a restaurant, and no supermarket carried vegetarian items that weren't found in the fruit and veg aisle. In other words, culture (acceptance and availability) is important in making dietary decisions.

Second, most of the people I know who are extremely involved in animal rights are atheists for obvious reasons. It is hard to witness that kind of suffering and still see any kind of greater good or plan that would facilitate such a state of affairs. Many religious folk (and I will only speak for Christianity here) cannot comprehend vegetarianism since their religious texts are interpreted as an open invitation to keep and eat animals. I understand your point that other religions promote more of a vegetarian diet - good for them. There is, of course, a difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious" although they can be practiced together.

The people I was thinking of primarily are those that I have met through spiritualist churches and gatherings. I too was perplexed by the lack of vegetarian commitment. One woman, with whom I took some mediumship classes, and her husband (a Cuban national) are both highly involved in the Santeria traditions of ancestral/saint worship - a religion that still practices animal sacrifice. Their communities back in Cuba are largely rural and social ties, rituals and commitments are nothing like what you or I might experience in our daily lives. They are not vegetarian, nor would they strive to be.

As far as the difference between eating dogs, cows, pigs, horses, etc. I see no difference from a moral standpoint - just cultural preference. The main concern, as I have stated before is the suffering inflicted and the quality of life experienced which is likely to be dismal in all cases.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts. I have no claim to ultimate truths, I speak for myself alone.
 
I went shopping at Aldi yesterday, mainly to be buy fresh fruit for breakfast that I eat most mornings. My usual guilty feelings gripped me as I approached the meat counter and started to discuss with myself what I should buy, it's like looking at porn! Maybe I am too weak or maybe too considerate of others? I think it might be easier if I were living on my own, but I'm not. I held up some relatively expensive bacon, supposedly it came from animals reared with some kind of 'freedom', I wasn't convinced. I bought some gammon and chicken breasts. I don't much trust anything the package says. It didn't feel comfortable.

I'm with you! I avoid meat counters like the plague. Luckily I'm not the main shopper in the house so I get to avoid the unpleasantries :)
And you're right to not trust the packaging. Generally though, it's worth looking up stuff online to see where/how it is produced. Sometimes you can find local products that are better.

I really enjoyed listening to David Spangler. But even though I did enjoy it, my inner sceptic (or is it cynic) is never fully convinced
that what he's saying is 'true'. I think one needs personal experience to bridge that gap, something I don't have. Interesting, he talks about that too.

Why would you accept someone else's 'truth' as your own? Acknowledging other perspectives is important but our own truths come from within. Sometimes ideas resonate with us and I think it is because they are known to us already. Maybe this goes back to your question in another thread about the role of the ego. Maybe we do have to drop the ego to recognize these 'truths." It's hard to describe.

Keep being a "tough crowd"
 
Why would you accept someone else's 'truth' as your own?

In fact I don't see anything very much as 'truth'. There are just views from different directions.

I was trying to convey the difference in 'feeling' I get from different interviewee's. On a scale from 0 to 10 David was a 8.5 Average score watching BATGAP would maybe be 5 or 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
The fact that we can process/digest meat and have done since the dawn of mankind is all I mean. Not all animals are omnivores, but we humans probably have the widest ranging diet of all animals and a large part of that diet across the globe includes meat.



That probably has more to do with our modern animal husbandry practices and the additives in processed meat than anything else.



Indeed, we must cook a lot of our proteins including beans and legumes. As far as human adaptation to meat eating vs beans/grains etc I don't wish to get into a back and forth as information is abundant for both sides of the argument. I visited that debate many times before and reached no conclusions.


I don't disagree with you here. However, several other factors should be taken into consideration. First, vegetarianism is much more prevalent and accepted in the UK than it is in North America. I am assuming you are British, correct me if I'm wrong). When I first moved to Canada there was no such thing as a vegetarian option in a restaurant, and no supermarket carried vegetarian items that weren't found in the fruit and veg aisle. In other words, culture (acceptance and availability) is important in making dietary decisions.

Second, most of the people I know who are extremely involved in animal rights are atheists for obvious reasons. It is hard to witness that kind of suffering and still see any kind of greater good or plan that would facilitate such a state of affairs. Many religious folk (and I will only speak for Christianity here) cannot comprehend vegetarianism since their religious texts are interpreted as an open invitation to keep and eat animals. I understand your point that other religions promote more of a vegetarian diet - good for them. There is, of course, a difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious" although they can be practiced together.

The people I was thinking of primarily are those that I have met through spiritualist churches and gatherings. I too was perplexed by the lack of vegetarian commitment. One woman, with whom I took some mediumship classes, and her husband (a Cuban national) are both highly involved in the Santeria traditions of ancestral/saint worship - a religion that still practices animal sacrifice. Their communities back in Cuba are largely rural and social ties, rituals and commitments are nothing like what you or I might experience in our daily lives. They are not vegetarian, nor would they strive to be.

As far as the difference between eating dogs, cows, pigs, horses, etc. I see no difference from a moral standpoint - just cultural preference. The main concern, as I have stated before is the suffering inflicted and the quality of life experienced which is likely to be dismal in all cases.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts. I have no claim to ultimate truths, I speak for myself alone.

Hi Red, I don't really have a response to what you said right now, but I just wanted to thank you for the reply and for raising some interesting points.
 
Anyway, this thread needs @Laird, who is vegan, and @Neil who raises his own beef to have them humanely slaughtered. Didn't those two have a whole thread about that?

Probably your question was rhetorical, but just in case, here's a link to the thread where Neil and I duked it out: Veganism. I believe Neil sourced his "humane" beef from a local farm rather than raising it himself, but that doesn't change much, just a nitpick.

Thanks for the call-out (which the forum software failed to alert me to - instead I came across this thread in the course of compiling the forum index), although re discussing veganism in this thread, I think Roberta got it right:

You don't need Laird, I'm a Vegan ;).

Probably one of the few points on which you (Roberta) and I would disagree is the sentience and hence ethical considerability of plants, and thus (my contention) that veganism is not the ultimately ethical diet, but rather that some variant of fruitarianism is. Otherwise, I find little (nothing?) to which to object in your posts to this thread - we see things very much alike, which is not surprising because we both accept the core premise of veganism: that animals, like humans, being sentient deserve the same (relative to their nature, goals and needs) ethical consideration as we give humans. I find this a helpful key in "unlocking" veganism: to ask "Would it be OK to do that to a human?", because if not, and if there are no relevant differences, then it isn't OK to do it to an animal or a plant either.

Also thanks to FFH for raising this very interesting question, and especially to Ian for the link he shared which goes some way to answering it! Unfortunately I have no answer of my own to contribute as I am ignorant on it.
 
Probably your question was rhetorical, but just in case, here's a link to the thread where Neil and I duked it out: Veganism. I believe Neil sourced his "humane" beef from a local farm rather than raising it himself, but that doesn't change much, just a nitpick.

Thanks for the call-out (which the forum software failed to alert me to - instead I came across this thread in the course of compiling the forum index), although re discussing veganism in this thread, I think Roberta got it right:



Probably one of the few points on which you (Roberta) and I would disagree is the sentience and hence ethical considerability of plants, and thus (my contention) that veganism is not the ultimately ethical diet, but rather that some variant of fruitarianism is. Otherwise, I find little (nothing?) to which to object in your posts to this thread - we see things very much alike, which is not surprising because we both accept the core premise of veganism: that animals, like humans, being sentient deserve the same (relative to their nature, goals and needs) ethical consideration as we give humans. I find this a helpful key in "unlocking" veganism: to ask "Would it be OK to do that to a human?", because if not, and if there are no relevant differences, then it isn't OK to do it to an animal or a plant either.

Also thanks to FFH for raising this very interesting question, and especially to Ian for the link he shared which goes some way to answering it! Unfortunately I have no answer of my own to contribute as I am ignorant on it.


What are your views on plants? A fruitarian diet is probably better yes, but a Vegan diet uses less plants then a standard one, so if you want to consider the ethical considerations of plants we are a okay!
 
What are your views on plants?

Pretty much what I wrote above - that they are sentient, and deserve ethical consideration - so that we ought not to kill or otherwise mistreat them, but rather to eat their fruit, which does them no harm since it is designed to separate painlessly from them. The definition of fruit I'm using here is the botanical one, which includes beans, nuts, legumes, seeds, grains, fruit-like vegetables such as pumpkins and capsicums, and of course culinary fruit - the sweet stuff we typically mean by "fruit". The diet I advocate for is not that much different to vanilla veganism - it just means avoiding foods that kill plants (e.g. broccoli) or harm / steal from them (e.g. herbs, being picked off a plant which grew them for its own purposes).

A fruitarian diet is probably better yes, but a Vegan diet uses less plants then a standard one, so if you want to consider the ethical considerations of plants we are a okay!

You know, I'm actually not sure about that: as I understand it, the vast majority of the "plants" which are fed to animals in feedlots and factory farms are actually "fruit" (grains, mostly) by the botanical definition I shared above. If you have any different insight or info on this though then I'd appreciate it.

I don't want to overemphasise our differences either: as I wrote above, we see things very similarly when it comes to the vegan ethic.
 
I don't disagree with you here. However, several other factors should be taken into consideration. First, vegetarianism is much more prevalent and accepted in the UK than it is in North America. I am assuming you are British, correct me if I'm wrong). When I first moved to Canada there was no such thing as a vegetarian option in a restaurant, and no supermarket carried vegetarian items that weren't found in the fruit and veg aisle. In other words, culture (acceptance and availability) is important in making dietary decisions.

Oh god, you just gave me flashbacks to trying to go vegetarian when I lived in Texas in the early nineties. It was almost impossible. You couldn't even order green beans at a restaurant without bacon in it. And all Tex-Mex food had meat broth in their rice and lard in their beans. And if I asked what was in the rice and beans, the server looked at me like I was crazy! Good times. I was just a teenager and couldn't figure out how to cook good veggies, but I eventually learned.

Now my son (who is six) is adamant about being a vegetarian and begs me for dried seaweed as a snack. He also loves veggie sushi. I was such a picky eater at his age, so his tastes amaze me.

As an aside -- his father is not a vegetarian, but I cook exclusively veggie meals at home. I did give my son a choice, and he choice vegetarian. He loves animals and can't bear the thought of eating meat.
 
Pretty much what I wrote above - that they are sentient, and deserve ethical consideration - so that we ought not to kill or otherwise mistreat them, but rather to eat their fruit, which does them no harm since it is designed to separate painlessly from them. The definition of fruit I'm using here is the botanical one, which includes beans, nuts, legumes, seeds, grains, fruit-like vegetables such as pumpkins and capsicums, and of course culinary fruit - the sweet stuff we typically mean by "fruit". The diet I advocate for is not that much different to vanilla veganism - it just means avoiding foods that kill plants (e.g. broccoli) or harm / steal from them (e.g. herbs, being picked off a plant which grew them for its own purposes).



You know, I'm actually not sure about that: as I understand it, the vast majority of the "plants" which are fed to animals in feedlots and factory farms are actually "fruit" (grains, mostly) by the botanical definition I shared above. If you have any different insight or info on this though then I'd appreciate it.

I don't want to overemphasise our differences either: as I wrote above, we see things very similarly when it comes to the vegan ethic.

You're sort of advocating a Jain's view aren't you? What evidence is there that plants are sentient?

If they are ill adapt my diet but we still need to be clear that A) Animals are more sentient and B) Eating animals kills more plants, it doesn't just kill fruit plans they use all kinds of plants.

This is a useful link, but probably only relevant to the UK:

https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farmingfood/animalfeed/what-farm-animals-eat

That's also the land and the resource aspect of factory farming. However like you said, we agree on most things!
 
You're sort of advocating a Jain's view aren't you?

It's very similar, the main difference I can see (after doing a bit of reading) is that they don't eat potatoes (which supposedly contain many, many lives) nor onions, garlic and eggplants (which three they see as having a dark energy, lethargy and putrid smell), and that they do eat plants such as broccoli and cauliflower, apparently because if those plants aren't harvested then they wither and die soon afterwards anyway. I'm going to have to check up on that and contemplate it, they may have a point.

Another difference is that they do not forbid milk and dairy, although there is now a growing movement for Jain veganism, motivated by concern over the abuses of factory-farmed dairy.

What evidence is there that plants are sentient?

I've collected a lot of it here. There has also been a relevant Skeptiko thread which contains some evidence: Plant Intelligence.

If they are ill adapt my diet but we still need to be clear that A) Animals are more sentient and B) Eating animals kills more plants, it doesn't just kill fruit plans they use all kinds of plants.

This is a useful link, but probably only relevant to the UK:

https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farmingfood/animalfeed/what-farm-animals-eat

Mmm, you're right that plants and not just fruit are included, but I get the impression from that link that grains, cereals, etc are more prevalent. Anyhow, you may be right that in the end, eating meat results in more lost plant lives than eating plants directly - it would be a hard one to quantify.

I'm not comfortable accepting that plants are definitely less sentient than animals, let's just note that there is some uncertainty, and that we may disagree here.

That's also the land and the resource aspect of factory farming. However like you said, we agree on most things!

Indeed!
 
Back
Top