Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

In society we need to trust our neighbour that he carries out his profession according to best faith and existing laws, no?



If the laws are flawed and do not prevent negative impact on the consumers and environment, they need to be adjusted.



In a society we cannot expect the consumer to make a days worth of research in order to completely find out about the (environmental) impact a certain product has. This is why there are "food and drug administrations". We can't expect everybody to first take a look into the kitchen and inquire with the chef, whether or not the meat is from sustainable farming.



But we need to raise awareness, that the brothers and sisters in the meat industry are taking their approach to an unsustainable level and we need to correct that - the sooner the better.



Maybe we're doing that here already, but maybe we indeed should take this into a butchers shop, supermarket or restaurant - ask loud and sound, so everybody around can hear us. And if the answer is insufficient, we need to walk away (without a steak or sausage) and the head held up straight in dignity.



Being vegetarian is not the only possible answer to this.



And - just as a reminder - IF you're environmentally concerned - keep your hands off Chinese products...



[edit] Stone, thanks I'm taking every pad on my shoulder and stroke over my head these days

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Hi Dave, I had to change my mind to get something out of the discussion. I suppose I relate becoming a vegan to someone putting in the commitment as in the last five of Buddha�s Ten Precepts. I think I�m in the middle, and I�m happy with the ideal of eating a lot less animal produce. I haven�t been on online every day because I haven�t had a home connection until this week.

Yes, for sure Fire Tom it�s a process of raising awareness, and speaking up for sustainability.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

And just now I'm reading about the "water factor".... meaning "how much water does a product need, in order to be produced"?...



Comparison:



1 cup of coffee - 140 litres (the beans have to be washed)

1 T-shirt - 2.000 litres (cotton needs water)

1 kg of Steak - 14.000 litres (a cow drinks approx 100 l/ day)



According to UNESCO, consumers should also watch out for the water imprint on products, not only carbon...



what to do?



Ah, besides: OECD predicts a rise in meat "production" until 2015 of about 23%, to a total of 316 Million tons/ year (dunno how many animals that is). Four fifth of this raise will be happening in Asian countries, predominantly China. But despite this, our Chinese sisters and brothers will only consume 55kgs of meat per head and year, whilst our USAmerican relatives will consume MORE THAN 100kgs per head and year, which is about 3 TIMES MORE THAN THE WORLD AVERAGE...



Guys, please - put veggies on your barbie...



PS: If nobody has posted it yet



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

 Written by: onewheeldave



Personally I wouldn't eat it and I suspect many veggies wouldn't either, purely because, like the majority of veggies/vegans, not eating meat is not a hardship or deprival.





... but what is it then? If that meat is produced w/o any animal suffering and environmental impact - what's still wrong with it? Let me suspect further dis-veggie-proval of "carnevalies", if such meat is on the market and ppl do consume it...



 Written by: OWD

Most people who go without meat for an extended length of time simply enjoy their diet as it is- I know that meat-eaters often see veggies as being self-deprivers hiding meat-cravings, but, it simply isn't true.





Another vast generalisation, that is invalid and erroneous in itself.



I have seen veggies turn back to all-eaters in pregnancy after years of vegetarianism, I have many meat-eating friends, who have NO such opinion of their veggie friends - this statement is simply not true.



I admit, that a fair share of the (uneducated and ignorant, self righteous) meat eating community do justify their own cravings with an attitude like that, the exact same applies to the (uneducated and ignorant, self righteous) veggie-community, who regard meat-eaters as "low-lives"...



Certainly there are all colours of the rainbow in it and there are as certainly "self-deprivers" inside the veggie community, but I guess it's just as the "dedicated meat eater" (at this point) cannot imagine himself w/o supplies of meat. Much like the SUV driver who can't relate to the idea of driving a VW Rabbit.



 Written by: OWD



My initial feelings on meat-eaters switching to artificially produced meat are that it would be a good thing in terms of cutting down animal suffering and good for the environment (subject to a change of opinion as more facts about the process come through).





Thanks



 Written by: OWD



However, I suspect that uptake amonst committed/high-volumemeat-eaters will be limited as, without wanting to generalise-



1. they often tend to be a bit finicky and fussy about their food



2. they generally don't particularly care about animal suffering (evidenced by thier high meat-consumption) and either don't care, or are in denial, about the environmetal effects of meat-production



3. despite eating mainly intensively farmed meat, they often seem to have romantic fantasies about animals living in luxurious organic conditions, or about hunting thier own animals: lumps of animal cells clumped together in a test-tube will lilely not sit well with their fantasies.



(before anyone goes nuts over any of that, please bear in mind that I'm referring to committed/high-volumemeat-eaters).



More moderate meat-eaters, who do care about animal welfare and the environement, may well be more open to using lab meat.





Now are you starting to discern? Between "moderate" and "high-volume"?



I am coming from a STRONG meat-eating society, which can easily be compared to Texas/ Arizona or maybe even Brazil - I tell you, Dave, it is a dangerous assumption that you are making here. It's dividing the society in "highclass veggies" and "lowlife meat eaters" - which completely is a subject to subjectivity.



Certainly such "committed high volume meat eaters" which such attitude do exist - no question - I doubt that it's the majority. I have friends who work in the meat-industry, trade cows and pork and "convert" them into steaks. I visited the slaughterhouse in Munich, during working hours and all these people there are humans. Not menaces, neither stupid or uneducated. To them, the animal is the same, as human being is to a doctor - just with reversed intent. They do not regard the animal as a living being, otherwise they wouldn't be able to conduct the job... They do kill and then they do go home and care for their children - and this no better nor worse than anyone else.



And lately, I would like to point out a few facts to you and do a game:



Take a roll of toilet paper (XXL) now roll it out in the hallway. By the time you are finished take another roll, attach it to the end of first one and roll it out further.



Now when you are finished, hold up the last sheet and look back.



What you are looking at is human evolution, since falling out of the trees and what you are actually holding up is the last 100 years (if not more).



Now humans have been depending on all kinds of food sources, meat simply was a part of the diet and was a fast, potent energy supplier. In winter (and northern regions) meat was one of the few sources of food and essential for survival.



Having meat on the table was anything, but cheap - vice versa, it was an expression of wealth.



If you get back in (European) history, animals were rarely a part of the diet (once a week), as it was either to be hunted down with great effort, very expensive, or even prohibited (as the game was in possession of royals).



The extensive meat consumption, as we see it today - is a recent phenomenon and as such it was never present in human history before [/bold statement].



Now to expect European (descent)s to turn from a "dispiteous, ferocious and cruel Bambi-hunter" (as he even had to be in order to survive, as he MAYBE had one harvest/ year) into a "responsible, environmentally conscious and compassionate veggie-caretaker" within one or two generations? And if they do not manage, you judge upon them?



Personally I find this almost offensive and counter-productive. I suggest you come to a more discerning way of looking at the issue - you may have more success in your approach. Nobody told farmers to torture their game, nobody instructed them to be cruel and cold-hearted.



This is THEIR individual choice!



Now telling ppl that the demand of cheap meat on one end, generates the poo on the other is a valid approach, but sitting back in the armchair, looking at the "stupid and ignorant low-live meat eaters" (and this is the personal impression about your attitude, I gaining from your posts - like a red lining - 4give me ) is condescending and a kind of attitude, I personally resent to...



[disclaimer to whom it may concern: this post only expresses my personal feelings, does not demand any kind of objectivity. No offence meant and none taken personally. I (still) do admire OWD's posts and usually his choice of words - but I do not agree with everything and the way it is presented here in public]

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

 Written by: FireTom



 Written by: onewheeldave



Personally I wouldn't eat it and I suspect many veggies wouldn't either, purely because, like the majority of veggies/vegans, not eating meat is not a hardship or deprival.





... but what is it then? If that meat is produced w/o any animal suffering and environmental impact - what's still wrong with it? Let me suspect further dis-veggie-proval of "carnevalies", if such meat is on the market and ppl do consume it...







I never said it was wrong- in fact I approve of it as an alternative for meat-eaters.



All I'm saying is that I won't be getting into it.



Similar to rice-pudding- nothing wrong with it, but I'm not going to eat it



-----------



The rest of your post seems to be a rant against things I've neither said nor implied, it gives the impression that you have some kind of unresolved chip-on-your-shoulder about something and you're trying to transfer it onto my words so you can attack it.



I'm going to stay out of it.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

OWD - you repeatedly throw out vast generalizations (and in this particular case baseless assumptions) - which is okay, been there done that - but IMHO do not help the subject and are villainous.

Whilst it is necessary to raise awareness, it is wrong to use baseless accusations.

- "Veg(etari)ans are (generally) causing less unnecessary harm than meat eaters" = IMO wrong

- "Eating meat causes more unnecessary suffering than a vegetarian diet" = IMO very true

- "Veg(etari)ans in their choice of diet are causing less unnecessary harm than meat eaters in theirs" = IMO very true

- "Committed/high-volume meat-eaters (...) generally don't particularly care about animal suffering (evidenced by their high meat-consumption) and either don't care, or are in denial about the environmental effects of meat-production."

= IMO so obviously wrong that I decline to go in detail.

- "Committed/high-volume meat-eaters (...) despite eating mainly intensively farmed meat, ( ) often seem to have romantic fantasies about animals living in luxurious organic conditions, or about hunting their own animals: lumps of animal cells clumped together in a test-tube will likely not sit well with their fantasies."

= IMO wrong, as it's a generalization. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

- "More moderate meat-eaters, who do care about animal welfare and the environment, may well be more open to using lab meat."

= IMHO wrong. What makes you assume that moderate meat eaters are more concerned about animal suffering and the environmental impact of meat-production? Because they eat meat moderately?

This is nonsense!

Summarized (and I expressed it previously) your generalizations and assumptions combined with the particular choice of words do put a very ugly stamp on a big portion of our society.

I tried to make some points for you, so you may look at it in discernment, but you prefer judgment up to you.

Taking it to extremes: (IMHO in this special regards) you're living in the same denial!

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

 Written by: FireTom


OWD - you repeatedly throw out vast generalizations .....

...do not help the subject and are villainous.




Like I said above Tom, I'm not getting into this again, i think my previous posts have made very clear the context in which I'm speaking where 'generalisations' are concerned.

So, if you don't mind, I'll just chill out and revel in my new status as a 'villain'

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

I am certain, NOT to have convinced about this, but I might have been able to demonstrate, that you came across as such.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Isn't life in a giant circle. Animals eat plants, we eat animals(basically). So if we all start eating the green stuff then it will run out just like fossils fuels and trees etc. so eventually we will be killing the animals anyway to stop them getting our food. So we are killing them anyway

"It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" Anon

"It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" Anon

 Written by: Caitriana52


Isn't life in a giant circle. Animals eat plants, we eat animals(basically). So if we all start eating the green stuff then it will run out just like fossils fuels and trees etc. so eventually we will be killing the animals anyway to stop them getting our food. So we are killing them anyway





That's by far the funniest post I've ever seen on HOP.

An easy answer to your concerns lies in many of the posts a few pages back, particularly some of mine where I go into detail of how meat-eaters actually indirectly consume far more plants/vegetation than non-meat eaters, as meat production relies on plants for animal feed.

If ever vegatation started to run out globally, one of the best ways to stretch it out would be to cut down meat consumption.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

hmmmmmmmmm.... was the nature of your post ironic, or better spoken: playful? If you (still) feel like, Caitriana, maybe you specify what you mean?

OWD, you seem to be (too) convinced of your argument. You might become aware that with such slogans, you may be brushing the majority of mankind over the same edge.

Having said this: Of course you do that with the exception of meat-eaters who do eat organically farmed meat...

Please excuse me, if I am ridiculing this thread by pointing out rhetorical details, but

I would like to ask you:

If I am buying a car, that previously got stolen (without my knowledge) - am I becoming a thief myself?

If I am buying a diamond ring - do I become a murderer and rapist?

If I am buying detergent in the supermarket - do I become a supporter of environmental destruction?

If I do buy Chinese products - am I a supporter of global destruction (i.e. warming and extensive use of natural resources), a supporter of slave labour and of a totalitarian regime?

It appears to me that you seem to suggest these kind of analogies.

I somehow can't follow up on your policy to condemn consumers for the practices of the producers. This - to my understanding - doesn't even go far with the rules of Karma.

I understand that it seems to be less possible to have laws changed that force industrial meat production into sustainability and to act more "humanitarian", as it is to imply "guilt patterns" on consumers for making their choices. But IMNSHO this is an invalid approach.

Continue, but maybe that chip is not sitting on other ppls shoulder

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

You - as a consumer - create demand? that's new to me...

However, not questioning that post about the facts do raise awareness. To repeat: I am not opposing obvious facts, but false accusations. Simply because the purpose/ intention is good, doesn't mean that I have to accept the ( ) way and encoding in which it's presented.

When ordering a steak in a restaurant, or getting one from the shop - so far - I heard nobody going (including myself): "But please let me have the one, that created the most suffering. I like it really bloody - dribbling that is."

If you did not waste a thought about where your food comes from, you certainly are not alone - but this did neither turn you into a murderer, nor made you commit crimes against humanity.

Yupp, "awakening" can be good fun

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Got it - so far I reckoned that "demand" was created by TV-ads



The "contract" you are ordering is: "Gimme a steak" You are not indicating the way in which it is produced as a framework, except if you INSIST on "organically grown".



IMO this is responsibility of our governments. Rules and regulations are set up by the state, according to public demand. And this is why awareness about the current facts is needed.



Now if OWD would have labelled meat producers rather than consumers, my response might have been a different one...



Are we still on topic? Are plants preferring happy cows?



[edit: to whom it may concern] I dislike vast generalisations and such slogans - perhaps because I am using them myself once and too often. But even more than that I dislike the rhetorical/ strategical motion to indicate "mental problems" on others who simply have a different opinion.



The term "meat-eaters" (generally) applies to everybody, eating meat - it is only limited by using the prefix "moderate" or "organic". IF meat eaters would be in the majority, the term "meat eaters" (especially what is connected to it) addresses and accuses the majority of mankind.



This - IMO - is as wrong as addressing and accusing all "firedancers" (in general). As in stating: "meat eaters (in general) are causing unnecessary suffering and usually don't care" would then be the same as saying "firedancers (in general) are contributing to global warming and usually do it on purpose"...



I feel compelled to set this straight, as I regard both statements as defamatory and erroneous. I'm constantly reconsidering my attitude in this, but come to the same conclusion each and every time: It's wrong to put out slogans like that, especially in writing and especially here.



I do well remember that this usually gets called "bigoted" and am wondering why I am the only one raising his voice on and against this.



Maybe I'm just a bit sensitized to "collective guilt patterns" by inheritage.







No offence meant, just a little bit taken.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

tom I hope this doesnt come across as Agro - its not meant to.



dude - you're arguing with yourself. Your putting up statements that no-one has said, and then shooting them down. a little tip - if you want to show that what someone is saying is rubbish, use quotes. If you paraphrase you will usually twist the meaning, and your argument loses strength. IMHO you have done this several times in this thread (eg your examples in the previous post).



--



If you know your meat is coming from a dodgy factory / high intensity farm then you are directly responsible if you continue to buy that stuff - dont you ever boycott companies that have dodgy practises? I do, all the time its usually easy.



however even if you dont know you are doing something wrong, it can still have an effect.



In law when sentencing someone for a crime they usually split the argument into two parts (I think) Mens rea (or something) roughly translates to your intention and Actus reas -> your action. This means that both the intention and the action count. Having the right intension doesnt automatically let you off for any bad action.



If you run over a child but dont know about it, you are still causing suffering. If the parent tried to tell you that that was what you were doing, would you say 'but I didnt know - stop putting guilt patterns on me'? your action doesnt go away and the suffering doesnt go away just because you didnt know you did it.



from the abstract to the specific;



You DO know about the cow's suffering and continue to eat its meat - or are you not counting yourself among the 'generalisation'?



btw - I think you are alluding to comments about 'mental health' from another thread. Please keep on topic.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

This is getting hillarious. Hold on to your chairs meat-eaters, as now you get thrown into the same drawer
as child killers [/ironic]

I say that even if a meat eater cares about animal suffering, he might not necessarily become a vegetarian,
what in return doesn't make him ignorant (about the subject).

The given example [sic] is like comparing apples with eggs (ironically hitting the nail on the head).

Somebody ran over and by that killed somebody else -> He caused suffering = Undeniable. Fact.
He caused suffering for that particular person, family and friends.

This doesn't indicate anything about the circumstances, or his condition and the fact itself doesn't contain
judgement.

Let's do that now (reduced version):

One did it without intent = accident.
One did it with/out intent, whilst heavily intoxicated = definately/maybe manslaughter...
One did it on purpose = murder -> person definately goes to jail.

So: Someone intentionally kills a human being -> goes to jail, someone intentionally killing a cat runs free and
someone picking flowers for aunt Annies 5 o'clock tea gets a cheer...

If - god forbid - you run over a child but dont know about it, you are still causing suffering = Fact.

If the parent tried to tell you that that was what you were doing, would you say 'but I didnt know - stop putting guilt patterns on me'? = I wouldn't, personally I'd shut up and let them vent their grief.

But if then somebody else comes and starts calling me a "murderer" - I would straighten him out.

 Written by: pyrolific

Your action doesnt go away and the suffering doesnt go away just because you didnt know you did it.



Now what? You'd expect that person you are talking about to jump from the next building or what? Tell me your verdict.

But it is obvious to me that - as much as I project OWD to be acting out against meat eaters -
I too get misinterpreted in what I'm trying to put across. And it seems that in the effort to explain myself
the situation gets worse.

That's not my intent.

To summarize (*takes notes, shuffles them, turns to the audience to read out*)

"Hear, hear:

- A meat eater (in his choice of diet) causes more unnecessary harm to either plants,
animals and subsequently to mankind and life on planet earth than a vegetarian (him in this context
suffering from a condition, much alike "second hand smokers").

- A high volume/ dedicated meat eater usually doesn't care (about this) , lives in denial or a lie.

- A meat eater who refers to organically grown meat might be an exeption to the rule.

- The carbon imprint of a meat eater is significantly higher than the one of a vegetarian - i.e. meat eaters
contribute to global warming.

- But anybody eating meat should not feel guilty, as vegetarians do not expect them to.

- Everybody needs to thoroughly inform himself in person and at site about the origins and conditions of (all)
his supplements.

- If going from worse to best, the hierarchy would be

a) high volume/ dedicated meat eaters (as in "worst")
b) occasional/ organic meat nibblers
c) pescetarians
d) ovoterians
e) lacterians
f) vegetarians
g) vegans
h) fruitarians
i) artificial/ pill/ spacefood (under the condition that the processes are environmentally acceptable)
i) photosyntheticians (as in "best")

Go ahead, guys... I return to my hammock, enjoying the knowledge that I'm not perfect.

(pls sprinkle some here and there )

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

well I dont know how we arrived here - but I agree with your Summary.


I think guilt is only something that you should feel if you know you have done something wrong.

In that case, it would be knowing you are contributing to the unnecessary suffering of animals and continuing to do so.

of course you are right - no one is perfect, however if we all try to do a little better each day, humanity will improve. If we all give up trying and just keep on doing what we have always done, then in a sense we are getting worse.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!