Scholar

You guys really need to stop falling for these youtube videos. I don't have time to explain why almost everything is just completely misinformed, but I'm sure there will be "debunks" on this in the future. Here an article on the "expert" in the video: https://www.antaisce.org/news/balance-claims-agri-debate Here a response from Johns Hopkins: https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/frank-mitloehner-white-paper-letter.pdf https://undark.org/2021/02/03/beef-industry-funding-climate/ Brothers you really need to learn how to do some basic research. There should be several alarm bells going off if you see an "expert" who claims that the well established scientific consensus is completely false. This isn't any different from how oil companies confused the public with counter-research, or how the tobacco companies did the same. This is basic sharlatanism, it's like the Snakes Oil Men of the 21st century. The fact that you fall for this should make you really reconsider your epstemic foundations. This is the person you are trusting: Some of you guys are so desperate for the counter-veganism arguments that you will believe anyone. You should also look up some of the past videos the What I've Learned person has made, and how deeply misinformed they were. You should consider this person to be completely discredited and untrustworthy. I mean just compare the video he quoted to the video he made. The Kurzgesagt Channel is actually a pretty good channel, they have enough integrity to correct their mistakes when they have gotten something wrong and they consult actual researchers not some discredited shills who will give them the narrative they need to satisfy their audience. Here have this nugget of information as a balance to this misinformation:

The organizations are made by the people, and they reflect the level of development of the people. What needs to change are the people, the organizations will follow. There is no other way. The reason why these challenges exist in the first place is because it is an opportunity for us to grow. People shouldn't be encourage to do anything, people should be taught to care. People need to fundamentally change their mode of operation, not just reducing meat consumption. They must love their animal brothers and sisters more than their desire for consumption. If we cannot achieve this basic level of development, mankind will perish sooner or later, and it will be Good. Mankind should perish if it cannot meet the challenge of Evolution. This will give opportunity for others to rise and meet the challenge. Our centeredness around consumption is the root of this problem. It is not just unsustainable for the ecology of this planet, but also for the health of our individual and societal psyche. The burden of environmental destruction if on all of us, every single one of us. The test of time will show if we can rise to the occasion, adopt this responsibility, and lead life on this planet into a prosperous future. Climate Change is a gift in disguise. Be wise enough to see it as such. If all of us care enough, we would live in paradise within a few decades. The degree to which this will manifest is the degree to which we will be able to grow to care.

There are some deeper dynamics that are being missed here. The analysis or this "Tier 1 debate" is very much a Tier 1 level of analysis. Shallow, biased towards "pointing out the flaws", rather than the inherent necessity and importance of what is going on. Ask yourself, what insight has been provided here? Was this creating something new, or merely criticism of the old? "Look, this is Tier 1! Look, they are being Tier 1!" Your number 1 rule, "Don't be ideological", is itself an ideology. And the reason why it is clearly an ideology is because you have adopted it as an absolute, rather than having truly understood the depth of this issue. Ideology is what gave rise to all of civilization, all of technology, all of ethics, all of progress mankind has made. It has given opportunity of consciousness to prosper and evolve. Ideology is magical. Society is so full of it precisely because it is so useful. A Tier 2 Thinker will not judge ideology the way you do, as something inferior, to be pointed out and simply ridiculed. A Tier 2 Thinker will appreciate the reasons for why these ideologies exist, what their purpose is in the grand ecosystem of this planet. What part they play in the story of life. This is what Tier 2 will focus on. To Tier 2, this debate is magical, beautiful, necessary. There difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is not merely being opposed to ideology, it is fundamentally a stepping outself of operating from ideology. This stepping outside of ideology is due to the limitation of ideology. This means ideology is what allowed this stepping outside to happen in the first place. Tier 2 it viewing ideology as the tool it is, not to dismiss it merely because it is ideology. There are multiple fascets of development, you are witnessing here a debate that showcases two kinds of stages of moral development. Now, the question is not whether you are Tier 2 or not, the question you should ask yourself is "Do I fully understand these two perspectives, and have I embodied and surpassed them?". See, if you are morally underdeveloped, and you do not care about animals, it is very easy to not fall into ideology. If you do not care about animals as much as this vegan activist does, then to be non-ideological is effortless. This is because you are not developing anything, you are simply void of development. There is nothing for you to protect. See, once you start truly caring about your brothers and sisters, once they are part of your identity, fully integrated, there will be a completely new depth of challenge for you, to remain non-ideological, to remain objective, to remain conscious. You are playing a game, and you are at the lower levels, calling out those who are playing it at much higher levels than you do, and pointing out how much they struggle. Of course they struggle, because what they are doing is far more difficult than what you are doing. Another important insight here that I will give you is the following. If you cannot understand the depth of struggle, and if you do not have deep respect for it, it is obvious that you are below, not above, those who your point fingers at. When you sit at home, theorizing about someone who is witnessing the death of his family, it is easy for you to remain objective. But when it is your family that is being murdered infront of your eyes, your attachments will be revealed in no matter of time at all. You will then realize that it will take a new dimension of non-attachment to go beyond this. Another key insight is the following: There are two pathways to detachment. One is to stop caring about that which you are attached to. This means that you stop caring about your family, so that you are spared from the pain of realizing their suffering as your own suffering. This is dysfunctional, this is survival. Another type of detachment is one that flourished in care, compassion, empathy, while yet managing to be distanced from this in a way to allow Love to flourish. This is harder to achieve than you can imagine, and as long as your are not tested, truly tested, you will be completely ignorant of your own level of development. It is only when you can feel all the pain of your brothers and sisters, and remain loving, that you have achieved Mastery. It is when they murder your family in front of your eyes, and you can forgive them for it. Not because you did not care about your family, but despite that fact that you loved them to infinity. This ideal is what we would look at as the Sacrifce of Christ. To forgive despite the pain, not because of an absence of pain. Now, I ask you my brother. Notice that all they care about is not merely to maintain their mentally constructed notion of reality, that there is something far deeper at works here. Something you need to start to recognize and respect. Something that is part of the Gracefulness of Reality, a contribution to the Whole that is integral to it. Development of ego is different than the mere destruction of ego. If you want Non-Attachment without Development, there are much faster ways to achieve it. But this is not what Nature if Evolving towards. Seek to understand how this fits into Evolution, how what is happening here is important, significant. Notice that the spider is detached from it's victims. The Spider is non-ideological. It cares not about the suffering of others. The spiders would scoff at all of this and call it Tier 1, believing itself to be Tier 2. Things will become much more ideological. Ideology is precisely what is needed, because ideology has the power to move Civilizations. One day it will be Consciousness that will have this power, but for that to happen, ideology must enable this first. There would be no animal rights movement without ideology, as much as slavery would have never been abolished without ideology. Just look at reality, look how powerful of a force ideology is. It grips people, it controls them, it unifies them. It allows for progress on a scale unimaginable. It is utterly beautiful, a Divine Creation.

Not a very compelling article too me, it seems to just seek to justify it's own already present perspective without truly justifying it's assumptions, for example: This assumes that these hypothetical beings do not have a cosmic identity, which would make them view us as their brothers and sisters, and part of their Self. They might help us because they might be able to help us, why would they not help us if they are able to help us? Infact, maybe they are already helping us, and we aren't realizing it. See, there is a problem with projecting your own level of consciousness onto another. While most humans living today have no interest helping our brothers and sisters in nature, and even though we do not even have much capacity to do so, doesn't mean that a higher consciousness being would not view it as a basic rational action to help itself by helping it's brothers and sisters, and to develop ways to help them. Infact, to a more conscious being, the joy of life might be centered around helping others. Why wouldn't it? A more conscious being will not judge it's brothers and sisters for it's limitations. Look at how many implicit assumptions this statement carries. For one, any child is not mature enough to drive a car. That does not mean that a parent will not help that child to grow up, or to help where it needs help. The fact that they are not helping us in the way you would think was best to help us, does not mean that there aren't any other good ways to help us. We need to learn from our mistakes, as any child does, and we need to grow up. The author himself argues for why they would not help us by giving us free energy, so why would he then propose that, because this kind of help is irrational, it would be the case that they do not help us at all? How could you possibly know that this is the only way an alien civilization could possibly "save us"? This seems to be a really silly assumption. There could be all kinds of ways to help us in more subtle ways, to nudge us into the right directions, to give us insights at key developmental stages, maybe even to increase our level of consciousness by whatever means, whether some kind of telepathy, or even simply by creating an environment for us to grow up. For example, if we assume this is true: We have a perfectly valid way how aliens might help us, or atleast try to do so. With the Commander Fravor incident, if we assume it was all true and it was truly aliens, what were they doing in the oceans? You could posit all kinds of possibilities and ways of how it could have been a way to help us, or even just to do the science so that they know where we are at. What if they can inject visions into humans so that we solve the problems that they know how to solve, making us believe we have come up with the stuff that actually they have come up with? What if they have done so throughout history? We have no way of knowing any of this. Sadhguru for example hypothesizes that aliens have been here to teach us Yoga. I mean why not? They could have helped us in all kinds of ways, that we don't even realize we have been helped with. I don't think we can assume anything here, and I think much of this kind of theorizing is actually motivated reasoning. For example, I think the true reason why the author wrote this article is this: That's the fundamental idea that gave rise to his thoughts, and therefore biased him in a way that would blind him to all the possibilities. It has nothing to do with honest investigation of the matter, where assumptions are being questioned in a meaningful way. Yes, we must stop viewing these aliens as some sort of saviors, we must face our dilemma head-on. But that is seperate from the question of what is going on here. We have to be careful that when we see the bias of a certain narrative, that we do not fall into bias ourselves by creating a counter-narrative. In the end we have no clue what their motivations could possibly be, how much they are or aren't helping us, or whether they exist at all. To come to any conclusions we already have to assume too much.

That's because interpretation is not the same as that which is being interpreted. It's all nonsense, some teachers just take their nonsense more seriously than others, depending on how attached they are to it.

Another great documentary about the consequences of animal agriculture, specifically fishing, and how it is by far the biggest threat to our oceans. Must watch for every person who is consuming fish, or who thinks plastic straws are bad for the oceans. It also illustrates well why this problem can only be tackled by fundamentally changing our relationship to our brothers and sisters who live in the oceans, and by making the consumer responsible for their actions. You can find it on Netflix. We can use this thread to discuss fishing and the health of our oceans. Veganism is so powerful because it is a unified ideology that tackles all of these problems wholistically. You don't need to convince a person to care about each individual problem, rather you create a new moral framework from which all of these problems are tackled at once. One story that fundamentally changes how we relate to the world, because this change must happen.

I know this plot, it ends by Leo realizing that the carnivore diet made everything worse and that he reacts to vegetables even more severely than before, possibly permanently locking him into having to avoid plants for the rest of his life. Good case study on what desperation does to a mind.

Excellent presentation by Dr. Sailesh Rao, people who understand Spiral Dynamics with love this especially.

Isn't that the entire point of MAPS? If what they claim is true that he is somehow seen as an authority and leader who is looked at as a model by many of the pioneers that are to establish said"official" instutitions in the future, then I would say such criticizism probably have their use. This also has a function of bringing attention and conversation to this issue in general, and makes us contemplate what kind of practices we want to distance ourselves from to be able to establish such "official" systems in the future.

This is like debating what Little Red Riding Hoods grandma made herself for breakfast two days before the wolf ate her. Believe it or not, but the answer to your question depends on whatever you want it to be.

The closest thing we will get to a conversation between Leo and the rationalists he always criticizes.

They talk about how we need to reevaluate the way we engage with politics, applying specifically to the United States.

This isn't true, meat does not contain all the essential nutrients, nor are the important nutrients it contains exclusive to meat. If the school was worried about nutrition they would simply give the kids meals that were nutritionally adequat.

Because the very premise of veganism "insults" butchers and animal slavers, because it showcases that in the eyes of the animals these individuals commit atrocities. I have already posted this study a few times, but here: https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1368430215618253 Vegans are inevitably going to be discriminated against because they are norm challenging, especially in regards to morality.

To be fair, I did notice this too. I think Leo sometimes just doesn't take the time to properly engage because it would be too much effort, but that can often lead him to dismiss others with this authoritative vibe where really he didn't even engage with what was being said. I don't know how this applies in this thread, but I definitely felt misunderstood and strawmanned by Leo quite a few times in the past on this forum. Maybe it's the nature of the way he interacts with us here. It would be nice though if he could sometimes put in a bit more effort to understand others.

While this is true, Nathan probably has already heard this, and it probably does not help him much in terms of overcoming his suffering. We have to give our brothers and sisters more specific advice for the point at which they currently are, I think. Yes it is more effort, but I think helping one person properly can do more healing than helping 10 people in a cookie cutter way.

This is also a good example: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4574806/vegan-schoolboy-louie-tom-fenton-hanged-himself-bullies-threw-meat-at-him/ This is how this attitude and culture of "Vegans are so annoying and judgemental!" leads to in the extremes. Imagine you are the boy, you love animals and you hate that other people pay for animals to be abuse. Imagine someone came to you and told you "Man, stop being so judgmental, no wonder you are bullied you are such a typical vegan!", can you see how this lacks compassion? This kid wasn't vegan because he wanted to feel superior to others, he probably just loved animals. The child most likely had a more expansive identity than all the other kids in his class. He was more sensitive towards life and had more compassion for others. Yet many people in here would focus their judgment on this kid, and tell him about how veganism is all about being judgmental and that he should stop being so strict with caring about animals. As always:

@ilja The link works fine for me. Here is an excerpt, one of the tablets:

This is actually interesting, a study showing how vegans are being discriminated against and that there are severe biases against them. When we talk about judgment, I think it is important to understand both sides of the coin. In my experience many vegans become judgmental after they feel marginalized and judged by their friends and family for being vegan. In fact our culture is so biased against veganism that simply going vegan for many is difficult out of the fear for discrimination. Vegans are humans like everyone else, I think it is very unfair to put the entire pressure on them. "Well just accept the meat eaters for who they are, sure they think you are a soyboy and make fun of you all the time, but be nice anyways!" https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1368430215618253

Most people here are non-vegans so they will not understand this position at all. To them veganism is just about a lifestyle, when fundamentally it is about the expansion of identity. See, if you are a racist, you do not care about what happens to a person of another race. You do not judge your own race for enslaving and mistreating other races. In this context it is effortless to be non-judgemental, because to not judge people for something you do not care about is not really a big deal. If I don't care about children, why would I care about what pedophiles do to them? As identity expands, people start to care about more and more things. They expand their circle of care. This is natural and this is inevitable. This is good and this is healthy. Someone who starts caring about children will naturally start to judge the pedophiles. See, it is better to care about the animals than to care about bacon. The difference between you and most people on this forum is that they do not care about the animals, but they do care about their bacon. So what they will do is, they will judge you for your judgement. They do this to protect their bacon, and you judge them to protect the animals. Genuine compassion is integral to your evolution as an individual. This stage you are in is natural, and you should embrace it for what it is. Can you see that the apathy so hailed sometimes by the spiritual community quite often leads to inaction? God does not care about apathy, God cares precisely as much as you do. He changes the world through your will, it is inevitable. And in this way he acts, as is appropriate. The right action here is not to scrutinize your beliefs as a vegan, infact most people here should be scrutinizing their beliefs about bacon. What you need to have is compassion for yourself. Understand that you are judgemental because of your compassion. Surpressing your emotions into a state of apathy will do the opposite of good. Many people belief that veganism is about eating habits, when it is about establishing a new moral baseline and expanding our identity to include animals. From that point of view, contributing to the commodification of animals becomes untenable, as much as to anyone in this forum the commodification, breeding and slaughter of human children is untenable. Nobody here would be non-judgemental about child rape if they saw it happen infront of their eyes, yet they completely accept the same happening to their animal brothers and sisters. This is because they fundamentally do not care about their brothers and sisters, not because they are somehow more developed than the rest of us. You care, and this is beautiful. What needs to change is your expression of your care. Caring means suffering. Infact, God cares so much about each and every one of his children that he will experience every bit of suffering they are experiencing. He has compassion to the highest possible degree. He will take the suffering of his children onto himself. Embodiment of this is called the Passion of Christ, not the Apathy of Christ. Christ lived with full compassion in his heart. He cared about his brothers and sisters. But he cared so much that he was able to see that all of his brothers and sisters simply were blind. This is what you must realize. Those who you judge, they are simply ignorant. They do not know what they are doing. If you truly realize this, you will not be able to judge them. So this is not about veganism, this is not about you caring about animals. This is fundamentally about you not having enough compassion for your fellow brothers and sisters, who are blind, who need Love, who are defined by their fear and suffering. The concept of the selfish carer is fundamentally flawed. We do not simply care because we want to validate ourselves. We care because we recognize ourselves in the other. That is fundamentally what compassion and empathy is. People here misunderstand vegans because they fundamentally lack compassion for both the animals and the vegans. I know my brother or sister that you do not judge them to prove something to yourself, but simply because you care so much about your animal brothers and sisters, that it pains you to see them suffering, and to see others contribute to that suffering. Can you recognize this pain? The pain you feel when you open your heart to your animal brothers and sisters? This pain is overwhelming, is it not? If you had true compassion for all the suffering in this world, imagine the amount of pain you would need to carry. How could you face this kind of pain without falling into apathy? How could you carry this weight without crumbling? The answer is Love and acceptance. To accept the pain does not mean for the pain to disappear, nor to stop caring about it. To accept it means to embrace your compassion, to open your heart fully. To carry the cross, in other words. This is what it means, this is what radical embodiment is. It is to care about the suffering of all of your brothers and sisters, while remaining full of Love and open-heartedness. This is the true challenge, atleast from your current point of view. But first have compassion for yourself, for your own judgement. Do not judge yourself for your own judgement. Accept your judgement, recognize it's beauty and necessity, it's perfection. If you do so, beautiful things will happen my brother. You yourself should recognize your own blindness, your fear and suffering. This is why you judge, because you suffer and because you fear. Because you care. And now expand your care. See the suffering, the fear, the pain in your brothers and sisters. Can you see how they are blind, how they are suffering, just like you do? Love to you and all of our brothers and sisters.

Moksha I think most people take Suffering to be any negative experience, including pain. What you are describing is something like second order Suffering, like the fear of pain for example. These things animals can experience too, animals can for example be traumatized and have forms of PTSD. There are many animals who probably do have deeper forms of self reflection, so we should not generalize. Animals however do have forms of ego, just that ours are more complex or different.

I've noticed that most people who are interested in philosophy and who study philosophy are moral objectivists. I would be curious on Leos take for why this is, because it is very strange to me. I cannot really follow the arguments because many times they just look like elaborate labyrinths of mental acrobatis to somehow arrive at the conclusion they are seeking to arrive at. It looks more like a language game than anything else, a lot of it just looks like people are indoctronated into certain schools of thoughts and then make it their jobs to rationalize those positions. What do you think Leo? @Leo Gura

@Leo Gura Who would be some philosophers you would consider worth reading?

It doesn't work for me neither, i just hear it looping.

Yes, this however is different from moral worth. We can view all humans as equal, yet recognize that our duty towards certain individuals is greater than others. My duty to a family member is higher than my duty towards a stranger. However this idea is more of useful in structuring a societies behavior to maximize harmony, it does not really tell us about the worth of each individual being. This is why I think we shouldn't say that pigs are worth less than humans, but rather that our duty towards the pig is different from our duty towards humans. When we talk about decisions that make us choose over one individual than another, then this decision will be made in relationship to extrinsic factors, not intrinsic ones. For example, as you showed, an individuals relationship to you or others. You might for example save an ant over Adolf Hitler, because of the extrinsic factors, not because the subjectivity of Adolf Hitler is worth less than that of the ant or vice verca. Equally you could save your own cat over a stranger (human), because your duty towards your cat is viewed by you higher than the duty towards the stranger and so forth.