How do you Justify consuming Animal Products?

[Forestluv]

@TrynaBeTurquoise It's not just the method of killing. The life experience is an issue as well. Some animals are kept in crowded cages and are so stressed they attack each other. As well, animals are often pumped up with drugs to increase productivity. There is a huge amount of stress and pain. 

For those into energetics and karma - the karmic trauma and suffering endured by these animals is in the meat one eats. 

[mandyjw]

There's a lot to become conscious of, a lot to integrate and animal welfare is one of the more obvious areas of how our true interconnected nature affects things. It's important to stay curious about the areas in which we're still blind to and not to go so far into judgement and protest against something we already see and feel clearly, trying to control and influence the actions of others so that we miss that which we do not see about ourselves. 

[karltiboleng]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That is a point from a collectivist systems view, yet that doesn't mean the individualist view is a strawman. People don't need to eat factory farmed meat to survive. In developed countries, there are plenty of other options that are just as easy as eating factory farmed meat. I'm vegetarian and it's super easy. It's so easy to be vegetarian in the US that it doesn't even cross my mind. There are vegetarian options everywhere, it is just as convenient and isn't more expensive. 

As well, the collectivist systems view you offer assumes it is of value to continue animal farming for human consumption. We could also have a collectivist systems view that includes synthetic meat or lab grown meat. 

Yes definitely! I think the lab grown meat market has huge potential. 

 

18 minutes ago, Scholar said:

We are planning to have cheap lab grown meat within this decade sold at supermarkets. There will be no need to sustainable, conscious animal farming. If we simply avoided all animal products, we could easily sustain our way of living and then some. We could infact rewild current land that we use for animal farming. we could then develope better ways to farm plants, like vertical farming. Or solutions like this:

https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/15/Solar-Foods-makes-protein-out-of-thin-air-This-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-food-there-is

I don't see compelling arguments to actively grow and kill animals for food, especially not in the future, and especially not the animals we currently grow. I can't help to think you are biased, because if you were not, why would you not suggest insect farming in place of animal farming? It is far, far more sustainable, human beings are adapted to consume insects as almost all primates are and it might be a more ethical solution than killing the more complex animals.

Yet, I don't even think there are compelling arguments for that when we have things like lab grown meat around the corner.

 

Your need for there to be "higher consciousness animal farming" is to me no different than a need for "higher consciousness slavery". In a few decades this statement will look completely insane.

I never dismissed these possibilities. But you adopt the view that eating animals is inherently bad. Yes it's less sustainable than insects, but I feel that you are being ideological about this position. Are you not being moralistic here? 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

@Serotoninluv Yes, and then the fact they are fed GMO corn and grain which makes them even more sick with the bad living conditions, there bodies aren't designed to process those foods. And even labels like Grass-Fed are still dishonest, can still have supplemental feeds of corn and grain. Your best bet is finding a reputable company with "100% grass fed" or "grass-finished" label. Sometimes the "grass" they are eating are low quality grass-pellets too. To make matters worse a lot of meat is imported from other countries where the farming practices are so poorly regulated. 

Its a slippery slope with animal products. 

[Derek White]

@Scholar By more or less delusional I meant you are better off assuming the Earth is round than assuming people are out to kill you. One is more or less harmless and the other one will make you paranoid.

No, these judgements are illusory that don’t let you see reality the way it is.    Some maps are more accurate than others, but all maps are inaccurate. Anyway, we’re getting off topic and I don’t want to argue. You’re taking my words quite literally. Anyway, if you realize the relativity of morality then that’s cool. I’ll try to see any hidden beliefs I’m attached to.

@Serotoninluv That’s cool that you’re inserting stage yellow in it. You should do more of that imo.

But why would stage yellow be empathetic? Stage green empathy is coming from deep beliefs. Stage yellow would question if so called sentient beings are even real or suffer like humans. In India people have empathy for “non-living” stones because of beliefs. Maybe SY understands where empathy comes from but has transcended it. Honest question.

40 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yellow will have empathy for the suffering of sentient beings and understand how other humans have empathy for the suffering of sentient beings.

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Derek White

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

@Derek White Stage Yellow would take the empathy from stage green, not leave it behind. The excesses of green involving empathy would be being so self-less that you basically become a doormat and get walked on. Yellow would be taking back the individuality but still be empathetic to unnecessary suffering and cruelty. 

Its quite obvious that animals suffer. Stage yellow doesn't need to "question" it. lol. Whether sentient beings are "real" or not would be the same as you being "real" or not. If we grabbed you and put you in a line in a human slaughterhouse you would be pissing your pants crying for mommy. Not questioning whether the situation was real. 

[Scholar]

19 minutes ago, karltiboleng said:

Yes definitely! I think the lab grown meat market has huge potential. 

 

I never dismissed these possibilities. But you adopt the view that eating animals is inherently bad. Yes it's less sustainable than insects, but I feel that you are being ideological about this position. Are you not being moralistic here? 

I don't think being moralistic is bad. I see identity evolution as essential and valuable.

I think that killing animals for reasons that do not seem necessary is bad to me. Does dismissing slavery, rape and the holocaust of jews make me ideological or moralistic? What is the difference? Do you think there is a way to do slavery in a way that is not inherently bad to you?

 

 

Also, see how Sadhguru responds to orange. By adopting responsibility around us. That is the next evolutionary step, it is in the hands of us, who are in this position. Without it, there will be no grand human evolution into spiritual godhood. You can forget about that if we do not get our foundations right.

Adopt more responsibility, become compassionate, help others.

But instead you guys seek to avoid this responsibility. You seek to avoid action and justify it with your spiritual and philosophical positions.

Non-action and action. Attachment and detachment. They are not dichtomies:

 

Read the highest stage, the Ironist.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scholar

[Derek White]

4 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Its quite obvious that animals suffer. Stage yellow doesn't need to "question" it. lol. Whether sentient beings are "real" or not would be the same as you being "real" or not. If we grabbed you and put you in a line in a human slaughterhouse you would be pissing your pants crying for mommy. Not questioning whether the situation was real

@TrynaBeTurquoise Those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask imo. “If we grabbed you and put you in a line in a human slaughterhouse you would be pissing your pants crying for mommy. Not questioning whether the situation was real” You wouldn’t know, I could be your hallucination, You wouldn’t know what my inner experience is, even if I’m crying. These are not “obvious” things.

If a question like “do brains exist?” Is legit then my questions above are too.

[Derek White]

Just for the record, I don’t condone animal cruelty and I try to avoid eating meat as much as possible because that’s what I want to do. I don’t want getting angry at me. I was just questioning the deeper structure of morality. 

[steenadrianmr]

@Chakra Lion

You're just like I was back in 2015 when I went vegan. Flaming the lesser souls that even dare eat meat, what the fuck is wrong with them? Gotta admit you're taking it to the next level though. You're like the white-knight of animals. Perhaps this is the wrong forum for you to do your crusade

For me the whole vegan thing lasted a month as I couldn't afford to keep it up. I'd be thrilled to start eating healthier though! Perhaps vegetarianism.

Have a great day God!

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

@Derek White I think you need to re-watch Leos videos on morality and "do brains exist".

The whole point of the video "do brains exist" is to debunk the materialist paradigm. The distinction Leo is making is that instead of there being a "physical brain" that produces consciousness, consciousness imagines a brain. That being said, there is still a pink fleshy substance in your skull that you need to survive in the relative domain. So in a relative perspective, yes, the brain "exists". Existentially, it is imaginary. But that doesn't mean in this relative life that the thing we point to and call a brain is just irrelevant. 

Morality is a human invention. Leo exposes that. But that is not a justification in the way you are using it. The more conscious you become, you realize you are making yourself suffer if you inflict suffering to others. This is not conventional morality, it is higher consciousness. 

Be careful taking Leos words literally and turning them into a belief system.

[Forestluv]

57 minutes ago, Derek White said:

 

But why would stage yellow be empathetic? Stage green empathy is coming from deep beliefs. Stage yellow would question if so called sentient beings are even real or suffer like humans. In India people have empathy for “non-living” stones because of beliefs. Maybe SY understands where empathy comes from but has transcended it. Honest question.

I’ll write some ideas. I’m not claiming that they are objectively true. There are many views possible.

Why would yellow be empathetic? . . . 

Does yellow include rational thinking and logic (stage Orange). Of course it does. Yellow doesn’t lose or discard their rational thinking. Similarly, yellow doesn’t discard or lose empathy (stage green). It all gets integrated together. For many people, logic is more dominant to empathy. Yet a well-integrated yellow will be balanced with both logic and empathy. 

Regarding the empathy with stones: there are a lot of nuances and developmental stages of empathy, similar to intellectual nuances and stages. 

One could say having empathy for stones is an irrational because it is based on an irrational belief (thoughts). Is this not the same as saying the beliefs are stage purple (magical) beliefs. If so, yellow can factor in that this feeling with the stones as stage purple. Yet such a phenomena can also be post-rational and go as high as Turqoise. Here, what is real and imagined breaks down. Here we create our own reality - the energetic connection with the stone is as real and imagined as the energetic connection with a human.

Regarding the original topic, empathetically knowing harm dynamics is a high level of understanding, imo

[Derek White]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’ll write some ideas. I’m not claiming that they are objectively true. There are many views possible.

Why would yellow be empathetic? . . . 

Does yellow include rational thinking and logic (stage Orange). Of course it does. Yellow doesn’t lose or discard their rational thinking. Similarly, yellow doesn’t discard or lose empathy (stage green). It all gets integrated together. For many people, logic is more dominant to empathy. Yet a well-integrated yellow will be balanced with both logic and empathy. 

Regarding the empathy with stones: there are a lot of nuances and developmental stages of empathy, similar to intellectual nuances and stages. 

You seem to suggest that having empathy for stones is an irrational be abuse it is based on an irrational belief (thoughts). Is this not the same as saying the beliefs are stage purple (magical) beliefs. If so, yellow can factor in that this feeling with the stones as stage purple. Yet such a phenomena can also be post-rational and go as high as Turqoise. Here, what is real and imagined breaks down. Here we create our own reality - the energetic connection with the stone is as real and imagined as the energetic connection with a human.

@Serotoninluv The post-rational phenomenon that you wrote I have never experienced. I have never, say, turned my imaginations into physical reality.

I think empathy is projecting how one would react in a given situation onto another.

For example, I could be imagining how full of suffering the life of a yogi must be as they have to live in harsh conditions, work hard, meditate, etc. But the yogi may not necessarily be suffering, I could be completely wrong. I am projecting. We don’t know the experience of another. It’s imaginary, a guess.

Maybe if I stare at a stone long enough without labelling it, I would “feel” the “energetic connection” but that would be different than projecting human qualities on it. Although, I’m not too good at this touchy feely woo woo stuff. 

1 hour ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Be careful taking Leos words literally and turning them into a belief system.

@TrynaBeTurquoise I’m not doing that. I was pointing out that my questions are not frivolous and that Leo has “debunked” morality before. It’s actually the moralists who are justifying their actions while operating under a belief system.

How exactly do you know someone is suffering? It’s not always obvious or clear.
 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Derek White

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

5 minutes ago, Derek White said:

How exactly do you know someone is suffering? It’s not always obvious or clear.
 

How exactly do you know anything? What is the mechanism of knowing?

In the context of what we are talking about, slaughtering animals, it is both obvious and clear. Use your intuition. 

[Forestluv]

49 minutes ago, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv The post-rational phenomenon that you wrote I have never experienced. I have never, say, turned my imaginations into physical reality.

That is not what I am referring to as post-rational. 
 

49 minutes ago, Derek White said:

I think empathy is projecting how one would react in a given situation onto another.

For example, I could be imagining how full of suffering the life of a yogi must be as they have to live in harsh conditions, work hard, meditate, etc. But the yogi may not necessarily be suffering, I could be completely wrong. I am projecting. We don’t know the experience of another. It’s imaginary, a guess.

I don’t consider your thought construct to be empathy. 

One does not learn and understand empathy through thought stories of what empathy is. To learn about empathy in this case, it would be more beneficial to actually go live with people that are suffering in harsh conditions for a while. Perhaps three months to a year. Volunteer to help them. Listen to them. Cry with them. Experience the struggle with them until one knows what it’s like. That is much more than thinking up stories at a surface level. Empathic understanding of another through imagination is a very high empathic level for developed empaths. Not for normies. Most normies could only reach a moderate level of sympathy or compassion through their imagination - nowhere near empathic understanding.
 

 

[Derek White]

41 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

How exactly do you know anything? What is the mechanism of knowing?

In the context of what we are talking about, slaughtering animals, it is both obvious and clear. Use your intuition. 

@TrynaBeTurquoise They might be pulling a prank on us, faking it lol.

No but, it’s not obvious whether empathy comes from projection or intuition. At least not to me.

Maybe I need to do the work.

If these things were obvious people worldwide wouldn’t be slaughtering animals. Things we consider obvious were not obvious just 20 years ago, like gay rights and consent laws, etc.

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I don’t consider that empathy. 

@Serotoninluv How do you understand people then, if not by putting yourself in their shoes? Intuition? I guess I need to sharpen my intuition. But then I don’t know if I’m being intuitive or acting on implicit thoughts.?

It’s like... what if what I call blue you see it as red (but call it blue) and what you call red I see as blue (but call it red). How would I know what you actually see beyond the label? Idk ?

Edited March 9, 2020 by Derek White

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, Derek White said:

How do you understand people then, if not by putting yourself in their shoes? Intuition? I guess I need to sharpen my intuition. But then I don’t know if I’m being intuitive or acting on implicit thoughts.?

There are various ways of understanding people that are all inter-connected. Imagining what it’s like for other people is great, yet it’s usually only a surface level for most people. One needs to be a developed empath to gain empathic understanding through imagination. For example, I spent years volunteering in a psychiatric hospital - I spent many hours talking with people with all sorts of mental illnesses, PTSD, drug addictions, abuse, insanity etc. It was extremely difficult at times. It took a huge emotional and physical toll on me and there were many nights I had trouble sleeping. The empathic understanding I gained came from these interactions and opening myself up. It’s much harder to reach these empathic levels sitting on one’s couch at home imagining what it might be like for someone with a psychiatric issue. Yet at high levels it’s possible. I’ve watched documentaries on psychopaths and people confined to solitary confinement. I’ve reached places of empathic “getting it” that we’re moderately traumatic. If I went deeper it would have been too traumatic to my mind and body. Yet this has taken 20+ years of work in this area, including psychedelics. Most people are way too immersed, identified and attached to their sense of self and personal filters to access this. 

Questioning “how do I know this is imagined or real?” has value in certain contexts. Especially early on, when the self wants to remain in control. Yet at deeper levels, this type of intellectual questioning and analysis is a distraction and deterrent. It can actually block development. This is one reason why psychedelics can be extremely powerful in developing this modes because it bypasses this block.

[Derek White]

@Serotoninluv What if I’m a psychopath incaple of empathy??? 

Jk, I’ll try to feel empathy lol.

But what about this problem:

32 minutes ago, Derek White said:

It’s like... what if what I call blue you see it as red (but call it blue) and what you call red I see as blue (but call it red). How would I know what you actually see beyond the label? Idk ?

I intuitively feel this is a dumb question coming from the hyper rational mind. But still  ?

[Forestluv]

@Derek White In a certain context, I think it’s a good insight and has a lot of value. I’ve used this example of color perception many times. We could extend it broader to include feelings. How do I know what I feel as frustration is the same as someone else? One may get a sense of what someone else is experiencing, yet how does one know it actually is what another is experiencing? In this context, I don’t. 

This isn’t a problem because what seems like contradictions can co-exist in Truth. 

For me, this is a key piece of the puzzle, yet there are also other pieces.

[Tarzan]

My perspective:

I've done some learning about animal product consumerism and veganism. As far as I understand its pretty much the best thing from an ethical, environmental, and public health view. imho a triple win. There are more reasons for not eating meat, dairy, eggs etc than just the ethical reason of not causing unnecessary suffering of animals.

As far as health is concerned one needs to distinguish vegan diets and whole food plant based diets. The former might not be healthy if not adequately planned (e.g. vegan junkfood exists). Whole food plant based diets seem to be a very nice solution to the chronic diseases that a lot of people suffer through (prevents and cures heart disease, lower cancer rates, etc). I learner this by watching nutritionfacts.org and reading "How not to Die" book.

If we are concerned about taking personal responsibility for mitigating the environmental damage that we cause then forgoing animal products and going vegan is one of the most effective ways to reduce our impact. Animal agriculture is very expensive to keep up compared to plant agriculture (calorie by calorie). Animals require food (grains, soy, etc) and lots of water, and space aswell. I think I learned from Earthling Ed that we have enough food to feed all humans, if we used to grains to feed ourselves rather than animals. He mentioned that we had enough for 11 or 10 billion people, if only we didnt breed more animals for consumption. So plant africulture is far more sustainable since we wont need to spend more resources.

And well, from the ethical standpoint its a no-brainer: we don't have to consume animals, so its unwholesome to cause suffeirng unnecessarily. Unless for some reason the experience of how tasty meat is is more important than the suffering that the animal endures and the unnecessary amounts of resources that we put into producing meat or dairy.

Anyways, I've found that I can't justify animal product industry, I think were better of as a global society without it. Making an effort towards gradually reducing animal industry seems worth it in the long run.

I wish more people would be less dismissive and ignorant about just hof how harming the animal industry is.

That being said, ofc since animal industry is part of our system, dismantling it isn't easy or painless (farmers want to keep jobs, people dont want to change diet habits, etc). Change comes gradually, and painfully if we resist too much from changing.

So basically I cant really find a justification for consuming animal products, unless someone has niche health issues (gut microbiome cant handle plants, e.g. Jordan Peterson and his daughter) or some other reason that I have overlooked.

p.s. All of this doesn't really matter, you know, Maya and shit. Also you are God.