Counterintuitive nature of veganism

[aforalegria]

Though I have nothing against veganism, and I was vegan for 3 years, but I can't ignore the fact that veganism is often pushed in a very ideological and agressive way. Most of the time it's about "stop killing animals for food" and "eating meat = being a murderer", neglecting the fact that from nature's POV there's no difference between a cabbage and a chicken. Both plants and animals have defense mechanisms thus both don't want to be eaten. But it's infinitely easier to project own's fear of death onto animals then onto a plant.

So counterintuitiveness is in that if we suddenly stop eating meat, we'd certainly need times more fields and terrain to grow stuff. And those fields always require destroying forests. In fact, thousands of small animals die being minced by harvesting machines, and hundreds of thousands are being wiped out along with deforestation. So here good intention could easily turn into disaster.

I personally stand for balance. Food is a fuel and source of life and shouldn't be a cult. Death is a part of life and should be embraced as it is. Avoiding unnecessary destruction is essential for balance but fear of causing death always leads to more death, counterintuitively.

For 2 years already I do carnivore diet (only meat and eggs) - helped me to get rid of skin problems, bleeding and cleared my blood vessels. Every time I eat I thank the animal for the gift of its flesh and a chance to eat food that truly nourishes my body. Also it allows me to eat way less than before in order to feel satiated, so I consider it sustainable in its own way.

I respect any other opinion about nutrition, not encouraging nor judging any particular choice. 

I'd love to hear opinions and thoughts on this topic.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by aforalegria

[flowboy]

 

[Adodd]

@aforalegria you seem to have a strange view for someone who was vegan for years. You're definitely right about it being sometimes aggressively pushed but this can be said about most things. There is a difference in the horrible cycle of constant unnecessary suffering and killing due to the overconsumption of meat. High Meat consumptuon is the main cause for heart disease(worlds most common cause of death) making it the number 1 reason for death of animals AND humans.

If we all stopped eating meat and started eating vegatables we would NOT use more land man. Almost all of the fields and land used for farming are used to feed and raise the livestock raised for our meat consumption?. In the United States alone, 56 million acres of land are used to grow feed for animals, while only 4 million acres are producing plants for humans to eat.

Yes death is a part of nature. But show me anywhere in nature where one species of animal enslaves, entraps, mass murders, abuses AND mass breeds other animals all while destroying the planet's land, oceans and air. Thats not natural, Cabbage IS natural. Has nothing to do with "fearing death".?

Edited January 21, 2021 by Adodd

[Scholar]

On 16.1.2021 at 9:06 PM, aforalegria said:

Though I have nothing against veganism, and I was vegan for 3 years, but I can't ignore the fact that veganism is often pushed in a very ideological and agressive way. Most of the time it's about "stop killing animals for food" and "eating meat = being a murderer", neglecting the fact that from nature's POV there's no difference between a cabbage and a chicken. Both plants and animals have defense mechanisms thus both don't want to be eaten. But it's infinitely easier to project own's fear of death onto animals then onto a plant.

So counterintuitiveness is in that if we suddenly stop eating meat, we'd certainly need times more fields and terrain to grow stuff. And those fields always require destroying forests. In fact, thousands of small animals die being minced by harvesting machines, and hundreds of thousands are being wiped out along with deforestation. So here good intention could easily turn into disaster.

I personally stand for balance. Food is a fuel and source of life and shouldn't be a cult. Death is a part of life and should be embraced as it is. Avoiding unnecessary destruction is essential for balance but fear of causing death always leads to more death, counterintuitively.

For 2 years already I do carnivore diet (only meat and eggs) - helped me to get rid of skin problems, bleeding and cleared my blood vessels. Every time I eat I thank the animal for the gift of its flesh and a chance to eat food that truly nourishes my body. Also it allows me to eat way less than before in order to feel satiated, so I consider it sustainable in its own way.

I respect any other opinion about nutrition, not encouraging nor judging any particular choice. 

I'd love to hear opinions and thoughts on this topic.

 

Veganism is pushed in a very ideological and aggressive way, because similar to the movement of abolitionism (abolishment of human slavery), it is an ethical movement. The expansion of identity leads to an increase in emotions in regards to the individuals in question. It is only natural for this to happen, and in many ways it is very healthy and appropriate.

From nature's POV all sorts of things are indifferent. In nature individuals get raped, murdered, enslaved and eaten alive. Ethics is something that also developes within the framework of nature, as it is one of the ways the world evolves towards higher unity and love.

Both plants and animals have indeed different kinds of defense mechanisms, but ask yourself, what is the purpose of fear and pain? How does a chicken benefit from an experience of pain?

 

An organism like a chicken has the ability to move in it's environment and react immediately to any sort of change in that environment. In this way, a chicken benefits greatly from having a mind that contains it's own impressions of a reality in relationship to the chicke itself. If a chicken feels pain, will not just react immediately, it will also have the ability to find a complex response in relationship to a complex change in the environment. The pain after all is not experienced by itself, but in the framework of a mind that simulates it's very own reality. The chicken is not merely reactive, it benefits greatly from having it's own seperate reality.

If we look at a plant none of these things are the case. What would a plant need to feel pain for? It cannot react to any threats immediately, and it's behavior does not require an immediate complex evaluation of a change in the environment and an appropriately complex response. All the plant does is react in response to certain stimuli. Indeed, that is all the plant needs to survive. The plant doesn't have any use for it's own simulated reality, not for the experiences of pain or fear. The plant cannot run away from anything, so why would it fear anything? The plant cannot move away from danger immediately, so why would it feel pain?

The plant requires not any illusiory seperation from the environment, unlike the chicken or human. While the plants behaviour is dynamic, it is never immediately complex and dynamic. And only in this kind of context is pain and fear useful.

 

A good example is to ask yourself, what is the purpose of loneliness? Ask yourself this, why do humans and some animals feel lonely. Contemplate it, and then look at a spider. Does the spider feel lonely when it is sitting in the edge of a corner for the entire year all by itself? Why would the spider ever feel lonely? As an exercise, contemplate this question and give me the answer as a response to this post.

[Adodd]

@Scholar well said!