Veganism And Ethics

[WaveInTheOcean]

For an "organism" to suffer, it has to posses some neural system that makes it possible to create a sort of awareness of one self. 

Self / mind = the only mechanism of suffering in this Universe. 

Suffering doesn't exist outside ego/mind/self.

Is a microbe a fucking ego? No.

Is a flower or a tree or an apple an ego? No fucking way.

Is an mosquito an ego? I don't think so.

Is a worm an ego? Nah.

Is a living dog an ego? Yes.

Is a living pig an ego? Yes.

Is a living cow an ego? Yes.

It's actually pretty easy to contemplate why pigs, dogs, cows posses egos/minds/self's, and thus can suffer.

We know as human being that we are capable of feeling pain/suffering.
When we see signs of our own suffering in other beings, eg. a cow/dog/pig making painful noises that relate to when we scream, that must mean that those beings also have a self.

In other words, when we in the external world see something that is similar/resembles our own reaction to suffer/pain, that must mean that that external 'phenomenon' which we observed must be capable of feeling pain/suffering/is a self.

I don't see suffer/ego-phenomenon in:
microbes
flowers
trees

I don't know with insects. I mean I have seen a bee die where it makes some movements that looks like it's in pain... however, we know that unconscious humans can also make movements when they're unconscious.

[Soulbass]

I've been vegetarian for 7-8 years, today I occasionally eat some fishes and white meat again, and it doesn't feel like "going backwards".

Looking back, I think I was clearly acting like the green stage in spiral dynamics ("The Grand Model Of Psychological Evolution - Clare Graves & Spiral" Leo's video)

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Soulbass

[Neill]

7 minutes ago, John Flores said:

I don't crave meat usually, but I think it's delicious. I have moments of I can't kill bugs and I have moments of "mosquitoes and ants should not exist". Killing comes from aggression; once the animal is dead though and you have no grand egoic aspirations to rid killing of animals, then I don't see a need to be a vegetarian

what a nice convenient label of "egoic" you've attached there I see.

[Bob84]

You this, you that, my opinions are superior to yours, emotion emotion, you such a idiot with you ego, go and meditate utill beef comes out of your ears.

Lulz 

P.s. sorry for posting off topic.

[Neill]

1 hour ago, John Flores said:

@Neill I don't like to kill. It makes me voimit. But if it's already dead and meat industries are simply not going to shut down, I don't see a reason to be impractical. In addition, if people need food to live, you can't make a dogma thats going to make people hungry.

In America we probably need more vegans. It's the capital of fast food ? It's a gross society ?

This is escapism. Your local supermarket has everything you need, there is no impracticality here. Social justice movements start with singular people, or else nothing would ever happen. You need to ask yourself whether you want to be on the side of history that is responsible for the highest levels of death and destruction in our society or not. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Neill

[Neill]

30 minutes ago, John Flores said:

@Neill I don't think its escapism. I simply don't think it's bad to eat meat. I don't like the killing aspect, but there is nothing I can do about it right now.

How can you so blatantly lie to yourself? It is escapism by definition- you are ignoring the ugly parts of the world and placing egoic convenience over the multitude of very tangible actions you can take right now.

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

 The flower doesn't care if you burn it, eat it, stamp on it or w/e you do with it. Same with the microbe.

But I find it utterly absurd to put plants & microbes on the same footing as animals.

You're assuming a lot there.

The truth is more like YOU don't care what the flower or microbe feels. But that it feels is pretty clear. And that it has a survival agenda is pretty clear too.

Why is YOUR survival agenda more important than a microbe's? Because you are bigger?

5 hours ago, Neill said:

I can't believe you're likening the single most destructive human act possible to "stepping on microbes on the grass". Why can't there be a single fucking decent human being on this shitty planet.

A lot of moralization going on here.

Microbes and grass have an agenda to survive, just like everything else. To ignore that is delusional.

Why is YOUR survival agenda more important than a microbe's? Because you are bigger?

Your outrage is very your-centered.

When you get into a car or airplane to go somewhere, why do you ignore the fact that it directly contributes to global warming and the death of a polar bear somewhere where the ice is melting?

Not to mention things like: when you buy an iPhone or any Chinese made product you are contributing to the suffering of poor sweatshop workers in China who are consigned to terribly inhumane and unconscious working conditions.

The answer is, you have to draw the line somewhere. You cannot exist and also not cause suffering to others. All you can do is ignore this fact and construct justifications for why certain modes of living are superior to others.

And I'm not defending meat-eating. I think it's something to ultimately stop.

[Neill]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You're assuming a lot there.

The truth is more like YOU don't care what the flower or microbe feels. But that is feels is pretty clear. And that is has a survival agenda is pretty clear too.

Why is YOUR survival agenda more important than a microbes? Because you are bigger?

A lot of moralization going on here.

Microbes and grass have an agenda to survive, just like everything else. To ignore that is delusion.

Why is YOUR survival agenda more important than a microbes? Because you are bigger?

I hand you a puppy, a carrot, and a knife. I put a gun to your head and tell you to stab one of them. I assume that if you hold anything remotely resembling sanity you stab the carrot because you fucking understand that the suffering of the carrot is not comparable to the suffering of the puppy so please stop making a mockery out of their life and slaughter with this nonsense. You are the one putting your own egoic convenience above the very tangible actions we are all fully aware that you are able to take. If this comment was made with any sort of genuine, honest intention, you would realize that if you cared about the reduction of suffering in any form you would stop consuming animal products. But you don't care. You're just providing your ego with self-justification so you don't have to face what you are actually doing.

[Leo Gura]

@Neill Again, you assume a lot here.

I'm not defending meat-eating. I think it's something to ultimately stop.

I merely said the problem goes much deeper.

[Neill]

If you are unable to articulate how it goes deeper, then it does not. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Neill

[Leo Gura]

@Neill Your logic is exactly the sort of logic that leads to slaughtering of animals and all sorts of other unecological activity.

The problem doesn't stop at animals. That's YOUR agenda. You like animals so you draw the line there.

The true problem is one of unconsciousness to self-agenda.

That humans tend to feel sorry for polar bears and cuddly puppies is totally arbitrary. It's like a form of racism but with mammals. It's not really inclusive.

But I agree that on a practical level, we gotta start wherever we can. And so it's good that people show compassion to mammals. We can start there.

[Neill]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Neill Your logic is exactly the sort of logic that leads to slaughtering of animals and all sorts of other unecological activity.

The problem doesn't stop at animals. That's YOUR agenda. You like animals so you draw the line there.

How nice and convenient you're able to categorize me off without saying or articulating anything of substance that responds to or contradicts anything I've said in any way. Pro tip- being honest with yourself leads to better discussions.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Neill

[Neill]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That humans tend to feel sorry for polar bears and cuddly puppies is totally arbitrary. It's like a form of racism but with mammals. It's not really inclusive.

It is not arbitrary. Leo is a human. Leo should behave in simple, human ways that make the world a better place. This is not rocket science.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Neill

[Leo Gura]

@Neill

Leo should...

Leo should...

Leo should...

Humans should...

Humans should...

Humans should...

[Key Elements]

So..whatever you want to see happen in this world do this today-step by step.

 

[Neill]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Neill

Leo should...

Leo should...

Leo should...

Humans should...

Humans should...

Humans should...

hahah the exact response I expected. self-justification feels nice, doesn't it. don't use your spiritual practice to excuse egoic behavior patterns.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Neill

[Extreme Z7]

@Neill What makes you think you understand ego when you clearly don't bother trying to study it first?

[Neill]

2 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

@Neill What makes you think you understand ego when you clearly don't bother trying to study it first?

Again with the completely unsubstantiated comments. If you have an issue with anything I've said then you can spit it out. Otherwise what are you doing.

[WaveInTheOcean]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The truth is more like YOU don't care what the flower or microbe feels. But that it feels is pretty clear. And that it has a survival agenda is pretty clear too.

Survival agenda? Sure, all living organism have that.

We have to separate between 'living' organisms and organisms that are capable of feeling.

"But that it feels is pretty clear"

You just said this about a microbe or about a flower.
That, is in my eyes, a very radical statement. You assume a lot here. What do you base it on? That a microbe has survival mechanicsms? lol. Survival mechanisms has nothing to do with feelings.

Again, death in it self is also not something that causes suffering.

All suffering comes fro ego. That much we can agree on hopefully.

High consciousness humans don't want to inflict unnecessary suffering onto other egos.

I say, that a microbe has no ego. A flower has no ego.

I am an ego. A puppy is an ego. A cow is an ego.

"That humans tend to feel sorry for polar bears and cuddly puppies is totally arbitrary. " 
Well, within 'mammals', yes sure, it's arbritary.

Compared to organisms not capable of feeling pain (have no ego's) like flowers and microbes, it is not arbritary.

If I pour hydrochloric acid over 1 billion microbes so they all die - due to the low pH levels making their vital enzymes not function properly - I hear no screams. I see no signs of emotional pain that I as another ego can relate to.

If I stick a knife into a tree I see see no signs of pain.

If I stick a knife into a cow it moans and twist. THAT I can relate to. That makes me aware, that it has feelings. That's why I don't do it.

[WaveInTheOcean]

ANyway a microbe - for the dear love of god - has no feelings, obviously. It has no nervous system.

Can we please all agree on the fact, that the only materialistic thing in this Universe, that we know of, that is capable of 'trapping' the infinite mind into a finite-egoic-mind is a nerual system (also called a brain). And that complex of neurons probably has to have some complexity before there is actually 'created' a seperation between the infinite and the finite. For there to be a 'finite' mind (ego) there has to be SOME sort of an illusion of awareness of a self. 

Mammals obviously are self-aware, not as much as humans are, but they are aware, they have feelings.

A microbe is not aware. It is not an ego. It has no feelings.

Can we pls all agree on that.