The Heart Centric Perspective on Veganism

[ilja]

@aurum  you are so inherently wrong on these 3 position, but I am sure you know that. that's why you bring them up, because vegans bring them up to you.

Edited May 6, 2021 by ilja

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, ilja said:

@aurum  you are so inherently wrong on these 3 position, but I am sure you know that. that's why you bring them up, because vegans bring them up to you.

Wrong my salad-munching friend.

I bring up these three points because, as I am now saying for the third time, I was vegan. And these were the points that sold me. They spoke to things I cared about. Vegans told them to me, and I believed them.

I think vegans are generally amazing heart centered people who are certainly more conscious than your average person. I like being friends with vegans, we often have a lot in common. I just wish they questioned their ideology a little bit more than watching Seaspiracy and Earthlings.

[ilja]

@aurum

then be a vegan who is not purely there for the ideology? do you need the confirmation of other vegans for that?

I choose my ethics regardless of the opinion of others, I simply weigh what it does to the victim and what it would mean on a greater scale.

Edited May 6, 2021 by ilja

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, ilja said:

@aurum

then be a vegan who is not purely there for the ideology? do you need the confirmation of other vegans for that?

Being a non ideological vegan for me would look like eating animals. Somehow I don’t think that fits the criteria of “vegan” .

[ilja]

@aurumnah, it would just be not eating meat and dairy without the thinking around it, that's all.

Edited May 6, 2021 by ilja

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

I was vegan for ~two years. Not afraid of it.

1) Its ideological claims simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.

2) Veganism is not inherently an ethically superior position relative to animal rights. It’s not going to solve the environmental crisis and may not even move us in the right direction.

3) And it’s not a healthy diet for many people, if not most of them.

Recall that this is what you wrote: "But I also do not believe I am above taking a life to sustain life. And I don't take that responsibility lightly."

This claim is what I was curious about. It seems to me like you are holding on to something. Why can't you simply be "above" "taking a life?" I bet you can. It's not hard. You said you even did it for 2 years. So why hold back? What would you lose by committing to being vegan? (or even, what gain from non-veganism are you attached to, if any?) I'm not asking for a reasoned analysis of variables, but rather for an honest reflection of identity-level instinct.

You can just simply choose to minimize killing, lol. It's not rocket science. What's so personally precious to you about "taking a life to sustain life?" Why make it into a responsibility? For a number of us, this "responsibility" you describe has dissolved into nothingness... no longer a burden.

1) You can live according to veganism without being ideological. In fact, you can live according to veganism for reasons entirely other than ideology.

2) Veganism at its core is not about taking ethical positions. It's simply a mode of being. You need no "ethics" or "positions" to be in a particular mode.

3) Have you tried vegetarianism? Matters of compassion are not all-or-nothing as many vegans would declare. Simply putting meat aside is still a meaningful personal change, and products like eggs really do help (for those who insist that "they need meat for health"). Obvious exceptions if you have health problems like SIBO but I assume I am communicating with someone of average health

Edited May 6, 2021 by RendHeaven

[aurum]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

You can just simply choose to minimize killing, lol. It's not rocket science. What's so personally precious to you about "taking a life to sustain life?" Why make it into a responsibility? For a number of us, this "responsibility" you describe has dissolved into nothingness... no longer a burden.

I do choose a life that minimizes killing already. That’s another fallacy I think vegans often make, which is that their diet involves less killing and therefore is ethically superior. I don’t buy it.

My point about not being above taking a life to sustain life is not something unique to me. I think it’s the same for every living creature, including vegans. In order for you to live, something has to die.

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

2) Veganism at its core is not about taking ethical positions. It's simply a mode of being. You need no "ethics" or "positions" to be in a particular mode.

Disagree strongly with this as well. Unless I can consume animal products on a vegan diet, you cannot say veganism doesn’t take positions, and that these positions are not based on ethics.

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

3) Have you tried vegetarianism? Matters of compassion are not all-or-nothing as many vegans would declare. Simply putting meat aside is still a meaningful personal change, and products like eggs really do help (for those who insist that "they need meat for health"). Obvious exceptions if you have health problems like SIBO but I assume I am communicating with someone of average health

Again, I do not buy that the “compassionate”, morally superior position is to not eat animals. That is YOUR belief. Not mine. So the answer is no, I have not tried it and will not try it, barring some sort of new revelation I was not aware of.

[Emerald]

13 hours ago, aurum said:

What are you afraid of by not being vegan until the day you drop dead .

I was vegan for ~two years. Not afraid of it. Its ideological claims simply don’t hold up to scrutiny. Veganism is not inherently an ethically superior position relative to animal rights. It’s not going to solve the environmental crisis and may not even move us in the right direction. And it’s not a healthy diet for many people, if not most of them.

That’s 0-3 of the things I care strongly about. Veganism is out.

What you mean is that it isn't inherently morally superior. Morals are essentially made up castles in the sky. You could argue that being a serial killer is moral if you wanted to and find some well-reasoned argument to support that claim. 

But Veganism IS ethically superior to eating animal products. And this is why...

Ethics has its roots in whatever causes/perpetuates the least amount of suffering. Unlike morals, ethics are not castles in the sky and empty assertions or right and wrong. There is a more objective measuring stick for what is ethical... which is the question "How much suffering does _____ objectively lead to or contribute to?"

Since Vegans are boycotting an industry that causes suffering and are taking away from the demand for these products, supply in these industries will diminish accordingly. And this means that Vegans (who make up 1% of society) and Vegetarians (who make up 3% of society) en masse are cutting into the demand... probably by 2-3% points.

Bearing in mind, it's financially incumbent upon these industries to produce only what they can sell... because it's a waste of money for them to breed more animals than the populace will eat. And it will be priority number one for these industries to cut costs as much as possible and maximize shareholder profits.

And when we're talking about 70 BILLION land animals (including 50 billion chickens, 300 million cows, and 130 million pigs) killed each year, 2-3% points make a huge amount of difference.

If we're going to round down and estimate that Vegans and Vegetarians (and even those practicing meatless Monday) cut into factory farm product demand by 2%, that's over a billion land animals per year that aren't bred into a life of suffering. And that's not even mentioning marine animals. 

There is also the issue that we use a lot of farmland (like 75%+ of it) to feed livestock, which accounts for tons of field deaths (mice, snakes, etc.) and the deforestation of lands meant to be occupied by other animals. And I'm sure that this creates a lot of suffering as well. 

Also, the existence of Vegans and Vegetarians creates demands for new technologies like lab-grown meat, which will be a huge ethical leap forward as it will make the consumption of meat and dairy possible in a way that doesn't contribute to animal deaths/exploitation... which will create less suffering in turn. 

So, Veganism isn't morally superior. But it is ethically superior. 

 

[aurum]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

What you mean is that it isn't inherently morally superior. Morals are essentially made up castles in the sky. You could argue that being a serial killer is moral if you wanted to and find some well-reasoned argument to support that claim. 

But Veganism IS ethically superior to eating animal products. And this is why...

Ethics has its roots in whatever causes/perpetuates the least amount of suffering. Unlike morals, ethics are not castles in the sky and empty assertions or right and wrong. There is a more objective measuring stick for what is ethical... which is the question "How much suffering does _____ objectively lead to or contribute to?"

Since Vegans are boycotting an industry that causes suffering and are taking away from the demand for these products, supply in these industries will diminish accordingly. And this means that Vegans (who make up 1% of society) and Vegetarians (who make up 3% of society) en masse are cutting into the demand... probably by 2-3% points.

Bearing in mind, it's financially incumbent upon these industries to produce only what they can sell... because it's a waste of money for them to breed more animals than the populace will eat. And it will be priority number one for these industries to cut costs as much as possible and maximize shareholder profits.

And when we're talking about 70 BILLION land animals (including 50 billion chickens, 300 million cows, and 130 million pigs) killed each year, 2-3% points make a huge amount of difference.

If we're going to round down and estimate that Vegans and Vegetarians (and even those practicing meatless Monday) cut into factory farm product demand by 2%, that's over a billion land animals per year that aren't bred into a life of suffering. And that's not even mentioning marine animals. 

There is also the issue that we use a lot of farmland (like 75%+ of it) to feed livestock, which accounts for tons of field deaths (mice, snakes, etc.) and the deforestation of lands meant to be occupied by other animals. And I'm sure that this creates a lot of suffering as well. 

Also, the existence of Vegans and Vegetarians creates demands for new technologies like lab-grown meat, which will be a huge ethical leap forward as it will make the consumption of meat and dairy possible in a way that doesn't contribute to animal deaths/exploitation... which will create less suffering in turn. 

So, Veganism isn't morally superior. But it is ethically superior. 

 

I will give you that vegans skew demand for factory farmed meat and companies are acting accordingly. The success of businesses like Beyond Burger and the fact I can get vegan options at many restaurants point to that. And I will also give you that we should be boycotting factory farmed meat.

The key word in the statement I made was “inherently” superior. As I’ve already said, you are conflating eating animals with eating factory farmed animals. These two things are not remotely the same and a distinction needs to be made. It is absolutely possible to consume animals in a way that is ethical. The fact that the majority of the population does not practice this does not take away that it can be done and IS done by many people. 

To your point about using farmland to feed livestock, this also misses the mark. You are talking about farms that grow monocultuess of corn / grain / soy for feed, but this is not how livestock should be fed in the first place. Not for our health and not for their health. The reasons this happens are numerous, from perverse government subsidies to perverse economic incentives. But none of that is inherent to raising livestock. Land is not the issue.

And let’s not forget, it’s not like vegan food comes from thin air. Unless you are exclusively eating from local, regenerative, permaculture-esque farms, all those fruits and vegetables grown massively disrupt all the same ecosystems you are talking about. Tiling, which almost every industrial agriculture farm does, absolutely destroys the soil. We will not even have enough healthy farm land soil to support a vegan diet pretty soon thanks to tiling. And let’s not forget about irrigation, pesticides and numerous other environmentally destructive practices in agriculture. And then that food will usually need to be transported long distances, producing even more environmental pressures.

Animals also play a crucial role in any ecosystem. You cannot just grow plants and expect that to be healthy. Plants need the animals, animals need the plants.

In terms of meat alternatives, so far the only thing produced has been highly industrial, processed junk. I cannot say anyone is doing their health or the planet any favors by eating that.

My point here is not to argue whether animal factory farming or monoculture, industrial farming is worse and try to make a “lesser of two evils” argument. My point is that our food system as a whole is massively out of alignment, no matter what you are consuming. But it does not have to be so, whether you are eating animals or vegan food.

Edited May 6, 2021 by aurum

[ilja]

@aurum Kind of a bit dishonest saying eating animals vs factory farmed animals is not remotely the same, don't you think? 

Edited May 6, 2021 by ilja

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, ilja said:

@aurum Kind of a bit dishonest saying eating animals vs factory farmed animals is not remotely the same, don't you think? 

No. What’s dishonest is to lump these things into the same category and pretend there is no difference. Which of course serves the vegan argument that one should never consume animals.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

It is absolutely possible to consume animals in a way that is ethical.

Is it absolutely possible to consume human animals in a way that is ethical? ("Consume" = kill to eat). 

If not, what is your ethical criteria for categorization? What qualities are needed to be in the "ethical to consume" category and "unethical to consume" category? Which species are acceptable to eat and why? What level of killing against one's will, pain and suffering is acceptable in your ethical construct?

[ilja]

@aurum That's not what you said though. See how you are misusing definitions to shift points to serve yourself? Have you tried listening to someone for their sake?

Edited May 6, 2021 by ilja

[RendHeaven]

@aurum Man, I just wrote a mountain of text exploring compassion and death in a non-ideological way, not with the intention to reason or argue with you, but rather to encourage us both (and anyone else reading) to delve further into personal awareness and intuition.

Alas, my computer crashed and all of it got wiped before I could post, lol!~

Instead of forcing all that text back onto the page, I'm just gonna let this one go. Much love to you, brother 

 

[Forestluv]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

Ethics has its roots in whatever causes/perpetuates the least amount of suffering.

This construct gets tricky due to defining "suffering" and various ways to quantify it via a zoomed-in lens or zoomed-out lens. For example, if deer are overpopulating a small forest, they could over-consume the forest and cause lots of animal suffering as the forest dies. Going in a killing 20% of the deer may technically reduce overall suffering.

And what would do you think of guns that nearly instantly kill an animal with a single shot to the head. It's so fast that there is very little suffering, under 1 second. If that animal was raised free range, would you consider it ethical since there is virtually no suffering?

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Is it absolutely possible to consume human animals in a way that is ethical? ("Consume" = kill to eat). 

I’d say yes.

Ethics are highly relative and nuanced.

For example, I’d imagine maybe there was a time when humans weren’t the apex apex apex predator of earth. And maybe we were another species’ prey. Not saying I’d want to be eaten, but I wouldn’t call it unethical.

The bacteria in my body are trying to eat me right now. But my immune system kills them first. Which is ethical?

Let’s hypothetically say Leo couldn’t heal his SIBO without a carnivore diet. And that this SIBO negatively impacted his soul’s mission to awaken humanity by threatening his health. Should he not go carnivore?

These are very slippery questions. And one of the points I’ve been making is that the vegan narrative drastically oversimplifies them.

3 hours ago, Forestluv said:

If not, what is your ethical criteria for categorization? What qualities are needed to be in the "ethical to consume" category and "unethical to consume" category? Which species are acceptable to eat and why? What level of killing against one's will, pain and suffering is acceptable in your ethical construct?

I think you know I can’t give you hard and fast rules for any of these questions. You have to use case by case discernment.

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

@aurum factory farming animals is necessary if you want billions of people to consume meat regularly. demand is what created it in the first place.

I’d strongly disagree once again. I think it’s an absolute fallacy that regenerative farming / ranching cannot feed the planet. Regenerative farming, from what every farmer has explained to me, is actually more productive than traditional industrial agriculture. But it does require a shift in practices, beliefs and values.

3 hours ago, ilja said:

@aurum That's not what you said though. See how you are misusing definitions to shift points to serve yourself? Have you tried listening to someone for their sake?

No, please show me where I said something to the contrary. I’ve been arguing that point since the first post I made in this thread.

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@aurum Man, I just wrote a mountain of text exploring compassion and death in a non-ideological way, not with the intention to reason or argue with you, but rather to encourage us both (and anyone else reading) to delve further into personal awareness and intuition.

Alas, my computer crashed and all of it got wiped before I could post, lol!~

Instead of forcing all that text back onto the page, I'm just gonna let this one go. Much love to you, brother 

 

 No worries, I enjoyed our little sparring 

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, aurum said:

I’d say yes.

I’m referring to humans eating humans. In your ethical construct, is it ethical for humans to kill and eat humans? Like raising babies to be eaten like lambs. Or hunting humans like deer to eat.

41 minutes ago, aurum said:

I think you know I can’t give you hard and fast rules for any of these questions. You have to use case by case discernment.

We can’t create an ethical construct without any construction. What are you basing your “case by case discernment” on? How tasty the meat is? The color yellow? The smell of roasting marshmallows? You can’t use the term “ethical” as if it has underlying meaning and then when asked “what is your criteria for ethical?” respond “it’s relative and a case by case discernment”. Then your use of “ethical” has no meaning whatsoever. It can literally mean anything. It weakens your ethical argument to meaningless.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Myioko said:

(I know there's different between humans and animals, in the sense that a human would be way more aware that they were about to die before getting shot.

Not necessarily, humans could be drugged before they are killed. Or they could get ambushed or killed in their sleep. We could even have every human wear an electrical device and everyday there is a 1 in 5,000 chance it activates and kills the person. And then other humans it them. A system could be set up that a human has no idea when they are about to be killed for their meat.

[Danioover9000]

   Forgot to mention I was a Vegan, and tailor my talking points such that I appealed to that instead if taking the middle and relative ways. It's fine if the cause resonates with you somehow, and that your circle of concern does cover the environment and animal welfare in a genuine sense without it being ideological and make you hate other people. I've had health issues that I couldn't continue, and my depression worsened as well, but continue if it works for you. I also forgot Leo's blog on going meta, which also covers why debates don't work, and this thread is showing some insights into that.

   There was a movie I think was called 'Solvent Green', or something like that, which covered a future scenario that mankind was overpopulated, that most of the natural  resources were diminished that people could only eat green cookies instead of other normal foods. They held an annual draw, and the ones that won, got selected to go to a building, but also some people get to volunteer to go, if they wished to die peacefully and felt they couldn't contribute anymore. The people that were chosen and volunteered got to watch movies and film documentaries about what the world and earth was like before most of nature was destroyed, and they got to eat a real orange, before they later were injected with some fluid that kills them, and their bodies used to make the green cookies.

[ilja]

@aurum  saying that "eating animals and eating animals via factory farming is not remotely the same" is absolutely not the case, there are a lot of intersections those have.  in fact "eating animals" encompasses all of "eating animals via factory farming".

"eating animals via factory farming" is a subset of "eating animals", it takes the condition "eating animals" and narrows it down to livestock.

But both lie on the same basis, which is "eating animals".

Edited May 7, 2021 by ilja