the great vegetarian debate

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:59 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:I think the most sensible thing to do at this point is to
agree to disagree with people you disagree with,
and then eat them.


But if you make them part of you, you might take on their opinions... :tongue:
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:01 am

Adamantine wrote:
porpoise wrote:
Adamantine wrote: But you ignore that point that in our contemporary context roughly half of all produced food is thrown away. That includes meat of course. This illustrates a serious disconnect with the supply-and-demand theory that you are basing your entire premise on.


I don't see how it does. Supply and demand operates regardless of how much the consumer subsequently throws away. And supply and demand clearly does apply to meat, along with all other food products and products generally. We have a choice, either we add to the demand or we don't.


I think you missed the point: a large amount of "throwing away" is done by the supermarkets or the farmers themselves, even restaurants, it is not merely the consumers. . .


I still think this is a strawman. The meat industry works on supply and demand, there's no getting away from it.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:04 am

Simon E. wrote:I really and truly do not give a damn what other people eat.


Fair enough, but then why get involved in a debate like this?
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:41 am

porpoise wrote:
Simon E. wrote:I really and truly do not give a damn what other people eat.


Fair enough, but then why get involved in a debate like this?

Because of the part of the post that you edited away from. ( Selective editing is always the death of any real discussion. )
To whit, I do give a damn about those who have an interest in Dharma being made to feel excluded by what they have in their sandwiches.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.”

Yes, we do have a choice.


I think that Thich Nhat Hahn is making a massive oversimplification.


I think the statement is massively simple but at the same time does accurately reflect and summarize the complex situation. Modern day animal agriculture is extremely destructive to the environment.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:29 pm

So is modern day vegetable and grain production.
Its the modern production methods that are destructive.
I spent 8 years living in a part of the UK which until 25 years ago was rich in wildlife...bird, mammal, and reptilian.
Large parts of it now are a monocultural desert of denatured grains and fields of vegetables..and the worst culprits are not those with livestock or mixed farms...its the arable ones.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby michaelb » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:29 pm

Simon E. wrote:So is modern day vegetable and grain production.
Its the modern production methods that are destructive.
I spent 8 years living in a part of the UK which until 25 years ago was rich in wildlife...bird, mammal, and reptilian.
Large parts of it now are a monocultural desert of denatured grains and fields of vegetables..and the worst culprits are not those with livestock or mixed farms...its the arable ones.

What do the livestock eat? Do they not eat the grain and beet grown on arable farms?
michaelb
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:33 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:So you have no problem with killing living beings?
or that you are feeding into the demand for meat which gives the Butcher houses the incentive to supply it for you.
What if it was you instead of the cows being caged and killed for your flesh?


I have already answered that, way back somewhere in this so called "debate"
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:38 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.”

Yes, we do have a choice.


I think that Thich Nhat Hahn is making a massive oversimplification.


I think the statement is massively simple but at the same time does accurately reflect and summarize the complex situation. Modern day animal agriculture is extremely destructive to the environment.


Yes that is true. However, it is not true that eating meat necessarily adds to that. That really depends upon the source of the meat that one eats. Eating meat from commercial feed lots is very destructive, as opposed to pasture raised, strictly grass fed beef and dairy which does not depend on grain which is not environmentally destructive at all. If we wish to stem environmentally destructive meat, it is simple enough to change from industrially produced meat to locally produced meat. However, that also requires changing our plant consumption from industrial agriculture too. As i have pointed out many times, industrial level organic farming absolutely requires animal concentrates at levels possible only because of industrial levels of animal husbandry and slaughter.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:42 pm

michaelb wrote:
Simon E. wrote:So is modern day vegetable and grain production.
Its the modern production methods that are destructive.
I spent 8 years living in a part of the UK which until 25 years ago was rich in wildlife...bird, mammal, and reptilian.
Large parts of it now are a monocultural desert of denatured grains and fields of vegetables..and the worst culprits are not those with livestock or mixed farms...its the arable ones.

What do the livestock eat? Do they not eat the grain and beet grown on arable farms?

You have a remarkable propensity to miss the point.
The point being that ecological damage caused by modern farming methods is not restricted to livestock farmers.
The potatoes and cabbages and cauliflowers and wheat which are creating a monocultural desert in the West of the UK are not being grown for livestock feed.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby michaelb » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:52 pm

Simon E. wrote:You have a remarkable propensity to miss the point.
I just like hearing your voice through your words, as it were, Simon. I missed your contributions here on DW while you were away.
In my opinion, the best way to reduce the damage done by agriculture and humans generally is cannibalism.
michaelb
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:58 pm

michaelb wrote:In my opinion, the best way to reduce the damage done by agriculture and humans generally is cannibalism.


:twothumbsup: except most people are so full of all those nasty drugs.... it would be hard to find a truly "organic" human.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:05 pm

Simon E. wrote:To whit, I do give a damn about those who have an interest in Dharma being made to feel excluded by what they have in their sandwiches.


Oh, I see. But is anyone arguing that meat-eaters aren't proper Buddhists? It seems like another straw-man to me.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:10 pm

Simon E. wrote:So is modern day vegetable and grain production.
Its the modern production methods that are destructive.


That may well be so. But eating meat means that we add the destructive affects of modern day animal agriculture, not to mention the suffering of the animals involved.
And feeding people grain is much more efficient than feeding grain to animals then eating the animals.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:22 pm

michaelb wrote:In my opinion, the best way to reduce the damage done by agriculture and humans generally is cannibalism.


Are you volunteering yourself as a food source? :tongue:
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:17 pm

porpoise wrote:
Simon E. wrote:So is modern day vegetable and grain production.
Its the modern production methods that are destructive.


That may well be so. But eating meat means that we add the destructive affects of modern day animal agriculture, not to mention the suffering of the animals involved.
And feeding people grain is much more efficient than feeding grain to animals then eating the animals.

No that is non sequitur. Eating meat produced by traditional farming methods would not add to the destructive effects of modern arable farming. They would be grass and hay fed.
Feeding people grain would be more efficient ? Maybe, IF they want to eat grain as a major part of their diet.
And the vast majority of the population of the developed world do not.
So producing more grain would be most INefficient.
As it is the E.U. has vast stores of grain in its coffers..the so-called ' grain mountain.' No one wants it.
It is stored for a time to keep the price up, and then destroyed in vast quantities.
People should want to eat what YOU deem right. But they don't.
Last edited by Simon E. on Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby michaelb » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:20 pm

porpoise wrote:
michaelb wrote:In my opinion, the best way to reduce the damage done by agriculture and humans generally is cannibalism.


Are you volunteering yourself as a food source? :tongue:

Not enough of me and a bit too chewy, I imagine, but in principle, yes. Maybe a lottery type system where everyone gets a ticket and the weekly draw could let you know if your number's up. You could halve the world human population in no time and massively cut down on greenhouse gasses and other factors that damage the environment. With 6 billion of us you wouldn't need to farm or hunt. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.
michaelb
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby michaelb » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:27 pm

Simon E. wrote:Eating meat produced by traditional farming methods would not add to the destructive effects of modern arable farming. They would be grass and hay fed.
Does anyone just feed livestock grass and hay? Do pigs and chickens eat grass? I thought, due to lack of space and the weather, even 'organic' cattle are kept inside for at least a few months a year and fed soya, bonemeal and stuff made from chicken feathers. Non-organic livestock are fed GM soya, of course as well as a bunch of other odd stuff (chickens are already cannibals, for example.)
michaelb
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:36 pm

In the UK at least it is possible to buy grass fed beef pork and lamb which is fed during the winter on hay and organic vegetable matter. Just as it has been for centuries.
Its expensive. Which means for most people a reduction in the amount of meat they eat per week or month.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby michaelb » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:48 pm

Simon E. wrote:In the UK at least it is possible to buy grass fed beef pork and lamb which is fed during the winter on hay and organic vegetable matter. Just as it has been for centuries.
Its expensive. Which means for most people a reduction in the amount of meat they eat per week or month.

Not sustainable for large scale consumption, then? I don't have a dog in this fight, as such, but I think eating foods that have a reduced environmental impact seems sensible. Obviously, the only real way to solve this problem is a mass cull or sterilisation programme of humans. We need another Spanish 'flu, bubonic plague or small pox epidemic.
michaelb
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asbestos Buddha, Bing [Bot], Inge, Lhug-Pa, palchi and 13 guests

>