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 IshNavaya » Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:26 pm

I have always detested meat, but I grew up with the age-old adage that children must eat what they're given because "kids are starving in Africa." I loved wheat products, though, and juice, but they always made me throw up. In my teens, I refused to eat meat of any kind unless I was actually so hungry I couldn't stand not to eat something. I was one of those weird kids who ate all my veggies and was told to finish my meat. Needless to say, my relationship to food was rocky. For a long time, I hated it because my reactions were so strong.

I have spoken to my root teacher about diet extensively, and he told me that he had the same problem in his youth. He suggested that I pay close attention to the signals of my body and that he had to really work to overcome his aversion to eating things because they were once alive. He theorized that it was a kind of manifestation of residual memory from a past life.

As I study the lam rim, I have come to regard food with near indifference, which is a huge improvement to hatred and disgust. Because I was curious, I asked my family doc about it, and they ran a few tests. It amazed me to find that I have an enzyme deficiency because my pancreas does not produce the proper enzymes for my body to break down wheat and possibly other proteins.

I could take medicine and eat the meat at this point if necessary for my survival or health, but I have chosen to be vegetarian and gluten free because it is cheaper and more convenient. Taking a pill just to eat things I didn't necessarily care for anyway seemed pointless. Rice, veggies, and fruits are relatively inexpensive and require little preparation, as I usually consume the veggies raw, but every now and again I sauté or steam them if I get a little bored... I eat because it is necessary. Some people might think the diet boring, but it suits me. When I do eat out, I order sides of veggies and rice or a baked potato. Then I drink a protein drink when I get home.

This way of eating is truly beneficial for me. My thoughts are clearer and my energy has improved exponentially. However, what works for me may not work for others. Every path is different.

I work to dispell my aversion to meat, as I often cannot even bear the smell of it cooking. This emotion of dislike is informative, certainly, but it creates negativity within me. I have gotten to the point where I can smell the meat cooking without becoming I'll, but I still have serious problems preparing meat for my carnivorous friends and family, so they eat veggies and skittles when they come to my house.

I know I need to overcome this, but it is really difficult. The idea of touching, cooking, or even interacting with dead flesh is repugnant. Any suggestions on how to mentally alter my responses about this? If it is necessary, I should be able to prepare and even consume meat to survive, and I'd rather not be sick at the thought.

Because we are lucky enough to live in a society where we can be picky eaters, any diet that suffices and gives one enough energy to accomplish his or her spiritual goals is, in my opinion, acceptable. However, using dogma to either justify or forbid meat consumption seems to miss the point. Maybe the debate is akin to the argument of how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin. It's not about the angels or the pin because the real issue concerns understanding your personal intent and perceptions.

So, I'm going to stop rambling now. Thank you for reading them, if you finished this. :thanks: Have a peaceful day.
IshNavaya
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:59 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:23 pm

edearl wrote:
Nemo wrote:Do you mean Campbell's book on it or the actual study. In the actual China Study participants heart disease was inversely related to meat intake. Those who ate the least meat, who were most likely the poorest of peasants, had more heart disease.

Some correlations in the study between food intakes and heart disease;

Plant protein has a correlation of 0.21 with heart disease (positive)
Non-fish animal protein has a correlation of 0.01 with heart disease (neutral)
Fish protein has a correlation of -0.11 with heart disease (inverse)
Meat intake has a correlation of -0.28 with heart disease (strongly inverse)
Fish intake has a correlation of -0.15 with heart disease (inverse)
Egg intake has a correlation of -0.13 with heart disease (inverse)
Wheat has a correlation of 0.67 with heart disease(The highest correlation of all.)

The study is only correlations. There is a correlation between ice cream intake and sunburns. Does ice cream cause sunburns?

Every piece of science used in the movie is so misleading and presented so inaccuratley as to be fraudulent. It's slickly produced propaganda. So far the correlations of health befits from a veggie diet are negligible. You'll have to find another better reason to give up eating animals.


I do not have a copy of the book, and cannot comment about your interpretation. However, my health has significantly improved since becoming vegan only 3 months ago, including my cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, eye sight, neuropathy, and chronic neuropathic pain.


I think that is the best thing to go on. What works for you, keep doing that. IshNavaya gets sick if he eats grains, you are adapted to an agricultural diet. I thrive on what my Nordic ancestors ate. Once the mechanisms of our particular physiology are understood you can start breaking out of the bubble of genetic predetermination. My body is weak at converting essential amino acids into other more complex ones in sufficient quantities to meet my physical requirements. So I supplement with those amino compounds and can save a few animals without damaging my health.

We know very little. Dr. Campbell and people who say things like Hitler was not a "real" vegetarian are zealots. They have no wish for facts or unbiased inquiry. Campbell uses 45 year old studies that did not even support his theories under closer examination. Hitler called himself a vegetarian. I don't care if he cheated once and ate a schnitzel. By those standards I only know a single vegetarian. He is a Brahmin from Sri Lanka who has never eaten meat since birth. Everyone else is just a meat eater putting on airs.

Without critical inquiry we will not learn more. Considering we do not even understand blood types* we cannot regress into dogma. Don't let yourself be indoctrinated by shysters like Campbell even if they have cool movies. I know how it happens. I was a veggie back in the 80's and looked like a chemo patient after a few years. By negating your own intuition and elevating opinions to coveted beliefs and using the pseudonym "science" for these beliefs you can quickly destroy your health and longevity. You also become a terrible advert for your cause. There were so many unhealthy looking vegans back then. They looked one flu away from the hospital.

*New blood types discovered;
http://www.sciencecodex.com/blood_mystery_solved-86712
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Nemo » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:43 pm

Try supplementing with 1 gram of carnitine a day. Only costs 8$ a bottle. Tell me how it went after a month :cheers:
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Clarence » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:36 pm

Nemo,

What benefits would a vegetarian get from that?

Thanks, C
Clarence
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Nemo » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:15 pm

Carnitine is used by the body to convert fat to energy in the mitochondria. It is only derived in sufficient quantities from meat. The amounts in veggies are negligible. Many people can synthesize their own from the ten essential aminos. 1 in 40,000 are so poor at protein synthesis that they can die from carnitine deficiency. Others only show trouble in times of metabolic stress. It is well documented that pregnant women often become carnitine deficient. Since ethnic groups from non agricultural areas rarely need to master carnitine synthesis it would be wise to consider supplementing. It is very cheap. 8$ for a bottle containing 35 grams. When I go all veg I go from 500g a day to a full gram. I am rather excited about this as it took 20 years of tinkering to figure it out. I get terribly ill without it. I get exhausted in a few days. I crave sugar and exhibit many of the symptoms of low blood sugar. Though when tested my blood sugar is always fine. I ahve not experimented with carnosine yet, but that may be beneficial as well. I hope that the science progresses to the point that with a few supplements a veggie diet really is healthier than an omnivorous one.

In Canada it is currently prescription only due to the fact that certain brands sold in health food stores were of questionable purity and deficient persons were getting very ill. Health Canada will now allow carnitine to be sold only if they guarantee pharmaceutical purity. None have come forward to pay for testing last time I checked.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Clarence » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:38 pm

Thanks for that. Very interesting. I am glad I found Nemo. :smile:
Clarence
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm

Re: Veganism

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:09 am

tobes wrote:...
However, my particular problem with that reasoning, is that it fails to adequately account for the range of different moral theories which people subscribe to, and often tacitly assumes that other people do not have sufficient ethical positions on the question of animals and meat eating.

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

:anjali:


First the original post is obviously a troll(only posted that anti-vegan anecdote and never was seen again), but I had to reply to this since it is such a morally and philosophically weak position typical of our society.

You cannot equate the desire of a sentient being to live and avoid suffering, that is to not die, with not offending the feelings of some meat-eater. Sure the animal is already dead, but by abstaining you show the meat-eaters about you that other ways are possible, that you can live, eat, and thrive having animals murdered against their will. My going vegan has resulted in my friends and family serving more meatless dishes. What you are saying has nothing to do with balance or not being self-centered. Hardly anyone was raised vegan, I wasn't, I went through a process that made me question my self-centeredness and identify externally with the victimization of animals my diet caused. Being self-centered is killing several hundred animals each year that didn't want or have to die just for the pleasure of your palate. Being self-centered is taking the easy option and eating whatever is there because it is most convenient. I am pretty sure where most people on this forum live there are not many readily available venues and prepared food that is vegan.

What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: Veganism

Postby tobes » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:49 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
tobes wrote:...
However, my particular problem with that reasoning, is that it fails to adequately account for the range of different moral theories which people subscribe to, and often tacitly assumes that other people do not have sufficient ethical positions on the question of animals and meat eating.

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

:anjali:


First the original post is obviously a troll(only posted that anti-vegan anecdote and never was seen again), but I had to reply to this since it is such a morally and philosophically weak position typical of our society.

You cannot equate the desire of a sentient being to live and avoid suffering, that is to not die, with not offending the feelings of some meat-eater. Sure the animal is already dead, but by abstaining you show the meat-eaters about you that other ways are possible, that you can live, eat, and thrive having animals murdered against their will. My going vegan has resulted in my friends and family serving more meatless dishes. What you are saying has nothing to do with balance or not being self-centered. Hardly anyone was raised vegan, I wasn't, I went through a process that made me question my self-centeredness and identify externally with the victimization of animals my diet caused. Being self-centered is killing several hundred animals each year that didn't want or have to die just for the pleasure of your palate. Being self-centered is taking the easy option and eating whatever is there because it is most convenient. I am pretty sure where most people on this forum live there are not many readily available venues and prepared food that is vegan.

What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.


With respect, I find the hard consequentialist moral logic at play here to be far more morally problematic than the act of eating offered meat that would otherwise be thrown away, or abstaining from eating the meat, but without intending to convert the other eaters to your moral position.

The reason I find it morally problematic, is because it takes a situation which is ontologically social - the sharing of a meal - and imposes a strongly individualistic morality upon that situation, on the explicit predication that this individualistic morality is a/ automatically established as morally superior and b/ that the demonstration of that moral superiority will or at least should influence the other inferior moral actors.

My claim here is that if there is an open and frank discussion of ethics taking place - complete with whiteboards and arguments and Buddhist, Kantian or Utilitarian reasoning available - well, fine. How wonderous to think seriously about ethics, and how great to have a place in which to assert one's particular ethical view. Certainly a kind of sphere in which it is justified to make an argument for why view x is more superior than view y. And perhaps, particularly if one is a Kantian, for why everyone ought to adopt it.

However, a dinner table, in which one is a guest, is not a philosophy department. It is a not a place to attack other peoples moral viewpoint, and certainly not a place to tacitly assume not only the superiority of ones own viewpoint, but that it's so obviously superior that all others should adopt it.

That is simply moral totalitarianism.

So I could grant you that abstaining from the meat politely is in many respects virtuous; but to do so with the active intention of coverting others to the cause offends against their moral autonomy and only establishes an attitude of unfounded moral superiority.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Veganism

Postby tobes » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:07 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.


As for this - well, I'm not sure that I've given the particulars of my own view yet. Nonetheless, I have argued explicitly against the pivot of "consumer choice" which is precisely the logic of utility and consequentialism I have attacked. The moral logic of veganism invariably hangs on utilitarian reasoning - which is predicated on individual choice making (incidently, the same predication utilised by orthodox economics, and practiced by consumers) - Peter Singer is perhaps the most vocal and influential proponent for the ethics of veganism, and he is a dyed in the wool utilitarian.

My own view is one which privileges the social context in which our ethical actions take place - a communal context, not an individualist one. It does not deny the causal reality of animals, nor of humans, nor any of the true consequences which ensue (although I think we need to be humble about assuming we can know consequences before they arise). In the example given in this thread, the suffering of the animal has been taken into account.

I suppose the question for you is: why do you infer that eating the offered meat in situation 1, necessarily leads to more animal suffering in future situations?

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Veganism

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:13 pm

You can dress it up any bs mustard you want, but you equate the life of an animal, that granted already died, with the mere "feelings" of a society of humans living in a selfish, life exhausting manner. When you refuse someone's meat dish, they don't throw it away, they usually just put it in the refrigerator or more likely, they know you are a real vegan, so they don't even offer you any. Ultimately if someone cares about you, they will accommodate you. There is no real such thing as a meat-eater anyway, like say how a cat is one and can only eat meat and not even digest plants. Even the people who eat meat don't solely center their diet on it and when they do partake in meat they dress it up with spices, bread and vegetable to make it palatable. Thus you can just eat their side dishes.

When you are a strict vegan it exerts a rippling influence on those around you that saves more animal lives. If you eat based on not offending people, then you contribute to an industry that as this book title describes Animal machines: The new factory farming industry, reduces living beings to a mere industrial input meant to be maximized for profit. A problem I have with many Buddhists is they make all sorts of weird, overly reaching justifications and ignore the actual impact of the social systems that exist. You think your interpretations of philosophy or Buddhism can trump a knowledge of the modern livestock industries. You have never seen a fictional horror movie that can begin to describe the unimaginable suffering of livestock raised raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO). Their horror-show lives of human imposed efficiency is what has allowed most Westerners to afford meat every meal, everyday if desired, rather than on rare occasions as before. You think people have an anthropocentric sort of right to not be offended that is above the lives of billions of suffering animals that never get to experience or act on any of their natural inclinations, to ensconce people in a mentality where they should never face a potential slight. Ultimately the people wanting to serve a vegan like me meat have a choice, the dead animals they chose to serve didn't have any. Veganism is about taking a lifestyle choice that recognizes that other beings don't/didn't/can't ever choose to die for your tongue, gullet and stomach's benefit.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: Veganism

Postby tobes » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:57 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:You can dress it up any bs mustard you want, but you equate the life of an animal, that granted already died, with the mere "feelings" of a society of humans living in a selfish, life exhausting manner. When you refuse someone's meat dish, they don't throw it away, they usually just put it in the refrigerator or more likely, they know you are a real vegan, so they don't even offer you any. Ultimately if someone cares about you, they will accommodate you. There is no real such thing as a meat-eater anyway, like say how a cat is one and can only eat meat and not even digest plants. Even the people who eat meat don't solely center their diet on it and when they do partake in meat they dress it up with spices, bread and vegetable to make it palatable. Thus you can just eat their side dishes.

When you are a strict vegan it exerts a rippling influence on those around you that saves more animal lives. If you eat based on not offending people, then you contribute to an industry that as this book title describes Animal machines: The new factory farming industry, . A problem I have with many Buddhists is they make all sorts of weird, overly reaching justifications and ignore the actual impact of the social systems that exist. You think your interpretations of philosophy or Buddhism can trump a knowledge of the modern livestock industries. You have never seen a fictional horror movie that can begin to describe the unimaginable suffering of livestock raised raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO). Their horror-show lives of human imposed efficiency is what has allowed most Westerners to afford meat every meal, everyday if desired, rather than on rare occasions as before. You think people have an anthropocentric sort of right to not be offended that is above the lives of billions of suffering animals that never get to experience or act on any of their natural inclinations, to ensconce people in a mentality where they should never face a potential slight. Ultimately the people wanting to serve a vegan like me meat have a choice, the dead animals they chose to serve didn't have any. Veganism is about taking a lifestyle choice that recognizes that other beings don't/didn't/can't ever choose to die for your tongue, gullet and stomach's benefit.



How about you actually deal with my arguments?

I am not defending factory farming, and nor am I defending the status quo of existent social structures.

I simply asserted a contextual and particularist ethical response to a hypothetical situation - it's not weird or over reaching to infer that when meat has already been served to you, your actions do not have any consequential effect on the deceased animal. And that therefore, your ethical priority ought to be the consideration of the sentient beings in your immanence and immediacy.

I think that your ethics prioritises animals over humans. I do not assert that it should be the contrary - but rather that both need to be considered carefully.

To put this point clearly, I am reminded of a class I used to teach which dealt with the issue of sweatshops in China and other places. When I asked 'who is usually prepared to pay more for free range eggs rather than battery hen eggs?' Almost everyone, possibly everyone, raised their hands.

Then I asked 'who is usually prepared to pay more for non-sweatshop produced clothing such as t-shirts and jeans?'

Maybe one or two people raised their hands.

Ergo: we are more concerned about chickens in situations which, as you put it "reduces living beings to a mere industrial input meant to be maximized for profit" than we are humans.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Veganism

Postby Nemo » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:58 pm

I would agree with your views on Vegans. Freegans have the moral high ground IMO, especially if they eat discarded meat. Vegans are often zealots with notions of purity and superiority to the rest of society that come off as childish and self absorbed. In reality most people think of them as in the same light as Jehovah's Witness's, but not as nice smelling.

Though I find Freeganism disgusting(dumpster snacking) I do give them their due. That is a Bodhisattva lifestyle.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Veganism

Postby tobes » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:03 am

Nemo wrote:I would agree with your views on Vegans. Freegans have the moral high ground IMO, especially if they eat discarded meat. Vegans are often zealots with notions of purity and superiority to the rest of society that come off as childish and self absorbed. In reality most people think of them as in the same light as Jehovah's Witness's, but not as nice smelling.

Though I find Freeganism disgusting(dumpster snacking) I do give them their due. That is a Bodhisattva lifestyle.


Freeganism is pretty cool, although I'm not a practitioner myself....

For the record, I'm not making any kind of comment on Vegans per se. They come in many forms - some admirable and some zealots. I suppose what I'm questioning is the coherency of Veganism, as a moral....what should we call it?.....a moral-political movement which universalises its position.

I would be tempted to characterise it as an ideology - in the sense that it kind of demands absolute fidelity, it (often but not always) strongly shapes personal identity, it seeks to make the world conform to it, and there are elements which inhere within it which are quite irrational.

As an example of the latter, Veganism holds that harvesting honey from a bee hive is morally wrong because the producer (i.e. the bee) is exploited - but has nothing at all to say about situations where human producers are exploited. It seems to me that if you abstain from commodities where there is animal exploitation involved, you are logically committed to abstaining from just about every commodity available in the marketplace. Humans are a kind of animal too.....

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Veganism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:27 am

Whereas choosing to eat corpses is not ideologically based, it is not a moral-political movement, it is not irrational? Its logic is not purely anthropocentric? It is based on a coherent and intelligent analysis? Workers in the meat industry are not exploited and destroyed both physucally and psychologically by their work?

Yeah, right!

Anyway, what in tarnations does working in sweatshops have to do with choosing not to eat and utilise animal products???

Sorry Tobes, but the fancy and academic nature of your language does not sucessfully cover up the weakness of your arguments.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Veganism

Postby catmoon » Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:44 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Anyway, what in tarnations does working in sweatshops have to do with choosing not to eat and utilise animal products???




They are both exploitation. One exploits people, the other exploits animals. If one's ethics do not allow harming others for one's own benefit, then neither is permitted.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Veganism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:19 pm

Sorry, but the last time I looked we didn't hang sweat shop labourers up by their legs, slit their throat and pull out their intestines while they were still alive, in order to satisfy our palate. At least not the last time I checked we didn't.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Veganism

Postby Dechen Norbu » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:57 pm

No, but for instance:
What do pesticide active ingredients do?

Insects have a nervous system similar to mammals. Their nervous system is made up of nerve cells that pass an impulse from one point, to the brain, then illicit a response back to that sensory point. Many pesticides exploit the system's "shut off valve", meaning the impulses continue to fire over and over (or in some cases never start).

Imagine feeling pain never stops, hunger pains that don't go away, or even the smallest sensations that just compile and compile and compile on top of each other. Eventually, the pest becomes over loaded and dies because their organs and nervous system shut down.

In some cases, as mentioned above, the pesticide's active ingredients may keep nerve impulses from ever firing. This includes the impulses that are vital to keep organs working (triggering the heart beat for example).

And
Seven of the most toxic chemical compounds know to man are approved for use as pesticides in the production of foods! Who approved them? A multinational organization called The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). It was formed in 1963 from a cooperative effort between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Their overall objective was "…to protect the health of the consumer and ensure fair practices." The intent of the original 172 nations involved in this effort was to develop a set of food guidelines, standards, and codes of practice. It was to be an international endeavor to promote safety in food. In spite of their stated consumer protection responsibilities, the CAC approved toxic chemicals for use on our crops. These toxins are referred to as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP's). They're called persistent because they are not easily removed from the environment.

Pesticides can be toxic to humans and lower animals. It can take a small amount of some toxins to kill. And other toxins that are slower acting, may take a long time to cause harm to the human body.

Pesticide production can be dangerous, too. One disaster at a pesticide manufacturing plant was in Bhopal, India. The plant accidentally released 40 tons of an intermediate chemical gas, methyl isocyanate, used to produce some pesticides. In that disaster, nearly 3,000 people were killed immediately, overall approximately 15,000 deaths occurred. Today nearly 100,000 people suffer from mild to severe permanent damage as a result of that disaster.¹

In China, it's estimated that 500,000 people suffer pesticide poisoning annually, and some 500 of them die.

Children seem to be greatly susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides. The Natural Resource Defense Council has collected data which recorded higher incidence of childhood leukemia, brain cancer and birth defects. These results correlated with early exposure to pesticides.


Let's not forget child and slave labour in agriculture, how exploitation and abuse stalks migrant workers even in the west and so on and so forth.



Unless we all go Organic, which for the time being is an utopia (the world would starve), we're bound to generate suffering. Even if we go Organic, pest control will generate suffering (excruciating in some cases). A lot of suffering.

Nobody is off the hook, whether eating veggies or meat. Let's keep that in mind so that we don't have smart-arsses here thinking their ethics is superior.
Each time we feed ourselves, we are feeding upon the suffering of countless beings. That's the most important lesson, if you ask me. Not splitting hairs about what causes more suffering, since in fact the amount of suffering caused in all cases is so huge that in my own case I recently came to the conclusion that it is futile to keep those debates going.

Besides, this is not the adequate sub forum to debate this usse, so let's get :focus:
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Veganism

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:21 pm

So you are still arguing that as long as the murder of the animal was already done:
a) you are not co-participating by taking the flesh
b) the system that the animal was brought up in that not only kills it but treats it as an animal industrial input has no bearing and is irrelevant, despite that is ONLY reason why the average person in the West can partake in it so often, and offer it to you
c) the feelings of the people who don't care about how their food came to them matters most

You can justify so many crimes by saying the deed was already done, I don't want to offend the person next to me who doesn't want to care. Also the authoritarian type of social power you excercise/d as a teacher by its nature involves/d more dictating positions to much more people than I could manage in my whole life, if I even tried. People generally don't want to be told what to learn and then given a performance value: A - F or 100/100 or 50/100. This is the type of conundrum that emerges when you ignore systems theory, that people operate in social systems, not as individual wannabe bodhisattvas(which even in Buddhism few practitioners will be). I just let people around me know I don't do drugs or eat animal products, simple as that. Your actions always do have interdependent effects on those around you and being a strict vegan not scared to offend people does effect animals and the livestock industries. And it has consequences: IE: my family just make more of the countless national dishes of the type our own family used to make back when their country was poorer and they rarely eat meat, saving more lives, supporting the livestock industries less. In private, never in group, my burnout friends admit they are sick of using drugs to numb themselves all the time. One of my friends who does not care about veganism semi-often goes together with me to local vegan venues. So you save more animals in the future through the rippling effects caused simply by personally refusing meat. Veganism formed as a response during a time when meat for the first time became a year long, constant possibility for even many of the poorer classes in Western societies, and it is a response against the system that allows this. To say that veganism has nothing to say about human exploitation is ridiculous, because it is not a total system(like apparently many here take Buddhism to be) it is just a ethical dietary movement and you could say it is also part of the animal liberation movement.

@Dechen:
In the country I live, the USA, 80-90 percent of major grains and corn go to feed livestock. Not to mention it creates lots of fecal waste that does not have to be processed and is dumped raw into pits and directly in waterways. Also it takes 12,000 gallons of water for a pound of beef versus 100-200 hundred gallons for a pound of vegetable matter. You can contribute to less suffering, less resource waste by going vegetarian, vegan than by eating organic meat. I don't know how you can equivalate the two when it takes so much more suffering and resources to grow one than the other.
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: Veganism

Postby Dechen Norbu » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:00 pm

Let's :focus: please.
There's a thread for this discussion and it's not this one. See: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213
This is the Alternative Health forum. Saying veganism is a healthy diet is going on a limp, whatever the personal ethic considerations one has about it.
It's hard to find a nutritionist or a doctor that says veganism is a diet without risks. It's not. One has to be well informed and not everyone is suited to follow such diet by a myriad of factors.
Thanks.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Veganism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:06 pm

What do pesticide active ingredients do?... (triggering the heart beat for example).

And
Seven of the most toxic chemical compounds ...Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP's). They're called persistent because they are not easily removed from the environment ...results correlated with early exposure to pesticides.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the inalid comparison between slaughter houses and sweat shops. Like absolutley nothing...

And anyway, organic farming utilises organic pesticides, so... AND the boring old (and invalid) point that vegetable production causes death when we all know that animal feed used in the meat idnustry is also grown utilising insecticides and fertilisers... ie the killing is multiplied, well... you are right the huge thread regarding vegetarianism has recycled these arguments a million times.

PS To say (as Tobes did) that veganism is wrong because some vegans don't support an end to sweat shop labour, well that's just plain silly.
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Indrajala, KonchokZoepa, M.G. and 27 guests

>