Beyond Carnism and towards Rational, Authentic Food Choices

ren wrote:

Her views are not sentiocentrist. If by sentiocentrist you mean "things that are self-aware" then nearly all animals don't qualify- certainly not birds or fish. Her views are suffer-centric. Her argument is that untold suffering is inflicted upon billions of animals a year and if one were compassionate then one would consider such suffering before making a decision about whether to eat meat.

Plants do not suffer pain, that is a fallacy of false comparison.

I am not comparing plants to animals. I am complaining about people like her (and you) who do so. I think both plants and animals are alive and worth it, and consume them based on their value as food, not on whether they share many or few characteristics with me.

You might want to take a break from those anthropocentric lectures you go to and have a bite of the first "jedi believe" line.

For me at least, its not about being anthropocentric but rather viewing things for that food value 'and' additionally asserting some empathy to the capacity for suffering that might be experienced as a result of that.

I understand pain might be experienced differently by different organism's, some spiders will let themselves be eaten just to mate, but it does seem pretty common that pain represents a negative outcome to most complex lifeforms.

Basically do unto others as you'd do onto yourself, and I know for sure I wouldn't want to be bred to be fed to something else, no matter how painlessly it was done. In actuality I tend to view the opinion of putting ones food requirements above and over the animals same rights one would have for themselves as much more anthropocentric!!

Adder wrote: Basically do unto others as you'd do onto yourself, and I know for sure I wouldn't want to be bred to be fed to something else, no matter how painlessly it was done. In actuality I tend to view the opinion of putting ones food requirements above and over the animals same rights one would have for themselves as much more anthropocentric!!

but we are bred to be fed to something else... the alien overlords that seeded earth with us...when they come to harvest we must fight :dry: :lol: :woohoo: :silly: :whistle:

RyuJin wrote:

Adder wrote: Basically do unto others as you'd do onto yourself, and I know for sure I wouldn't want to be bred to be fed to something else, no matter how painlessly it was done. In actuality I tend to view the opinion of putting ones food requirements above and over the animals same rights one would have for themselves as much more anthropocentric!!

but we are bred to be fed to something else... the alien overlords that seeded earth with us...when they come to harvest we must fight :dry: :lol: :woohoo: :silly: :whistle:

Cute ...

... yet, what Ryu said is very true. Those "alien overlords" are the microbial bacteria which decompose us when we die of whatever cause ... They are "alien" because we do not see them and have only known about them - intellectually, 'mind' you - since the advent of the microscope. When we run across a corpse of whatever species covered with fungus and maggots and the like (sorry, not trying to be gross here :blink: ), those are the things that are "feeding" on those 'overlords' ... then the birds and rodents come along and feed on them ... and so forth. Whatever is left decays into the Earth where it lay and 'nourishes' the soil to be 'eaten' then by the flora ...

... see where I'm going with that ?

Life itself is self-sustaining and self-organising. Thus, as living organisms naturally occurring in a naturally occurring environment, we are part of the food chain. And though we believe that we are no longer "prey" for "predators", this is a delusion, for it is only our social organisation that makes one of us getting eaten somewhat rare, but it remains that there are predatory animals which would indeed eat us. :pinch:

Now, one or several species breeding us expressly for food like humans do to several other species -- well, that doesn't happen really yet (not that we are aware of). Of course, one could make the analogy of the predatory tendencies of the financial/banking/corporate cartels to indirect breeding for feeding ... Yet, in that case it is human beings herding other human beings. :whistle:

ren wrote: I am not comparing plants to animals. I am complaining about people like her (and you) who do so. I think both plants and animals are alive and worth it, and consume them based on their value as food, not on whether they share many or few characteristics with me.

You might want to take a break from those anthropocentric lectures you go to and have a bite of the first "jedi believe" line.

You consume plants and animals based on their value as food? That is not treating beings based on their inherent worth, that is treating beings as a means to an end.

Anthropocentric? Anthropocentrism is thinking that humans are somehow inherently superior to other species. The recognition of shared traits and characteristics between humans and animals is the first step to putting humans and animals on equal footing; just as the recognition of shared traits and characteristics between white ruling classes and black african slaves was the first step to putting both ethnicities on equal footing.

Empathy is not judging someone else based on your values, empathy is judging yourself based on your values. If you have a value such as compassion (you want to reduce suffering for instance), but only treat humans compassionately, then your exlcusion of other beings - despite the fact that you would never subject a human to the same treatment you do an animal - is logically inconsistent, because you are not universalising your rule, you are creating arbitrary exceptions to it based on preconceived or inhereted prejudice.

If you believe you should reduce suffering then you should reduce all instances of suffering. If you see an instance of suffering but do not reduce it "because they are animals", or rather "because they are not humans" then you are only arbitrarily applying your own rule to one particular group. That is prejudice and anthropocentric.

If you wish to reduce suffering then you should reduce all instances of suffering. This is a change from reducing suffering "because these humans suffer" to reducing suffering "because there is suffering" - which includes all animals as well as humans. That puts us on equal footing and is the opposite of anthropocentrism.

long-pig anyone? :lol:

a child is born and raised to adulthood. this person dies and becomes carrion for the various "lower lifeforms". these lifeforms get eaten by "higher lifeforms". each level eaten by a level above it until the "highest lifeforms" die and become carrion for the "lower lifeforms"...such is the circle of life...humans are the only species that actively tries to remove itself from this circle, seeing themselves as "superior" in some way...lets face it if it wasn't for our intelligence we would be much lower on the food chain...we have no claws, we have no fangs (usually)....no natural weaponry other than our mind...we should be cattle yet we're not...

agent k: "go on then EAT ME!!, EAT ME!!!!"

this is touched upon in the joseph c vids in the buffalo princess myth

what i specifically agree with in her ideas is the level of awareness of what we do
to live in willing obliviousness of the implications of our decisions and behaviors is inappropriate for anybody, most especially a jedi

Adder wrote: A lot of different opinions about eating meat around but I like her attempt to produce the talk from mindfulness about action. I tend to agree with her, and don't think plant's are the same thing if they don't have a neural plexus and associated processing capabilities to house even a rudimentary sentience. Instead plant actions seemingly being more like a direct chemical and electrical signalling in response to stimulus.

i consider plants to breath, to move, to battle with each other, and even to bleed.

that they are sentient is to me a natural expectation

all life is equally alive
to assume that this type of life is less or more than that type oflife is the heart of what makes human beings so dysfunctional imo

doesnt mean we shouldnt eat
it means imo that we should have respect and even a sense of reverence for the natural system
by extension we respect our own place within it

as far as eating meat or not eating meat,
most of the food industry in america is irresponsible and unhealthy

i think it was daniel in the bible took an all plant diet and it worked out well for him

i belive every person who does eat meat should engage once a year (at least) in actually killing and handling the meat that they eat

at the very least one must do this at some point in life imo

its not healthy to live at the expense of other life and not reognize what is happening

I'd say what has removed ourselves from the circle of life is that we have killed off or avoid natural predators, and claimed control (relatively) over how we live and how long we live (as long as possible usually).

So when we consume 'lower lifeforms' we are dictating both how they live and when they die - which is vastly different then how we treat our own lives. So even the microbe's that eat us when we die don't feed us up and choose when to kill us (usually) for their own food requirements, its just scavenging a disused meat suit.

I don't think it relates to how we choose to treat and kill lifeforms to support our culinary habits. So the circle of life argument is interesting, but I think it conveniently avoids the point that humans are exerting control over its environment to meet human needs, and what the lecture was discussing was being realistic about the impact of pandering to human needs, usually while oblivious to the real cost. I guess that is another downside of money, it's market 'value' distract us away from the real 'cost' and so we start seeing everything as a commodity because we've gotten so much control that anything is available for the right price. I guess she wants us to reevaluate our justifications within that system of easy acquisition, because its so open to abuse.... along the lines of where there is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

meat suit :ohmy: :lol: :woohoo: :silly: :whistle:

now that is funny

Love this conversation :lol:

I always thought it was funny that Mind eats Mind.. doesn't really matter if its this or that.. I'm sure golden retriever is mighty flavorful, but hey, that's a matter of taste.. :woohoo:

I'm not too sure about the "carnism" ideology (I wonder if she has ever hunted. Nothing invisible about that.) Sounds like she's making a blanket assumption about everyone. Also, her PETA style footage reminds me of a bigger question- how many mouths are we going to feed at one time? I DO like how she did the grassroots attack- by focusing our thoughts on bringing this up in conversations we share on a day-to-day basis. I think (responsible) farming is an excellent legacy of being human- a wonderful spiritual practice as well- and has nothing to do with domination or oppression, but responsibility. Perhaps if more of us localized our food production, some of her concerns might be addressed more "rationally".

All this reminds me of the first Buddhist "precept to not kill" and how its interesting that the meat vs. plant diet conversation comes up at each of the classes on this precept. After debating the pros and cons of either, the conversation takes a turn when the tables are pretty evenly stacked, and the question broadens with: "What is Killing"?

Which brings us to what Akkarin was saying about suffering. Your statements brought up oryoki for me. Especially as the woman says in the video- the "intimacy" of eating. This idea of "suffering" and our awareness of it when it comes to satisfying our most basic need- the intake of physical energy(s) brings me to a place where I can't help but see all things in this wondrous exchange of energy. I would say that this is (an aspect of?) the Force- this unified momentum where everything turns upon everything.

One bite- chew, chew, chew. Swallow.

Again.

Again.

Where is the Force in this? Or perhaps maybe, where NOT is the Force? I think there is where we may look in our meditations.

Thanks for the TED talk Akkarin

As for me, I'm 1/3 Ninja Turtle, so I HAVE to have pepperoni pizza- with anchovies :silly: :silly: :silly:

for some people...maybe it's best not to think about your food

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6KpTr9XeFc