Beyond Carnism and towards Rational, Authentic Food Choices

I think Carnism will gain massive awareness and will eventually be eradicated--or at least severely diminished--as the onset of climate change becomes more apparent. The super droughts that will affect the majority of the U.S. (the equivalent of the Dust Bowl during the Depression) will last for at least 35 years+ after 2050 and will start to become much more common. That means no water. Sea levels are rising and, coupled with the immense taxation on our resources from climate change, people will begin to starve from the lack of food supply. Major economic capitals are going to be underwater; the global economy will be hurting from the drastic effects of climate change. Finally, what's going to happen when the fossil fuels run out?

Raising livestock is vastly inefficient in land space, feed requirements for the livestock, water supply, and fossil fuels. When climate change brings its major catastrophes and makes life much, much more difficult, the shift from Carnism will be not only a demand of the moral qualities of humanity, but also of the free market. People need to eat. If they don't, they die. If there aren't enough resources to produce meat, then producing crops is the only viable alternative to sate one of the most basic human demands. It's either that or people are going to die off--not like they aren't already.

While I don't know the specifics--since I'm not a scientist and what not--about the effects of falling food supplies, I am almost sure of the fact that people will forsake meat in order to live. Carnism may never be fully eradicated, something that's probably impossible, but I strongly believe that the choice really won't be in our hands much longer. I, based on my personal morals, hurt spiritually from the pain and suffering of animals and humans alike. Carnism--literally--isn't efficient. It's not as efficient as veganism, at least.

Blanket Sources:

Akkarin wrote:

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.

Typical light jedi nonsense. Anthropocentrism is the belief that human characteristics make humans (and their points of view) superior. You classify life and non-life based on how many characteristics it shares with you, and that makes you anthropocentric. You're easy to spot, because you haven't even considered that something like the sun (something humans don't classify as "alive", despite being far more complex than any human has ever been) is far more important than any suffering any animal ever has or will feel, or that your dislike of "suffering" is entirely based on your misguided personal experience with it, going as far as having a desire to end it, as if it were some kind of evil. Yet every time someone's got the necessary amount of nukes to put a permanent end to suffering on earth, they chicken out. I wonder why that is?

J. K. Barger wrote: 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.)

All this reminds me of the first Buddhist "precept to not kill"

"What is Killing"?

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:

in a pot of boiling water, when bubbles burst is it because they have hurt each other?

i found your post very awesome to read, thank you

ren wrote: Typical light jedi nonsense. Anthropocentrism is the belief that human characteristics make humans (and their points of view) superior. You classify life and non-life based on how many characteristics it shares with you, and that makes you anthropocentric. You're easy to spot, because you haven't even considered that something like the sun (something humans don't classify as "alive", despite being far more complex than any human has ever been) is far more important than any suffering any animal ever has or will feel, or that your dislike of "suffering" is entirely based on your misguided personal experience with it, going as far as having a desire to end it, as if it were some kind of evil. Yet every time someone's got the necessary amount of nukes to put a permanent end to suffering on earth, they chicken out. I wonder why that is?

You seem to be making the claim that my like/dislike of suffering is based on my personal experience with it. If that is the case then how can you also say that the sun is important? Important for what? Life of all kinds? Well aren't you just thinking that because of your own personal experience and understanding of what "life" is?

I never said "end" suffering I said "reduce" suffering. I also didn't say that this sort of change would happen overnight, humans may always be eating meat of some kind, but given the choice between causing a lot of harm to something and causing very little or no harm to something, which choice would be more compassionate?

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: Typical light jedi nonsense. Anthropocentrism is the belief that human characteristics make humans (and their points of view) superior. You classify life and non-life based on how many characteristics it shares with you, and that makes you anthropocentric. You're easy to spot, because you haven't even considered that something like the sun (something humans don't classify as "alive", despite being far more complex than any human has ever been) is far more important than any suffering any animal ever has or will feel, or that your dislike of "suffering" is entirely based on your misguided personal experience with it, going as far as having a desire to end it, as if it were some kind of evil. Yet every time someone's got the necessary amount of nukes to put a permanent end to suffering on earth, they chicken out. I wonder why that is?

You seem to be making the claim that my like/dislike of suffering is based on my personal experience with it. If that is the case then how can you also say that the sun is important? Important for what? Life of all kinds? Well aren't you just thinking that because of your own personal experience and understanding of what "life" is?

I never said "end" suffering I said "reduce" suffering. I also didn't say that this sort of change would happen overnight, humans may always be eating meat of some kind, but given the choice between causing a lot of harm to something and causing very little or no harm to something, which choice would be more compassionate?

Neither. I am just as sympathetic for the plant's loss of life as I am for the pig's. I do not think the plant's loss of its own life is inferior to the pig's loss just because the pig has a nervous system just like mine, and the plant does not. Just because the pig felt more pain than the plant does not mean the pig was a greater victim.
Eating things because we require them: rational and fair
Eating things because they lack a nervous system: irrational and unfair.

ren wrote: Eating things because we require them: rational and fair
Eating things because they lack a nervous system: irrational and unfair.

Do you mean;
Eating things because we require them: rational and fair
Eating things because we require them and because they lack a nervous system: irrational and unfair.
.. that?

ren wrote: Neither. I am just as sympathetic for the plant's loss of life as I am for the pig's. I do not think the plant's loss of its own life is inferior to the pig's loss just because the pig has a nervous system just like mine, and the plant does not.

Not eating animals isn't about refusing to eat them "because they have a nervous system", that is a reductio ad absurdum. Not eating animals is about not wanting to cause animals suffering, because they have a nervous system.

ren wrote: Just because the pig felt more pain than the plant does not mean the pig was a greater victim.
Eating things because we require them: rational and fair
Eating things because they lack a nervous system: irrational and unfair.

Sameness is treating everything identically. Regardless of difference there is no change in action or thought.
Equality is treating everything fairly. Depending on what the differences are one changes their action or thought to the circumstances.

Sameness is giving everyone £10.
Equality is giving the poorest people more than £10 and the richest less than £10.

Equality and sameness should not be misunderstood to be the same thing. If you wanted to help endangered rhinos then you would cordon off an area of parkland for them to graze safely on, but would you do that for endangered whales?

Plants and animals are not the same. Considerations we have for one type have to be different to considerations given for the other type - even though the motives are identical (providing a safe place for plants and animals to thrive out of compassion - for example).

If you punch a plant it doesn't feel pain.
If you punch an animal it does.

Are you going to ignore this difference?

If one respect the value of life in all forms then one must respect that cutting a plant with a knife is different to cutting a pig with a knife.

Respecting the value of life can be equally applied to everything, but that does not mean the actions which result from this respect will be identical - that is irrational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPw6cwtTLSo

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: Neither. I am just as sympathetic for the plant's loss of life as I am for the pig's. I do not think the plant's loss of its own life is inferior to the pig's loss just because the pig has a nervous system just like mine, and the plant does not.

Not eating animals isn't about refusing to eat them "because they have a nervous system", that is a reductio ad absurdum. Not eating animals is about not wanting to cause animals suffering, because they have a nervous system.

ren wrote: Just because the pig felt more pain than the plant does not mean the pig was a greater victim.
Eating things because we require them: rational and fair
Eating things because they lack a nervous system: irrational and unfair.

Sameness is treating everything identically. Regardless of difference there is no change in action or thought.
Equality is treating everything fairly. Depending on what the differences are one changes their action or thought to the circumstances.

Sameness is giving everyone £10.
Equality is giving the poorest people more than £10 and the richest less than £10.

Equality and sameness should not be misunderstood to be the same thing. If you wanted to help endangered rhinos then you would cordon off an area of parkland for them to graze safely on, but would you do that for endangered whales?

Plants and animals are not the same. Considerations we have for one type have to be different to considerations given for the other type - even though the motives are identical (providing a safe place for plants and animals to thrive out of compassion - for example).

If you punch a plant it doesn't feel pain.
If you punch an animal it does.

Are you going to ignore this difference?

If one respect the value of life in all forms then one must respect that cutting a plant with a knife is different to cutting a pig with a knife.

Respecting the value of life can be equally applied to everything, but that does not mean the actions which result from this respect will be identical - that is irrational.

No. When you (used to) get child benefit, it was the same amount for all, as in that respect all children were equal. The same with the NHS. What you describe in your £10 example is not equality at all, but discrimination on economic grounds.
Equality is an absolute concept, as seen in, let's say the entire universe, laws of physics, maths, etc (it even has it's own symbol on the keyboard). What you are referring to is fairness, a human concept that varies between humans and which is entirely subjective anyway, meaning it is not rational. And having seen how other animals feed, I'd say violently slaughtering animals for the purpose of eating them without the slightest care for their well-being is very authentic.

(ah and suffering is something specific to nervous systems, you are therefore discriminating on those grounds. Other lifeforms also react to external stimuli but it isn't called pain or pleasure because, well, these concepts apply specifically to lifeforms with a nervous system)

I will always have a pro-meat bias. It is a nutrient- and calorie-dense food, and even though I'm turning chunky, my metabolism is about Goku-level. This makes meat (red or white), in conjunction with a balanced diet, really efficient for the way my body processes food. I could, theoretically, live without meat. But I've done it before, and I have to eat so much more food to maintain the same levels of energy that it would take me a lot of gardening or consume my entire income to try to eat vegan for a prolonged period of time.

I also don't have a lot of that "invisibility" thing going on for me, as I was raised in a family that made it very, very clear that in order for me to consume meat, another living creature had to die. My grandfather was a farmer, complete with cattle, and my father was a hunter. He and my uncle once corrected me when I was very, very young, and made the mistake of asking "Did you catch a deer?"

"No, Mitchell," they said. "You don't catch deer. You have to kill them if you're going to eat them. It has to die first. You can't just let it go again, and that's why you have to be very, very careful and very, very sure of your shot, or it will suffer."

I also live in an area with a pretty long deer season because the overpopulation actually makes insurance companies hemorrhage money because of the number of car collisions they're involved in .

I'm open to trying other things--in fact, I'd like to take at least a month out of this year to try a purely vegan diet, but I really don't know where to begin--but I have a deep understanding of the nature of meat consumption and "production", so I think I'm okay on the awareness bit of this.
[hr]

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

Akkarin wrote: If you punch a plant it doesn't feel pain.
If you punch an animal it does..

Can you provide some scientific backing for the idea that plants have nothing analogous to pain receptors?