Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Lifestyle > Vegetarian & Vegan

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 31-01-2020, 02:14 AM
Spiritual Mike Spiritual Mike is offline
Newbie ;)
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 19
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair
So do all animals that are deliberately killed when humans need to eat food (domesticated or wildlife). With this topic of fish it's once again a matter of ecology, and not human projection of ''rights''. If it's about rights than the dolphins and the bears shouldn't eat fish too, as fish ''suffer'' at the hands of other animals as well.

Veganism conflates ethics with ecology/environment. As I've done volunteering for a number of environment and nature organizations over many years I've come across a fair number of vegans and this conflation and inability to see that the two (animal welfare and environment) don't always match is a painful show to watch.

This is about ecology, not ''suffering''. If it was about suffering than no human or animal should exist in this world because their breeding will continue to perpetuate suffering. So ask yourself if this is really about ''suffering'' or something else.

The difference between a bear eating a fish and human eating fish are quite vast. The bear only intends to kill the one fish or enough fish to feed him and his family. He also likely has no real other options than fish to survive, unlike the modern human being who mostly who has options from the grocery store. So we can choose to try commit the least suffering possible.

Also the bear does not have trawlers which deplete the ocean of billions of sea life, including non target species. The bear also doesn't have factory farmed fish systems, where fish are crowded and suffer from not being able to move freely, similar to the lives of chickens and other creatures who cannot move in cages or highly crowded and dirty sheds in factory farms.

We also don't expects bears to be moral agents, but just because they can't doesn't mean we as humans shouldn't try to make considerate choices and try to commit the least amount of harm possible in our given situation.

For those reasons and more it is clear that there's a major difference between a wild animal hunting what they need for survival and humans mass breeding and mass producing animals for the purpose of eating them in absurd numbers and far far beyond what our actual need to eat them would be (I don't believe we actually need to eat them anyway and I'm doing fine as a vegan).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-02-2020, 06:33 PM
7luminaries 7luminaries is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,299
  7luminaries's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
People will have a variety of ethical stances, but I take a purely nutritional standpoint, and from that perspective there is no such thing as bad food. Fish is nutrient dense, a leading protein source, rich with essential fatty acids, A,B,D and K vitamins and some minerals. Some folks might not want to eat fish, but that only means they need to get the nutrients from other food sources.

The whole problem with ethical eating is not eliminating animal products per se, but eliminating animal products at the expense of adequate nutrition. As we eliminate more food options from our diets it becomes increasingly difficult to get the nutrition we need, so personally I don't advocate eliminating any food options. For example, vegans eliminate a vast array of animal products, but they also present with a host of issues related to poor nutrition and the majority of them go back to animal food to save their deteriorating health. It's remarkable that vegan eating is socially projected as 'good' both ethically and nutritionally. It can be a healthy way of eating, but you need to know nutrition and take a few supplements. Most people don't know these things, so they lack essential nutrients, and their heath deteriorates.


That said, this is my comment - don't restrict your diet to the detriment of your nutrition. If you really need dietary advice, see a properly qualified dietitian

Agreed. Purely objectively, a vegan diet is an extremely poor choice for an ominivore species and in particular does not tend to meet the needs of the brain, which is an energy hog & represents ~20% of our baseline metabolism (humanity). Nearly all other bodily systems also require components only or best sourced from animal sources and nearly all vegans are (even severely) deficient in a few key nutrients which are difficult to adequately supplement.

If you can tolerate dairy and eggs, then a vegetarian diet may suffice, but if like a marjority of adults round the globe you cannot consume much if any dairy (or just find whole unprocessed dairy a bit rich in its natural, most recommended and best utilised form), then a regular omnivore's diet is best, with as many local and organic, minimally processed products as possible.

So in that regard, fish too should be local and/or wild caught, ideally, having been sourced in a sustainable manner. Due to pollution and overfishing, the fact is many fish-based cuisines will probably have to transition to consuming more meat in future. Wild caught fish which clean enough to eat are likely to be more of an occasional treat in many parts...so that there's still some left to sustain their (fish) population.

Peace & blessings
7L
__________________
Bound by conventions, people tend to reach for what is easy.

Here we must be unafraid of what is difficult.

For all living beings in nature must unfold in their particular way

and become themselves despite all opposition.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-02-2020, 11:36 AM
Altair Altair is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,652
  Altair's Avatar
@Spiritual Mike; Not sure how your post relates to mine (?). I was mentioning how ecology and ethics may be conflated, and increasingly they are (from my experience) conflated in environmental groups. Keeping chickens is a good example. I'm not sure what bears not being moral agents adds to that, you got me confused on that :S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
So in that regard, fish too should be local and/or wild caught, ideally, having been sourced in a sustainable manner. Due to pollution and overfishing, the fact is many fish-based cuisines will probably have to transition to consuming more meat in future. Wild caught fish which clean enough to eat are likely to be more of an occasional treat in many parts...so that there's still some left to sustain their (fish) population.

Peace & blessings
7L

It will depend on the specific fish, sea region, and how it was caught. It's not as clear cut, and based on research I'll have to revisit my first post here, although, globally it's not looking great. Pangasius from Asia is really best avoided, as are most conventional fishing practices in the developing world. With mackerel, salmon, trout, and herring it will depend. Cod and tuna are endangered.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15-02-2020, 01:15 PM
Pagandell Pagandell is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London.
Posts: 1,005
  Pagandell's Avatar
Fish

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual Mike
Well it's not good for the fish that suffocate and die in the nets or those that have no space to swim in a crowded factory farmed fish tank. It's also not good for the millions of dolphins, sea turtles and other marine life that might unintentionally be killed because they get caught in sea nets.

It's also has health risks such as mercury and saturated fat.
I think pulling fish out of the sea is one of the most tortuous things we do to animals. Fish are such peacefull and elegant creatures.
And all the this talk about animal flesh having protein and nutrients or what not of cause it does they fly swim and walk like we do.
Plants are different they grow in the ground.
I know vegetarians who have the most beautiful and healthy looking children that have a have a certain aura and vibe about them.
__________________
How many times does an angel fall.

How many people lie instead of talking tall.

quote David Bowie Black Star.

Last edited by Pagandell : 15-02-2020 at 02:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-02-2020, 02:19 PM
Frivolimous Frivolimous is offline
Seeker
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 36
 
There are lots of reasons to be vegetarian or vegan, so asking if it's 'that bad' could mean many different things!

- Is it because you believe it to be morally wrong to eat living creatures? Then where do draw the line? Plants are technically alive, so Jainists only eat things derived from living things (ie. nuts, fruits, milk). Some people draw the line at some level of brain capacity; Fish don't actually have emotions and chickens aren't that smart (even though they do have emotions).
- Is it because you don't believe in mistreatment of living creatures? Then you should definitely not eat milk or eggs. What about honey? Do you care about "abuse" of bees?
- Is it for environmental reasons? Because raising livestock in the modern day has a much higher carbon footprint than growing crops, so you should especially not eat beef, but chicken and fish isn't quite as bad, and milk or eggs is kind of OK (it's still not efficient as a purely vegan diet).
- Is it for health reasons? Because studies do show that lower meat and animal product consumption is actually healthier, and recently people are making a big deal about Patrik Baboumian who is the world's strongest man - and a strict vegan!

According to all the points, eating fish is not as 'bad' as eating cow flesh and arguably it's not as bad as drinking milk.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-03-2020, 02:19 AM
Debrah Debrah is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Chilliwack, BC
Posts: 352
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jainarayan
.........
That said, there is a cognitive dissonance for me. I know that chickens and turkeys, stupid birds that they are, have a right to live. So do fish, probably one rung higher on the intelligence ladder than an amoeba. Yet, I don't know that I could go completely vegetarian and not eat any animals. It may be a cop out but I tell myself I'm probably Kshatriya from past lives, the ancient Indian varna ("caste") that includes warriors, law enforcement, societal protectors and guardians, and don't do well without eating animals.

So again, do what's right for you.

Did you know that the early gladiators were mostly vegetarian. No meat and they were big strong men, fighting for their lives.

As for fish being only barely above an amoeba, did you know that they have relationships, can have affection for one another and some even use tools (rocks to crack open shells to eat the critter inside). Doesn't sound all that stupid so once again, you're eating sentient beings who don't want to die.

Here's a cute little video of a parrot fish who obviously loves to play with his person and the description under the video says he waits at the corner of the aquarium closest to the door and gets all excited when his person comes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVnE... index=52&t=0s
__________________
We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.
William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-03-2020, 02:28 AM
Debrah Debrah is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Chilliwack, BC
Posts: 352
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair
So do all animals that are deliberately killed when humans need to eat food (domesticated or wildlife). With this topic of fish it's once again a matter of ecology, and not human projection of ''rights''. If it's about rights than the dolphins and the bears shouldn't eat fish too, as fish ''suffer'' at the hands of other animals as well.

Veganism conflates ethics with ecology/environment. As I've done volunteering for a number of environment and nature organizations over many years I've come across a fair number of vegans and this conflation and inability to see that the two (animal welfare and environment) don't always match is a painful show to watch.

This is about ecology, not ''suffering''. If it was about suffering than no human or animal should exist in this world because their breeding will continue to perpetuate suffering. So ask yourself if this is really about ''suffering'' or something else.


Dolphins have no options so suggesting that vegan insistence on being merciful should require dolphins to be the same, is just kind of silly.

Veganism is about not causing suffering to animals, making choices that don't use or abuse them. The fact that it turns out that eating meat is destructive to the environment is not a case of us conflating the two, but is more realistically just one more reason why it turns out that it's good to eat only plants. When I found out that my eating habits are better for the environment (and my health) that was a bonus to my decision to be vegan.

Not sure why you say 'this is about ecology' because the OP was only asking 'what do you think about eating fish and sneaking in some dairy'. Where did ecology come into that question? Sounds more like an ethics question, not ecology.
__________________
We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.
William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14-03-2020, 12:23 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,652
  Altair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frivolimous
There are lots of reasons to be vegetarian or vegan, so asking if it's 'that bad' could mean many different things!

- Is it because you believe it to be morally wrong to eat living creatures? Then where do draw the line? Plants are technically alive, so Jainists only eat things derived from living things (ie. nuts, fruits, milk). Some people draw the line at some level of brain capacity; Fish don't actually have emotions and chickens aren't that smart (even though they do have emotions).
- Is it because you don't believe in mistreatment of living creatures? Then you should definitely not eat milk or eggs. What about honey? Do you care about "abuse" of bees?
- Is it for environmental reasons? Because raising livestock in the modern day has a much higher carbon footprint than growing crops, so you should especially not eat beef, but chicken and fish isn't quite as bad, and milk or eggs is kind of OK (it's still not efficient as a purely vegan diet).
- Is it for health reasons? Because studies do show that lower meat and animal product consumption is actually healthier, and recently people are making a big deal about Patrik Baboumian who is the world's strongest man - and a strict vegan!

According to all the points, eating fish is not as 'bad' as eating cow flesh and arguably it's not as bad as drinking milk.

I think most people probably cannot be healthy as vegans, as can be hinted at with the many vegans that go back to consuming animal products. So, many people are left asking which foods have the lesser impact. When it comes to animal products eggs and chicken are the clear winners. With dairy and fish it will depend on the how/what/where. Beef and lamb are generally the worst offenders.

You count eggs as ''still not efficient as a purely vegan diet'', yet, when you get eggs from backyard chickens or a small farm, and provided they are fed with grain and seeds, this will have lower environmental impact than any plant protein source one buys in the supermarket.

Chickens should undeniably be part of a sustainable future, provided they aren't fed with soybeans. Chickens can be put in almost any garden, don't take much of people's time and care, don't need the space that larger animals require, and provide us with the easiest and least impactful protein in the form of eggs.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-03-2020, 01:29 PM
Jyotir Jyotir is offline
Master
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,804
 
Aside from spiritual, ethical, environmental, economic, physiological, and epidemiological considerations (need more?!?), the consumption of fish can be just as problematic as land-based animals in other ways, mainly because of, but not limited to the accumulation of heavy metals, in particular mercury, which may be far worse than the plastic issue. This is something that has been known for almost/at least 50 years but is largely un-discussed now in public.

~ J
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15-03-2020, 12:25 AM
Rah nam Rah nam is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,457
  Rah nam's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evianna
Do you think eating fish is bad? And what about sneaking in some dairy?




There is no god or bad in all that, it's just a matter of choice.
Just choose.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums