A vegetarian, not a vegan. Open to arguments to go vegan.

[Saint Jzearuth]

My reasons for remaining vegetarian are mainly the importance of avoiding protein deficiency.

I eat non-fertilized chicken eggs to keep up my protein levels. These eggs provide the chicken a niche that doesn't require her being slaughtered for food.

I feel slightly guiltier about dairy, as the cows produce emissions. But, on the other hand, for there to be no need for cows (no meat eating, no milk consumption) --> no more cows anywhere... could also produce negative environmental consequences.

I sincerely care about all the animals (that have the ability to feel), and (grant that they may so long as they have a rudimentary brain/nervous system). So I don't want to contribute to the unnecessary suffering of non-invasive sentient life.

[Hologram8]

buddhists wouldn't eat the eggs ~ some people just eat ripened fruit that has fallen from a tree so that they didn't even harm it by picking it ~ now it will just rot if someone doesn't eat it

I was vegan for several years until I became homeless and had to eat homeless people food

in a description of evil doers in some taoist scriptures says ~ " with filthy food they feed the poor

I was visited by a masochistic spirit that said it wanted to be sacrificed
I said you deserve better
everyone else said that's not what they want ~ come with us ~ we will sacrifice you
so the spirit left with them and didn't stay with me

I eat the food in the store before it rots and goes to waste because if that happens it's twice as bad

I also didn't eat vegan when I was in the army ~

[Miss Hepburn]

No argument from me...I think you are doin' good as it.
I did eat dairy, tho. No eggs at all in anything.
Nothing with a face, sounds like you're doing. Good.
Look up how many grams of complete protein you need a day....make sure you're getting that.
Oh, B12 and iron, too.
You're doing fine, imo.

[Gem]

All good.

Unfortunately with industrial agriculture everything gets wiped out so a mono-crop can cover the ground, so not hurting things is a great ethic, but not a realistic practice within modern industrial culture. It's really about good nutrition and healthy lifestyle... and vegetarianism is the normal way spiritual folk like Hindus, Buddhists and Jains have represented their no harm ethics. Vegans are an artifact of the rich Western industrialised world. Without labs for supplements and access to any kind of food whenever and wherever you want it, i.e. without the industrialisation which is destructive to nature, there are no vegans. In that way, the survival of vegans actually depends on mass destruction. If you really think about it, the least destructive possible life is an omnivorous one, but in the modern industrial cultural setting, there is no 'good life', so to speak. That's how things are. There is no 'all good'. There's only how gracefully you take the good with the bad.

IOW. Vegetarianism is way better. Good job.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Hologram8

buddhists wouldn't eat the eggs

Asian religions have this strange belief that every egg is fertilized.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

Vegans are an artifact of the rich Western industrialised world. Without labs for supplements and access to any kind of food whenever and wherever you want it, i.e. without the industrialisation which is destructive to nature, there are no vegans. In that way, the survival of vegans actually depends on mass destruction.

Just like anyone eating dairy or meat these days. In 99% of cases it means vast swathes of land are needed to produce that food for humans. Double even, as we first grow crops for animals, then use more land for the animals themselves. Plus they also require water and they make a mess.

But anyway, veganism isn't quite natural and very likely not smart for most people. Most humans need some animal food but it's good to reduce our footprint. So what's the solution then? Animal foods that require less land and limit impact on ecosystems. Globally we really ought to drastically reduce the number of cows, pigs and sheep.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

So what's the solution then?

Not a popular notion, but I'm Malthusian in that I believe there are far too many people, and the 'solution' is a lot less people, but not a human engineered solution. I think everyone tries to survive and nature eventually sorts things out, so we'll reach a critical mass, and then turn around into population decline. Most people seem to think it's all fine and we could or should try to keep this many people or have more people, but that sounds crazy to me. The difference is, I don't think there is a solution in the sense we take action and control it. I'm more like nature works in her own way and things sort themselves out one way or the other.

[Altair]

There are indeed far too many people but the solution isn't to wait many centuries or millennia for the next cataclysm. An intelligent, self aware species should know better.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

An intelligent, self aware species should know better.

In the past there have been attempts at centralising the control of agriculture, but it went horribly wrong. These days there are whispers of the same thing under a different ideology that seems associate clean and green with veganism. Now I see them commandeering farms in Europe, I'm thinking this ain't going to end well.

This is the issue with Malthusianism. The underlying principle is population growth will outstrip resources and I agree, but if we then 'do something' about it, we are signing the death warrants of a few billion individuals. That's OK for the likes of Bill Gates and his mob of merry maniacs who lost touch with humanity along time ago, but it's not OK with me.

My angle is just do the good things: bring more education to people in way-back regions (and get rid of all the nonsense in Western schools), and introduce sustainable growing to all school curriculum, because we find that sustainable practice is decentralised networking that includes both plants and livestock, as well as bugs and worms and stuff.

As people become more educated they have fewer offspring, and as they source foodstuff more locally from a network of smallholders and hobbyists they are most probably part of, the energy use for agriculture, along with that used to manufacture toxic processed food should start to decline, let alone the benefits that come from a shrinking population due to declining rates of birth.

If we don't rush it, the economy will adjust from a perpetual growth, boom and bust model to a stable system that includes multiple mediums of exchange, but from a policy standpoint, we really only have do the good things and the rest will take care of itself even though we let everyone do what they want.

It takes along time. The problem is the maniacs are, like, green 2050, and because that's unrealistic, they will introduce policy based on fables, which will not work, and end in catastrophe.

If we have natural catastrophes, well, that's nature's way. Who's going to stop a flood or an earthquake or a volcano or a meteor? At least let us not create catastrophe for ourselves. Let everything be as it is. Stop trying to control it. We just observe what is without reactivity and respond mindfully in the way that is for the best. We are a natural species. We're part of the whole thing. Unfortunately, humans are highly reactive, controlling, greedy and hateful so we find ourselves in a more spiritual dilemma, which again, needs the space to happen and heal.

They just keep clamping down and making things narrower and more tightly controlled, and that's going the wrong way, IMO.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

The underlying principle is population growth will outstrip resources and I agree, but if we then 'do something' about it, we are signing the death warrants of a few billion individuals. That's OK for the likes of Bill Gates and his mob of merry maniacs who lost touch with humanity along time ago, but it's not OK with me.

I think keeping our home in order is more important and absolutely the basis for healthy living.
Who mentioned death warrants? Smaller families, contraceptives and female education lowers population numbers. Europe and Japan, and now also the Arabic world have lower birth rates and none of them needed “death warrants” to get there.
On the other hand, waiting for a miracle and doing nothing is a death warrant to many.

Originally Posted by Gem

They just keep clamping down and making things narrower and more tightly controlled, and that's going the wrong way, IMO.

Which it was happens when population numbers go up. It’s a rule of thumb throughout history: the bigger the population the more likely there is urbanization and centralization, and increased complexity and bureaucracy. Less control and freedom and more space for individual people or families works only if there is actually enough space and resources for them to begin with. The more people there are, the more complexity and thus the more bureaucracy and necessity for centralized control.

Of course, there is an alternative, a third way, and that is chaos and anarchy. Lets not go there.