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

[AngelBlue]

Originally Posted by Altair

It's not cruel because the carrot has no central nervous system.

How you know ????
Were you a carrot once ? LOL....

Sorry, don't mind me, not only do I have a social conscience but I have an "all living things " consciousness.

Because we really JUST don't know do we !
If it lives it feels it knows .

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by AngelBlue

...... Ever heard of cannibals ????...
Just saying !!!!

I’m not disputing it, just saying it’s not really necessary in relation to vegan and vegetarianism..

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by AngelBlue

Sorry, don't mind me, not only do I have a social conscience but I have an "all living things " consciousness.

.

So do you eat anything?

[Gem]

I think the problem with the ethical discussion is the delusion that there is an 'all good' without a bad. Then it's framed so veganism is all good, but veganism is a product of the industrial cultural ideology that is destructive to naturally occurring eco-systems. If we do not continue the industrial destruction, veganism will cease to be because industrial systems are required to make nutritional supplements like B12 isolate and transport them to market in pretty bottles or fortify other food with it.

A more localised system of small-scale and urban plots will necessarily include livestock as natural systems that permaculture emulates includes animals, and when it comes to a completely natural diet, humans need animal products to survive and thrive, and if we change our belief in 'what is a person' from being the lords over nature (stemming from Christian Genesis principles) to people being custodians of ecological systems, we will return to harmony with the natural world and consume the calories available in our respective Country.

Is killing the animals bad. Yes, of course, but we don't do it out of cruelty any more than any other omnivore does, though we are capable of cruelty. The difference it we understand that life is 'good and bad'. Our role is not to be good or bad. Our role is a balance an our ethic is intent. If you lose balance, your intent turns sour.

If we then change the context to artificial and unsustainable industrial culture, we have a different ethical outlook, and in that case, indeed, go vegan for ethical reasons, but don't imagine it's a way to save the world when the diet is made possible by the destructive system it arose from. Maybe it helps for now, and if the ethic is well intended, then be true to your convictions, as long as you can get the nutrients you need to thrive.

I think overall, the most ethical stance is vegetarianism because we can raise animals as needed in permaculture, let them live a reasonably healthy happy life, and eat their products for the essential vitamins and stuff without actually killing them. Then we have to be mindful that some people are herders because they live in such environments, others are hunters because the live where vegetation is scarce, and refrain from a judgmental moral stance that justifies cultural colonialism. That's hard for Western European ethnicities to understand because we have always been moral elitists and we don't really know how not to be.

My view is radical as usual, and I think if we discover the tribes in the pacific are cannibals, then OK, leave them to it. They don't eat people for their diets like they eat pigs and veges. They don't go hunting looking for humans to eat or raise them as livestock. It's sometimes related to whichcraft and war and is generally associated with notions of power. It's not associated with starvation like in Western cases of cannibalism. They also steal women from other tribes, and there's all sorts of mischief which is abhorrent, but on the other hand, it's nowhere near the sex traffic in 'civilised' countries or on scales of abuse, death and destruction of something like WWII, so is it really all that bad? Yes, but the pot calls the kettle black.

The Pacific Islanders gave up eating people mainly due to Christianity, which has a more symbolic cannibalistic rite to some similar effect, but it's not a real person and we are we are accustomed it, so we don't feel a sense of outrage that our religion has a cannibalistic ritual that supposedly holds some mystical power.

Then there's Thelema... another religious outlook with cannibalistic tendencies... but no need to dwell. I personally refrain from cannibalism be it real or symbolic... but I'm bad in other ways... in a good way :) .

[AngelBlue]

Originally Posted by JustBe

I’m not disputing it, just saying it’s not really necessary in relation to vegan and vegetarianism..

VERY TRUE LOL...
But you were the one that mentioned it !!!!

[AngelBlue]

Originally Posted by JustBe

So do you eat anything?

Yes of course I do... Or at least I used to before I was poorly , I was only trying to lighten the mood.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

Our role is a balance an our ethic is intent. If you lose balance, your intent turns sour.

The balance is gone when there are tens of billions of farm animals and billions of human beings. It comes at the cost of biodiversity. The splendour of life reduced because humans think they are entitled to meat every day.

Originally Posted by Gem

I think overall, the most ethical stance is vegetarianism because we can raise animals as needed in permaculture, let them live a reasonably healthy happy life, and eat their products for the essential vitamins and stuff without actually killing them.

It is the most realistic 'solution', but only if cow numbers are still drastically reduced. Raise the price of dairy, eat it a few times a week. Eggs too, which can easily come from garden chickens. Every street could have some chickens and share the eggs. Chickens don't require much space, food and water compared to cows, pigs, sheep.

Originally Posted by Gem

That's hard for Western European ethnicities to understand because we have always been moral elitists and we don't really know how not to be.

If something is true or false than we ought to know or learn about it. Some cultures are better at x, other cultures are better at y, and it's not a shame to admit that.
I criticize Christianity yet I have also stated many times that it has inspired human rights. Without Christianity our culture would have looked very different. Christianity sparked forgiveness and empathy in a way that the old religions didn't usually do. That makes Christian culture better than some others, at least on that department but not necessarily in other. On the other hand, the Indians developed yoga and many useful meditation techniques. That makes them also better at some things than other cultures.
We do not have to be cultural relativists, sure we can understand everything is contextual ((which is not really relativism but perspectivism)), but some are better than others at any given topic, skill, technique, etc. Of course, over time this can change again..

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by AngelBlue

VERY TRUE LOL...
But you were the one that mentioned it !!!!

Not initially.. nope!!!!

[AngelBlue]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Not initially.. nope!!!!

I know , but it certainly wasn't me ! I was just saying because it had been mentioned .

[kris]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...n-requirements