Are Vegetarians...NonViolent?

[lightningbug]

All around me there are many spiritual people telling me the world is going to become vegetarian for one reason or another. Maybe all the animals in the farms will become diseased, so we'll stop eating them. Maybe all the fish in the sea will die, so we'll stop eating them.

Either way, it seems only a matter of time before the world becomes vegetarian. Great news for vegetarians. Bad news for me, since I don't understand the very basic vegetarian belief. That it is a non-violent diet.

When I was six or seven, my dad took me to the forest and we picked some wild flowers. We brought the flowers home, and put them in a vase. What happened next forever changed my perspective of the plant world and our relationship with them. The flowers died. They died slowly within days while the rest of the wild flowers outside thrived. And I didn't understand why the flowers died since we had put them a big vase of water, and plenty of sunshine.

Well around the same time at school we were learning a bit about the natural world, the life cycle of butterflies. And even the life cycle of plants. And this was when I learned that the basic plant needs roots. No roots. Plants can't drink water and die.

Then a revelation hit me. All adults must know this. And they don't care. Adults know they are condemning flowers to death when they pick them. And they don't care.

I realized there's no point in making an argument. People don't care if they kill flowers. But at the age of seven I made a personal vow, which I have kept. I will never pick flowers.

Then comes christmas time! Who doesn't love the fresh scent of a christmas tree? I loved the christmas tree so much, I even wrote little story about it. I was drawing the tree in the pot, when another realization hit my childish brain. This pot is far too small for tree roots! This tree is just another giant picked flower and without roots its going to die!

And this hurt me more than mere flowers, because of all the plant life - the tree is just wow. I've always felt they had souls. And were killing them for a holiday decoration!

Now, I know that trees are being killed for lots of other extensionally meaningless things, like toothpicks. But its way too complicated for me to begin to say when it is okay to kill a tree, and when it isn't okay to kill a tree. The only thing that made sense to me, as it made sense to me at the age of seven..............was how tragic it was to rip a tree from its roots. And make a mockery of it as it struggles to drink water.

Then comes middle school, when I first really encounter vegetarians. And our first meeting was not a happy one. I ask the vegetarians, why they do not eat meat? They're answer was simple - because animals are living things. So I ask them, but aren't plants living things? And the usual response was. "Yeah but..they're not really living" "They're not conscious" or "They don't feel pain"

All three of these answers stroke a bone so deep with me, so much to the point, I never wanted to be associated with vegetarians. Vegetarians are the reason why I dislike vegetarianism.

The argument that plants were not conscious was something I couldn't grasp my mind around. How can anything be living, without awareness? It seemed evident to me as early as middle school that what separates life from non-life, is self awareness. It would make no sense why a plant would bother to breathe, if they didn't care to be alive. The idea that life just lives because its programmed to live, seemed illogical to me.

My teachers argued against me. Explaining that something needs a nervous system to be conscious. So then I asked myself, a catholic at the time........Does the soul need a nervous system to be conscious?

Do aliens need nervous system to be conscious? Couldn't there be other systems of consciousness, besides a nervous system, which is very specific to the animal kingdom on earth?

How can plants even interact with their environment in the way that they do, without some sort of system?

Well, I'm happy I kept to my hunches. As it turns out, we know now that the most basic life forms, single-celled life forms - are self aware. That by communicating with each other, the most basic life forms distinguish self from non-self!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA

And if we realize that self-awareness is a basic function of basic life forms......why wouldn't self awareness be the norm for all life forms?

Now...there are very good and valid arguments against many farms and slaughter houses. But that's not where I want to bring this argument. I'm putting this here because there is another argument for vegetarianism. And there are two main spiritual arguments for vegetarianism, both I have 'beef' with.

One. God designed for us to eat vegetables. Not animals. And two. The nonviolent argument. Any consumption of an animal is violent, but consuming a salad is nonviolent.

So I've tried to dig deeper at the argument that God wants us to be vegetarian. Well the first thing I find is genesis. Where God commands us to eat the fruit of trees. Now fruit is very special, it is the ONLY living thing on this planet that WANTS to be eaten. The trees WANT you to eat their fruit. And certainly, the fruitarian argument, that is the diet of eden, the diet God intended for us....MAKES SENSE!!

It does make moral sense.

Why would God want you to eat the carrot, anymore than God wants you to eat a chicken? When the bible seems to make it clear, God loves all his creations. The fruit becomes the only thing you can consume...............without actually harming a living thingl!

The God-Vegetarian argument takes many twists and turns. Some saying, oh, its okay to eat plants because they have no soul. Oh its okay to eat plants because, their consciousness is sleeping, so they don't know you're eating them. Oh its okay to eat a plant, because the human soul can't reincarnate as a plant.

But none of these God arguments really get to the moral heart of the matter. Why God would want us to eat any living thing to begin with???

The nonviolence argument becomes just as puzzling for me. I was reading up on the nonviolence practice, and I found something very - strange. They refrained from harming plants.........in the invent it would harm bugs and microscopic life??????

So the microscopic organisms that could be harmed should we pull a plant from its roots, have more value, than the plant itself? Or am I misunderstanding some of these arguments?

Its just so frustrating that a vegetarian places more value on microscopic life, than a plant, thousands of years more advanced and complex than any micro organism. Is it because we can clearly see microscopic life moving around in a petri dish, to let you know its alive? Well then..just fast forward plants...They are always moving!

Do you understand my dilemma in a world saying vegetarian is the spiritual diet?

In my perspective, I can't fathom it being wrong to eat a living thing - because im no magical air breathing yogi. I can't get away from eating a living thing. And I don't want to be hypocritical and just pretend vegetables aren't living.

I can't sit here and pretend vegetarianism is a nonviolent diet, when biology shows us how plants employ various self-defense techniques. Why do they self defend themselves, if not for the fear of death?

I can't sit here and pretend that vegetarianism is a spiritual diet, when spiritually speaking, why does God want us to eat any living thing? In the garden of eden it was fruit....very different from a living vegetable.

And of course there are so many ills and wrongs happening in the food market today. But in my perspective, it's not that it is morally wrong to eat meat. So much as it is how we have gone about it, and the over consumption of meat. Likewise, it's not just our animal farms that are completely unnatural, but so are our monoculture plant farms. There is nothing in nature that resembles it!!

Really, if you demand that my diet is spiritually moral...I would have to live off fruit!! Or worse......air. Until then, I will just try to eat healthy. And healthy meat as it turns out, doesn't come from abused animals.

[CFTraveler]

Awesome post, lightning bug.
Allow me to comment on some things:

All around me there are many spiritual people telling me the world is going to become vegetarian for one reason or another. Maybe all the animals in the farms will become diseased, so we'll stop eating them. Maybe all the fish in the sea will die, so we'll stop eating them. Here is a clue: Someone that calls themselves an '-an', or 'ist', or 'er' (etc.) has made more than just a choice of what to eat- they have joined a club, and this club makes them members. Being a member of something makes you part of something, or different. Some people want to be different. I know some vegetarians that believe they're superior to others because of that. Some want everyone to be the same as them. So they want to believe everyone should be like them. Like any movement, religious or political- ideology in action. If you search my old posts you will know what I think of ideology.

As to the thing about a vegetarian world (I don't see how it's feasible) if all the fish died, we'd die too- because everything is part of the ecosystem. If anything in the food chain (oh my heavens, did I say food chain? :roll: ) steps out, everything collapses. If there are no fish there are no plankton (at least no zooplankton) and chances are phytoplankton would be next. The seas would die, there would be no oxygen, etc. But anything that would kill animals so indiscriminately would have killed us before, probably. So I don't see that happening.
Now- here's the good news about eating vegetarian- less carbon footprint, etc. But of course that would mean we'd actually have to grow more food crops and less fuel crops, if we're going to eat the amount of protein we need to support the 'first world' populations (a terrible nomer, I know)- but you get the idea. And no, I don't think that's gonna happen either.
So to the last item in this 'prediction' and the most important one- we're not natural vegetarians, we're omnivores. We have the teeth and guts of some plant eaters, and the stomach of a carnivore. We're not carnivores- if we were we wouldn't need vitamin c and other ones found only in plants (true carnivores' livers make C for them) but we can't digest most fiber, like carnivores. True herbivores can digest fiber and get protein out of stuff like lettuce and grass. We can't- it goes through us. So we need the vites and antioxidants from plants, we need the protein (and iron, to some extent) from animal sources That means, no matter what the ideology is, that we crave animal protein because we need it. We like to eat meat, we choose to eat meat, and at least I'm not going to sit around and let someone else decide what I get to eat. It's that simple. And I am one of the most fluffy of the fluffy bunnies that you'll ever see. I personally won't eat cow because of the way they're treated, and don't eat pork because my trigs are too high. But the fact is, I get to make the choice, and I'll fight for the choice of every other omnivore to eat whatever they want. Within reason, I hope you understand.


All adults must know this. And they don't care. Adults know they are condemning flowers to death when they pick them. And they don't care. Here's the other thing about human nature- if it doesn't have a face it's not like us. So we don't care. That is the truth about it.

People don't care if they kill flowers. But at the age of seven I made a personal vow, which I have kept. I will never pick flowers. Good for you- but for another reason, and I'll get around to it.



Then comes middle school, when I first really encounter vegetarians. And our first meeting was not a happy one. I ask the vegetarians, why they do not eat meat? They're answer was simple - because animals are living things. So I ask them, but aren't plants living things? And the usual response was. "Yeah but..they're not really living" "They're not conscious" or "They don't feel pain" Or, 'they don't look like us, so we don't care.


So I've tried to dig deeper at the argument that God wants us to be vegetarian. Well the first thing I find is genesis. Where God commands us to eat the fruit of trees. Now fruit is very special, it is the ONLY living thing on this planet that WANTS to be eaten. The trees WANT you to eat their fruit. And certainly, the fruitarian argument, that is the diet of eden, the diet God intended for us....MAKES SENSE!!

It does make moral sense. Actually, there is a part in the OT (I think it's after the flood) that God tells them that now they can eat animals, except for the forbidden ones. But IMO this has to do with culture and not with morals.


Why would God want you to eat the carrot, anymore than God wants you to eat a chicken? When the bible seems to make it clear, God loves all his creations. The fruit becomes the only thing you can consume...............without actually harming a living thingl! Fruits and seeds. It's actually ok to eat fruits & seeds because that is how many plants reproduce- the yummy smell of the fruit attracts the animal (including humans), they eat the yummy part, either spit the seeds out (saliva starts a process, or they eat the seeds and poop them out- sometimes that is the only way some seeds will germinate, so technically eating fruit is good for the plant- that's how it propagates.


The God-Vegetarian argument takes many twists and turns. Some saying, oh, its okay to eat plants because they have no soul. Oh its okay to eat plants because, their consciousness is sleeping, so they don't know you're eating them. Oh its okay to eat a plant, because the human soul can't reincarnate as a plant.

But none of these God arguments really get to the moral heart of the matter. Why God would want us to eat any living thing to begin with??? Humans have been using the 'God wants me to' argument to get away with doing what they deem is right, and this is no different.


Do you understand my dilemma in a world saying vegetarian is the spiritual diet? Sure, it's the dilemma a lot of us have faced. But the thing is, if we weren't meant to eat anything living, we wouldn't even be here to begin with. Obviously the challenge is how to be here without breaking our own convictions. At least that's what I think.


I can't sit here and pretend vegetarianism is a nonviolent diet, when biology shows us how plants employ various self-defense techniques. Why do they self defend themselves, if not for the fear of death? Not so much fear, but it's obvious that the drive is towards life, regardless of what we believe.

And of course there are so many ills and wrongs happening in the food market today. But in my perspective, it's not that it is morally wrong to eat meat. So much as it is how we have gone about it, and the over consumption of meat. Likewise, it's not just our animal farms that are completely unnatural, but so are our monoculture plant farms. There is nothing in nature that resembles it!! I agree and that is the real problem, IMO.


Really, if you demand that my diet is spiritually moral...I would have to live off fruit!! Or worse......air. Until then, I will just try to eat healthy. And healthy meat as it turns out, doesn't come from abused animals. I don't understand why anyone should have the power, moral or political, to judge anyone else on what they eat (with a few exceptions, obviously)- but I don't think you should give anyone your power by letting them think they have some sort of moral ground that's higher than yours.
In other words, why do you care what vegetarians (or any other king of ideology driven member) think?

[Palehorse Redivivus]

Cool thread indeed, LB. :)

CF has pretty much summed up my position on the whole thing as well. Regardless of personal morals or preferences -- it's a biological fact that our bodies are designed for an omnivorous diet.

Another thing I've pointed out before (or tried, before I was metaphorically pelted by a hail of veggies) is that, historically and even in the present, it has never been a feasible choice for the majority of the world's population. Sure, technically we can survive as vegetarians or vegans, it's possible... but if you look at what it takes to sustain a healthy and balanced veg diet, you're looking at a lot of rather exotic, imported foods, and probably supplements as well. This has only been possible for about a century or two at best, with the advances of mass transit, refrigeration, etc., and who knows for how much longer this will be the case? Even today, how much of the world's population can afford and has ready access to all that it would take to be a healthy vegetarian or vegan? Probably not much. Most places historically have made use of what's immediately available in a given location, plant and animal alike, until nations and empires started getting rich and spread out enough to establish long distance trade. Even then, livestock, seafood and/or game animals are almost invariably found as staples, depending on the terrain.

Personal tastes and morals aside, I've tried different things and paid a lot of attention to how it makes me feel, nutritionally speaking -- my body really takes well to fish. As far as I know this has a lot to do with omega-3 fatty acids, i.e. fish oil, for which not a whole lot of other sources exist. It's apparently found in the algae the fish eat... you find me somewhere I can buy massive amounts of algae, and find a way to make it appetizing, and I'll eat the algae AND my hat. :P (I don't have a hat. But still.) Should I feel guilty about this? Well, I don't deal in "shoulds" much, but either way I'm not gonna. :P

I should say that not all vegetarians are militant or trying to force their diet choices on anybody. My favorite veggie, who I'm in a relationship with, is so more out of personal preference than any moral concern -- her body doesn't take well to meat, and she doesn't like the taste of it and never has. That's all well and good, and she's still willing to make me steak (and does a damn fine job of it, too :P ). Interestingly, speaking of my favorite veggie, who's also a sensitive empath -- one day we passed a tree that had a tight cord around it, i.e. a gardening technique basically to strangle it to death. She got a strong impression of suffering, and felt she had to remove it, so she did so. I haven't actually tried to vibe-sense a tree myself, though I've been meaning to give it a shot to see what I get, but something about that incident doesn't surprise me. Hell, if you're a fan of the Seth books, even the mineral kingdom may possess its own sort of consciousness.

On planet earth the reality is that all life consumes other life to survive, except the plants (and maybe even them if everything has a sort of consciousness to it). My position is, whatever you choose to eat, be thankful for it, and the life force passing from it to you, but don't feel guilty about it, don't let anyone make you feel guilty about it, and help preserve the right of every individual to make their own choices.

On that note, someone recently submitted an article to be linked on my own blog exploring this issue, which I liked a lot... 'tis worth the read.

Am I a Bad Yogi Because I Want to Eat Steak? (http://pranaflownz.com/2009/04/23/am-i-a-bad-yogi-because-i-want-to-eat-steak/)

See..what really worries me about extreme diets, such as raw foodism or fruitarians... its that well, you'd spend half your life on the toilet. *injects humor*

[Tom]

The problem isn't the diet - it is the smug factor.

[Palehorse Redivivus]

The problem isn't the diet - it is the smug factor.

Alright Tom gets the award for "condensing the entire thread down to ten words." Well done! :mrgreen:

After posting I remembered something I wanted to add, re: "everything being conscious."

A friend of mine used to work in a metaphysical store. One day she was feeling really rough; the kind of mood where you're full of anger and irritability, and have spikey energy shooting off in all directions. At one point she went over to one of the display bowls of stones, grabbed a handful of rose quartz and stuck it on her crown chakra in an attempt to feel better. At that point she got a strong impression from the stones themselves: "you're hurting us." She quickly apologized and put them back in the bowl, lol.

I'm just telling the story for the sake of interest; I haven't had an opportunity to verify any sort of awareness in stones or trees myself. But I have experienced the influence that the energy of various stones has on my energy -- whose to say our energy couldn't affect them as well in a way that is, in some sense, perceived?

[ButterflyWoman]

Just a thought about cutting flowers. If you do NOT prune (cut back) flowering plants, they grow all over the place and, in most cases, become LESS capable of producing flowers. The same is true of any kind of fruit-bearing plant. The more energy they have to put into excessive leaves, branches, vines, whatever, the less energy they have for producing flowers (and later fruit).

I was never a very successful gardener until I understood about pruning, to be honest. Cutting plants back when needed, including cutting off flowers from time to time, has been one of the most important lessons I've ever learned.

I don't have any comments on vegetarianism, other than to note that it's really only an option in a society where produce is freely and easily available all year around. A rich western society, with frozen and canned foods and lots of imported fresh fruits and vegetables, can easily support a vegetarian lifestyle, certainly. Some other societies can, as well, because of the abundance of year-round crops and a reliance on dried legumes, rice, grain, etc. But in a lot of places, if you don't eat animals or eggs or use animal products, you will certainly die. It's something to think about, anyway.

Well..there's always "Pranic Nourishment".. oh the horror..those poor little Pranas!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen

[Neil Templar]

i can't remember where i heard it, definitely some channeled information, maybe on the monroe institute downloads, but one of the channeled beings said that we need to develop our knowledge of genetics, so that we can "grow" the protein filled "meat" material, so we can still get what we need but stop eating living beings..

[Palehorse Redivivus]

i can't remember where i heard it, definitely some channeled information, maybe on the monroe institute downloads, but one of the channeled beings said that we need to develop our knowledge of genetics, so that we can "grow" the protein filled "meat" material, so we can still get what we need but stop eating living beings..

What I would wonder is -- would the lab-generated meat contain the same sort of lifeforce as living animals, fruits and veggies?

I'm not a raw-foodist, but I do think they're onto something with the idea of living vs. dead food (the latter lacking in nutritional value). With fresh meat, fruit and veg, you've still got living cells, or at the very least, some of the life-energy probably still remains. Overcooking meat, fruit and veg decreases the nutritional value, and I think part of that may be down to the effect that heat and fire have on not only the physical composition, but the energy of formerly living, organic material. Meat carbonizes; fruit and veg cells burst (which is why they get mushy). Not that cooking has much to do with lab-meat... I'm just wondering if the lab meat would be able to be considered "living" in the same way a full animal is, for nutritional purposes.

In any case, I'm pretty sure the tech to do what you're describing already exists... I mean if they can grow tissue suitable for medical applications, I don't see why growing meat for food would be much different in principle.

[CFTraveler]

If I were going to guess, I'd guess that cloning the meat cells (or growing it in the way PH describes) would probably be considered alive, provided that the original cell was alive in the first place- but 'cooking up' proteins and calling it meat wouldn't.
I wonder if their by-products (like bacteria that would live on them or fungi, etc.) would be 'alive' enough to qualify....
*ponders*.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Jaco]

One. God designed for us to eat vegetables. Not animals. And two. The nonviolent argument. Any consumption of an animal is violent, but consuming a salad is nonviolent.

Leaving god out of the argument.

One - we are not designed to eat only plants. If we were then we WOULD only eat plants. We would prefer to only eat plants. This is not the case, is it.

Two - consuming a salad is non-violent.
I'm gonna tell you a story. A story about a boy, his parents garden, and carrots. This boy (me) had been going with his parents to help them with gardening. Being there, sometimes he would go among the carrots, searching with wild bunny-like gaze for the biggest one. Then when the target was chosen he would pull the carrot out of the ground and he would wash it under a nearby tap and then he would take a bite "crunch", eating the carrot there on the spot, raw, still alive. Tell me this is not violent. :wink:

[Beekeeper]

I recently watched a metaphysical type interview where the interviewee proposed that something was done to earth that changed things so we all needed eat to survive, thus creating the brutality and fear we know today. The interviewer agreed, saying this was her intuition too and she believed it happened around the time of the destruction of Atlantis. At that point my cynicism gene kicked in and I imagined the rapid evolution of mouths with teeth and tongues and digestive systems, post-Atlantis (they wouldn't have been needed for communication earlier because everyone was allegedly psychic, weren't they?).

Eating other living things is part of the simulation that is life on planet earth. Ultimately, it's not real because everything is eternal.

Now, that expressed, I'll confess that I prefer flowers on trees and bushes than in vases and that I chat to my plants (because I'm naturally nurturing and I enjoy expressing it). I prune them too and extend their lives. I clone them through taking cuttings and I eat them.

I can eat plants I've grown but I have a double standard when it comes to animals. Once, when I was little, my dad brought home quail. I was over the moon when I thought they were new pets for the menagerie* but horrified when he slaughtered them (are quail significant enough for the word "slaughter"?). I couldn't eat them.

As a young woman I'd go diving with my hubby. When he'd line up a fish with his spear gun he'd suddenly hear the muffled underwater sounds of, "GO, GO! Get away fast!" By then, I'd learnt that to not eat the creature was essentially for it to have died in vain. So, I'm essentially unable to do the "evil" deed myself to an animal I'm prepared to eat and I recognise that this is because its consciousness is more like my own. This said, I'll swat a mosquito that's biting me or take medication to remove parasites from my system and not feel an ounce of guilt. I realise this is highly irrational of me and the product of my particular social context and conditioning. It doesn't matter anyway because it's all ultimately illusion. Everything ends and is recycled.

*These days I'm likely to ask questions related to the morality of keeping (non-working) animals for pets but that's for another thread.

[Beekeeper]

Oh, forgot. I think vegetarians have occasionally become violent at anti-logging protests but I could be wrong. :wink:

[ButterflyWoman]

I went out to my garden today to put some compost in the worm farm and also to check on my plants. My strawberry plant (only have one, but it's a happy plant and produces fruit fairly well) was looking unwell. Turns out that it was infested with caterpillars (again). I had to cut off all the damaged leaves, several damaged fruit, and I ended up killing a couple of caterpillars in the process (normally, I like caterpillars, but when they're harming my strawberry plant, I don't like them so much!). I also sprayed the plant down with all-natural insecticide that will keep the nasty little larvae off my poor plant.

As I was doing all this, I was thinking how cruel and violent I am. Not only was I hacking off parts of the plant, I was getting rid of poor, defenceless caterpillars who wanted nothing more than to destroy the plant by eating the leaves and fruit. I should be ashamed. ;)

[Neil Templar]

so a certain amount of violence is necessary for life to remain abundant then?
of course. we MUST eat to survive.
this whole argument is one of absolutes. violence or non-violence.
duality. separateness.
we know those are human concepts, blinding us to the one-ness of what is. creating a conflict of ideas about the "right" way to live.
there's no right or wrong way to live.
if you FEEL bad about eating meat, don't do it.
if you feel bad about eating veg, don't do it.
but somewhere along the road survival kicks in and you'll have to give in... you gotta eat!

if a tree bears fruit, and that fruit doesn't get eaten, it falls off and rots. it's gonna die, but it will spread the seeds of life in the process.
if it's eaten, the being that ate it, allows it's own life to continue.
what's the difference?
life goes on...whatever the choice..

[ButterflyWoman]

so a certain amount of violence is necessary for life to remain abundant then?
I don't know if I'd say "violence". I guess it depends on how you define the term "violence". If you break a bone, sometimes the doctor has to grab hold of it from outside and manipulate it to set it properly. Is that "violence"? I'd say it's necessary roughness, but I wouldn't call it violence.

It's also possible to kill things without being unnecessarily cruel or violent. When an animal is euthanised (for any of many, many good medical, ethical reasons), it's very gentle. Only the immediate sting of the needle as the drug is administered, and then the animal goes to sleep and simply doesn't wake up. I wouldn't call that violent, either.


this whole argument is one of absolutes. violence or non-violence.
duality. separateness.
YES. Exactly. The argument is based on the notion that "them" is different from "us" and that "I" am different from "you" (or, I suppose "a cow" or "a fish" or "some caterpillars who were harming my strawberry plant").

Personally, I think it's more about cruelty and intent rather than "life" or "death" or similar.


if you FEEL bad about eating meat, don't do it.
if you feel bad about eating veg, don't do it.
but somewhere along the road survival kicks in and you'll have to give in... you gotta eat!
Yup. That's my position on it. If you don't want to eat meat, well, there are lots of perfectly valid reasons for making that decision, but I don't think it necessarily makes you more holy or more enlightened. ;)

[CFTraveler]

As usual, y'all hit the nail right on the head.

[lightningbug]

awww..thanks for the posts guys, it's been helpful :D

can't believe I didn't see the dualism in it all! no wonder I was confused. and besides...how can I be completely nonviolent while I enjoy giving kitty fresh tuna? *enjoying feeding an animal another animal???* oh the happy look on her face :lol: (pre-atlantis smile)


I realise this is highly irrational of me and the product of my particular social context and conditioning. It doesn't matter anyway because it's all ultimately illusion. Everything ends and is recycled.


definitely I think how were raised plays a huge role in it

growing up, I took part in two cultures. the american culture and the traditional puerto rican culture. in comparison, in the american culture you don't know what you're eating!!! there are so many american kids who even at the age of ten, don't know what animal was slaughtered for their tasty burger. it's like its a dirty little secret these days, that kids shouldn't know where meat comes from. they might be traumatized.

at a young age, eight I think, we go to puerto rico for a traditional wedding. guess whats on the menu, a whole roasted pig. face and everything. there just wasn't anything like that in the mainland. it was shocking for me, even though my parents have cooked for me whole chicken before - it never had a face.

the face changes everything. as someone told me, yes it makes you conscious of an animals death. but more importantly. it makes you conscious of your own mortality.

but my mom literally starved me the whole day to save my appetite for the wedding feast. well it worked. after hours of a rumbly tummy I actually found myself hypnotized over the roasting pig, face and all, and asking mom if it was done. I know I know, just terrible of me.

but I could never have raised the pig and then slaughter it. but to think, I had a cousin around the same age as me, whose family were the ones who raise the pigs. And these are big pigs, live for years. Who since birth, was never a pet. But fattened up for a feast. What a different world that is then fast food america.

but our modern denial of where our food comes from, doesn't just stop at meat. We have lots of wild fruit trees just growing all over the city. No one ever eats the fruit. It just all falls to floor and rots. Free fruit!! I wonder if even the homeless here enjoy the fruit.

But I'm just as guilty and as irrational! I can't eat the fruit growing around here. It always feels....dirty. Why, because it doesn't have a label? 99% of the fruit I've eaten came from supermarkets! These are nasty suburbian fruit trees, I can't eat from them!

Then I go visit my uncle again in Puerto Rico. Nice home with all the modern luxuries, big flat screen TV. Oh hey, he notices he's out of oranges or mangos! No problem. He grabs a ladder.

Can I eat the fruit he gathered for me in his wild back yard? I can. But it always feels weird. Like..this is where fruit really comes from.

Of course, times are changing for the island. People who buy at the supermarket, are buying imported fruit. Of which is growing wild!!

how disconnected are we from where our food comes from? :|

and I think I just changed the topic. But I am the OP...I can do that right? :D

[Neil Templar]

the question of being disconnected from the food we eat is apparently more important than most people realize.
once again i cannot remember the source, but i've read and heard on many occasions that eating food grown in your local area is way more beneficial than eating stuff from distant places.
even to the point of the effect it has on your energy body IIRC.

[CFTraveler]

....Nature?

Derail it as much as you want.

As you know, I too am puerto rican- grew up on the island and lived there until I was around twenty.
I remember the first time I figured out that the pollo we ate was the same pollo that was the animal (chicken). I was so traumatized, I refused to eat any meat, when they explained to me that pork was pig, and beef was cow. They forced me and starved me so I would have to eat meat, and I eventually complied.
I'm not sure if there's a lesson in that, but I'm sure someone can make some sense of it.

Now I live in Florida and no one knows what an acerola tree is- the other day I was walking in the park and there was this tree full of them. I was walking with a friend and asked her what the fruit was called. She didn't know what it was or if it was edible. So I took a chance and took one and ate it. Acerola! The most delicious fruit in the world and no one knew what it was! I tell you.
The thing is that here everyone sprays their trees with poison. Back home we had a guava tree and a mango tree, and I would have never thought of spraying them. For what, to make them look prettier? That has never made any sense to me anyway.
Ok, I'm done with this directionless post.

[sandrofabres]

Gandhi said once: "Everything in the nature is violence. We only can do the less violent choice". The universe is a balance of stregths, and several stregth need to give space to others, everyday. When a human need to give space a little, we call tolerance, when he needs give a lot of space, we call abuse. But the balance will prevail, anyway.

I am vegetarian since 2001, with a brief period of pranic nourishment during 18 months. My family was of hunters, and I live in a staet where hunting is legal durign some months of the year. I grow up seeing animals being killed, skinned, cut in pieces, and those pieces traveled to my table, I ate not only flesh, but noses, eyes, tongues... This never disturbed me, nor when I was a child, nor when I was a adult.

I always listening the talking about vegetarianism and think that it was a "weak stomach guys´s talking", child that grow up eating Chips and Ruffles, and because this they believe that meat was "strong", "toxic" and "violent". But slowly I bagen to think about the practicity of a vegetarian diet. I never liked of the all that carefull that we need have with meat. But between to think and to act past almost 15 years...

So, in some moment, because the Reiki initiation, I decided to have a 21 days of vegetarianism, and after that I tried to return to eat meat, but was impossible. I accepted like a good thing ( if you stop to eat fruits, you can return in any moment, but if you stop to eat meat, you need adapt yourself again, so, to me the logic seemed obvious: eat meat is not natural, it is only a training. When you stop a training you hability atrophy). And the excessive agressivity disapeared suddenly when I stoped to eat meat. So I decided that I was not interested in training myself to eat meat again, because nothing good came from meat, it was only a habit that I never had questioned.

Then, maybe one year or two after I began to see animals in another way, like partners, not like food. It was not authomatic, it was a process of changing in how we see the world. Because this I think that all talking about "the poor animals", have none effect in eat meaters. I remember that all living beings was to me only "walking food". Only when you can see it differently you can think really about this. Before this moment, you will be only analyzing cold arguments, they are only words: what is or isn't health second the science, poison, toxic, natural or antinatural, our body are made to this or that, God wants this, God don't wants that.

Education, information, arguments don't creates counciousness, the counsciousness creates the arguments! Because this the humanity like to join tehmselves in groups that see the world from this or that "logic manner". An argument only has logic to the people sharing the same level of counsciousness, and it always will seem illogic or faulty to people in another level, because none argument is a objective thing, perfect by the simple right to exist, it is only a tapestry of assumptions accepted by those that created them, nothing more.

You need ACT, then give a time to your ACTS can produce a changing in you counsciousness, and then you are able to analize your past and your present and decide what is better TO YOU.

But, if your consciousness is always pointing what is wrong in to eat meat, or vegetals, or fruits, or grains, or..... but you eat all this, the problem is not in cousnciousness, it is in you inner self-image, how you perceive yourself and the righteous of your decisions. There is a desire of adequation to something, and all solutions always will appear to be wrong, or illogical.
Better than to stop of eat this or that is discover what is producing this pressure of changing.

[John Sorensen]

Morality and food are incompatible.

*Is it violent to plant the same vegetables as in monocropping thus depleting the soil of the very minerals needed to sustain organic life?

*How would a vegetarian world be sutainable? How would the soil not be depleted? Would everyone be using Hydroponics?

...Well, I tried vego for two years and it wasn't for me.


My current diet emphasises nutrient density. There is nothing "natural" or "spiritual" about making a body make of protein, fat and water get by on vegetables.


To me to be Spiritual is living in harmony with nature, as primitive hunter gatherers did, who ate a LOT of primarily meat, guts, grease, liver, brains, bone marrow, intestines etc - the most NUTRIENT dense parts of the body. There is far more Vitamin C in raw sheeps liver for example than in any fruits and vegetables, it has famously been used to cure people of various cancers.


Whatever we choose to eat, something has to die, be it plant or vegetable.:(

I didn't design this planet, but I'm living on it, and it has certain biological laws, and when we ignore them, we suffer the consequences. Our bodies are made of the earth and water, they literally are an extension of the earth itself, but we like to fool ourselves and ignore all the rubbish/chemicals we have put into the environment that is now inside our bodies, in the water and in the air we breath - even in newborn babies, the umbilical cord blood has pesticides and other fun chemicals present.


Well, when I do eat, I give blessings for all food that I eat, but when it gets in my mouth and hits the old stomach acids, well that is about as violent as it gets, being dropped into a pit of acid! :wacky1:


From the Weston Price Organisation:

The Pursuit of HappinessWhen taken together these data suggest that nutrient-dense animal fats rich in vitamin A, arachidonic acid, andvitamin D will not only help us avoid mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, but help us to confront our challenges with focused, goal-oriented behavior and to sustain effort over time in order to realize important goals in the future. While there are many other factors that influence mental health—cognitive, social, spiritual—there is a physiological element of mental health that cannot be ignored. A return to traditional foods and traditional methods of food production and preservation will help us restore a culture willing to invest in its future while supplying the nutrients necessary to support the motivation to make that future happen.


I can say since upping my quantities of Vitamin A and D from animal source foods, I have never been healthier, stronger or happier and more mentally resilient. Contrast that to the two years a lifetime ago on a vegetarian diet where I was manic, energy levels all over the place, central nervous system was over taxed and my adrenal glands were over worked, not good!

Severe deficiencies of Vitamin A and D (which MOST people have) from animal sources dramatically increases chances of babies being born with mental illness - schizophrenia, autism and a host of others.
Fats, particularly animal fats have critical micronutrients that combine with other nutrients in the body for proper absorption.

Also,


"Arachidonic Acid Cooperates with Vitamins A and D to Regulate Stress Via Dopamine and Cortisol"

Which means chronic Vitamin A and D (from animal sources) deficiency results in elevated stress levels, adrenal burn out, damaging endocrine system, glands, immunity etc.

*I would say that SOME vegetarians are indeed violent / unbalanced due to their lack of essential fats in their diet.

Now, if only I could remember what that thing in my skull is primarily made of........?

693

[Sinera]

Vegetarians (who do it right, you can do anything wrong of course) do not lack essential fats - nor Vitamin A or D. It's a myth. Btw, we all have a vitamin D deficiency anyway. But vegetarian vitamin D or even vegan is also possible to gain, e.g. from lichen, a vegatarian form (at least) from the wool of sheep. Vitamin A is best consumed via beta-carotenes which you find in lots of veggies.

There are many pseudo-medical myths spread it seems by the meat and consumer industry nowadays again.

For vegans there is only the supposed lack of Vitamin B12 an issue resulting in anemia or neurological problems, including psychological (depression) in the long run. Vitamin-B12-deficiency has however much often different origins (e.g. stomach diseases or CEDs, such as Crohn etc.). So it also concerns "normal" eaters.

Moreover, VitB12-lack does not even apply to vegetarians who consume dairy products (cheese, etc.). Moreover, some say that some algea or some veggies contain VB12, but I need to re-check on that (e.g. the infamous Sauerkraut is said to have it).

I'm vegetarian for years now. I do not lack anything. Many others don't either. So where's the point in stating that I need to fall ill without doubt because that is what is being propagandised now in the media? Most people who consult doctors on a weekly basis are not vegans or vegetarians I daresay. If the propaganda was right there would be another situation which I clearly do not see.

When I was depressive I can say that I was much more depressive as a meat eater before. ;)

Most vegans/veggies I know are more vitally and healthyly appearing than heavy meat eaters, which however admittedly also relates to other lifestyle-health-related attitudes these people have (e.g. sports, yoga, meditation, etc.).

Meat (esp. red meat) causes cancer (esp. colon cancer) with higher likelyhood and lots of obesity-related and heart/cardiovascular diseases, arteriosklerosis, also later diabetes in the guise of the metabolical syndrome. That's a fact, check the stats.

Please don't fall for all the negative propaganda by the industry and some of their minion doctors against vegans and vegetarians etc.. It seems exaggerated recently, there is at least in my country a kind of crusade for meat-eating and against vegetarian/vegan raw diets in the mainstream mass media (whereelse???), since (I suppose) the industry suffer a lot of financial setbacks by people becoming more health aware in greater numbers, doctors maybe too. ;)

[Ayan01]

I was 100% beef up until about a year ago

[random statement somewhat associated :] They say every cell in your body regenerates in a year

After about a year I can say that Im far less violent than I used to be (I have a lot of negativity around me and I find it a lot easier to show love in difficult situations than I have my entire life...like water nothing can pierce me but im also a lot more consistant ) but also a lot more emotional, stuff tends to stay with me longer...a lot more whimper a lot less aaaaaaargh!!!!!!!! chaaaarge!!!!! .... a lot less agro in the gym as well....all in all a lot better and more meditative than before....still...meat...why does an applefall from a tree...am I a lion or a shrub...a trex or a whatever the long neck one was called...

I used to be quite arrogant and very dismissive...now im the opposite...also it is my belief im a lot more in tune with stuff around me...but that's just my belief... theres nothing wrong with a lamb rack but I havnt even had an egg in weeks....My Weber bbq is rusting in my shed

I also threw my multivitamin in the bin...


oh also I figured out that vegetarian food 'can be' the bomb!


Mix some sharmas kitchen paneer (from indian stores) (theres good and bad paneer...bad is usually from woolies) with some chopped brussel sprouts some capsicum, a small amount of spinach, tonne of onion shoots, a teaspoon of red wine vinager some soy sauce and a frying pan and I'll weigh it up pound for pound with that blue marble I used to pay 60 bux for...onion shoots and panner first and soy last...5-10 mins (with any oil)

Istill ahavnt found good tofu though....Im going good with the dahl though....I havnt demonstrated it in this post but also a lot more articulate in my communication

[John Sorensen]

Vegetarians (who do it right, you can do anything wrong of course) do not lack essential fats - nor Vitamin A or D. It's a myth. Btw, we all have a vitamin D deficiency anyway. But vegetarian vitamin D or even vegan is also possible to gain, e.g. from lichen, a vegatarian form (at least) from the wool of sheep. Vitamin A is best consumed via beta-carotenes which you find in lots of veggies.
;)


So, you have had independent laboratory tests to confirm this, because anything else is just hearsay?

Why is it that the strongest healthiest cultures ALL ate an abundance of Vitamin A and D from animal sources in antiquity (circa 1900) and grew significantly larger, taller, fully developed skeletons and jaw structure, nor CROWDING of teeth (unlike those who did not eat these foods, who had overcrowded teeth, just like we modern people due to improper development of the jaw) and far stronger than their neighbours?

These were groups such as the New Zealand Moari, Masi of Africa, Inuit of Alaska, Native American Indians, Aboriginal tribes of Australia and others.

While those who ate a predominantly vegetarian diet were typically shorter in stature, less disease resistant, not as physically strong (and hence dominated by their neighbours in tribal conflicts).

Well, this data is all available in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which is one of the largest studies ever done on what factors create the ultimate human specimen in term of high-immunity, free of disease, no mental illness, high degree of happiness, lack of stress etc.

Any modern study of Nutrition that neglects this data is just incomplete.
I prefer to stick with the facts, rather than conjecture.

http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Price/dp/0916764206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397902961&sr=8-1&keywords=nutrition+and+physical+degeneration


*Why does everyone have a Vitamin D deficiency? So even me, while I am currently in the sun for around 1 hour a day in just shorts and taking 5000 IU daily of Vitamin D3 Chocalciferol is deficient? Please explain this idea.

*I am not against any diet, people are free to eat whatever they like, but I do say be informed first, and make an informed decision after looking at the various available data, which for me took many years, and constant changes and re-inquiring into my errors of perception.

[Sinera]

And you really base this all on just one book from 1939? And a probably outdated and very biased one? That is also a bit of 'conjecture' for me. ;)

It is also only one study and it has furthermore been criticised, as one can read, e.g. regarding certain biases, no control groups, range of aspects examined, ignorance of other influential factors, etc.

I don't like quoting from Wikipedia but here's for the sake of finding sth fast:


"A 1981 editorial by William T. Jarvis published in Nutrition Today was more critical, identifying Price's work as a classic example of the "myth of the healthy savage," which holds that individuals who live in more technologically primitive conditions lead healthier lives than those who live in more modern societies. The review noted that Price's work was limited by a lack of quantitative analysis of the nutrition of the diets studied, and said he overlooked alternative explanations for his observations, such as malnutrition in primitive societies and overindulgence in the Western diet, rather than the diet itself, as a cause for poorer health. The review makes the assertion that Price had a preconceived positive notion about the health of primitive people, which led to data of questionable value and conclusions that ignored important problems known to afflict their societies, such as perodontal disease. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price#Nutrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodontal_disease)

So his book seems to contain a bit of positive stereotypes or even a bit of positive racism ("myth of the healthy savage")? Moreover, today fortunately we do not need the ability to be stronger than other tribes in order to dominate (kill?) them. (Btw, it would ironically confirm the thesis made in the title of this thread regarding non-violence ;) .)

And what is overlooked most, also by this study: there are many other (environmental, genetic, diseases-related, socio-cultural, historical) factors that come into play when it comes to the physical development and properties of populations. Making it dependent on eating habits only is probably a bit pseudo-scientific if you ask me.

Some comments on Vitamin A:

I do not contend that vitamin A from animal meat is healthy, it certainly is. But you get enough preformed Vit A from milk and eggs too. And you can even overdose preformed Vit. A with toxic effects - and the body gets rid of the surplus. The body synthesises the necessary beta-carotenes from it , e.g. take carrots where you have beta-carotenes directly which is even better! So you do not need direct/preformed Vitamin A (which indeed is found more in animals). A necessary provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene and the body converts it all into the 'active' vitamin A - you do not ingest any 'active' Vitamin A. Beta-carotene is plant and even preformed A can also be found in dairy products. There you have it. You don't need meat for this necessarily, animal source for preformed A yes (but due to milk it's still vegetarian) but not meat. The active vitamin A comes about in the body anyway metabolised from its precursors. Moreover, beta carotene ingestion (from many plants, e.g. carrots) would already be sufficient for its (active A) production. It's even better as it avoids the overdose toxicity problem!


Two forms of vitamin A are available in the human diet: preformed vitamin A (retinol and its esterified form, retinyl ester) and provitamin A carotenoids (...). Preformed vitamin A is found in foods from animal sources, including dairy products, fish, and meat (especially liver). By far the most important provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene; other provitamin A carotenoids are alpha-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin. The body converts these plant pigments into vitamin A. Both provitamin A and preformed vitamin A must be metabolized intracellularly to retinal and retinoic acid, the active forms of vitamin A, to support the vitamin's important biological functions (...)
(...)
The foods from animal sources (...) contain primarily preformed vitamin A, the plant-based foods have provitamin A, and the foods with a mixture of ingredients from animals and plants contain both preformed vitamin A and provitamin A.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminA-HealthProfessional/#h3

I assume Weston Price did not know about these biochemical interior physiological facts of Vitamin A synthesis in 1939, which largely debunks from today's viewpoint his assumptions. We cannot blame him for that of course.

Some comments on Vitamin D:

Not sure if I understand your comment or question regarding Vit. D deficiency in your last post. Yes, Vitamin D is special issue (such as Vitamin B12 for vegans btw - but not for vegetarians who consume dairies) - but not exclusive to vegetarians/vegans at all.

Yes, Vit. D you get mostly from fish, especially cod liver oil - which is of course a healthy source. If you are an eat meater you should eat mostly fish, it also has lots of vital omega fats (which however you also find in plants, etc.). I've read also that some algae (chlorella) and some veggies (e.g. sauerkraut) have vitamin D.

However: actually we could not eat that much fish (or eggs, or cod liver oil, or any meat) to cover our supposed deficiency. It's not possible! You cannot ingest that much. And this I heard in a presentation by an expert on Vitamin D (... yes, I am doing these things as a naturopath, I attend regular presentations lectures on orthomolecular and probiotic medicine over the internet via a medical laboratory analysis academy, don't want to be a know-it-all, just back up where I got it from).

The decisive fact is this: Vitamin D "IS" the very 'sun vitamin', it is not nutritional in the first place - although one can argue that we eat necessary precursors for the later synthesis of it, e.g. cholesterol.

Still: It's sun exposure that does the greatest part. What you get from any (!) food is miniscule in comparison! It's the sun, nothing but the sun. :D

Indigenous people or/and our tribal ancestors were much longer in the sun than we are today. The indigenous people (or our ancestors) mentioned are/were mostly living outside in warm climate conditions, so they had lots of time, plus exposure due to their usual spare clothing, in the sun to metabolise Vitamin D pre-forms in their overall skin (which then is further refined in the liver and finalized in the kidneys). That in my view is the main reason that they have more D, not nutrition. It's the sun exposure. It's the enviromment, the living conditions. But not the food.
Maybe one exception: northern indigenous people (e.g. eskimos) who get most of their Vit. D from fish, but they have it almost as their only food source. (I would also never expect them to change their diet into a meat-free one, that would be impossible in the first place and not recommendable, either).

This sun/climate-factor might also have been one factor that was overlooked by Weston Price, one among his many errors, as it seems. The sun has many beneficial health reasons. I've read in past life regression transcripts that the sun alone could heal people in ancient times. (And then we have the sungazing / UV-light diet practice too! But this leads us too far out now.).

In sum, your assertion that meat is needed for Vitamin D and A is imv largely debunked.

Back to the general topic:

Many vegetarians and vegans are pretty healthy. Many studies prove this. There was one recently trying to prove the opposite but they applied a cheap trick because they attributed illnesses to vegetarians who that had been former meat eaters and only had changed diet for their health later on. Here's a translation of an analysis (it's in German, therefore the translator):

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Falbert-schweitzer-stiftung.de%2Faktuell%2Fvegetarier-ungesund&edit-text=

Here's some more info, there are many studies out there proving that vegetarians live healthier or at least are not unhealthier than meat-eaters:

http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/261511.php


There were 2,570 deaths among the study participants during a mean (average) follow-up time of almost six years. The overall mortality rate was six deaths per 1,000 person years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality in all vegetarians combined vs. nonvegetarians was 0.88, or 12 percent lower, according to the study results. The association also appears to be better for men with significant reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality and IHD death in vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians. In women, there were no significant reductions in these categories of mortality, the results indicate.

"These results demonstrate an overall association of vegetarian dietary patterns with lower mortality compared with the nonvegetarian dietary pattern. They also demonstrate some associations with lower mortality of the pesco-vegetarian, vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets specifically compared with the nonvegetarian diet," the authors conclude.

If vegetarians are sick and it is due to nutrition (if at all which isn't always easy to prove!) then they maybe made mistakes in their diet, which you of course can - e.g. one who only eats dairies instead of enough vegetables and fruit. There are many who do it the wrong way, that's for sure. But so it is for other types of diets.

And let's not forget: Meat (esp. porc) is cancerous esp. for the intestines, it is the main reason for bowel cancer actually. Meat also is the main factor for arterial / cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, insufficiency, angina pectoris, etc.). Not to speak of the entire overweight plague issue (esp. in the US) which however is also caused by too much refined sugar, to be fair. This all is rather undoubted even by modern orthodox medicine today.

But you don't need studies pro and con, it is actually common sense. In my view the fact of many healthy (healthier!) vegetarians pretty much debunks your assertions that vegetarians lack something in nutrition.

And then please also consider fruitarians and their raw diets: Many eat only raw vegetables and fruit and they are pretty healthy, never see a doc. So how come they are not all ending up in hospitals now immediately, which they should according to your views? They don't. And many of them do not even take in any supplements.

Of course, if you believe meat is good and necessary for you, it's fine, of course you should keep eating it then. No one forbids you to do that. I also think everyone should eat what they like and think it is good for them. I also assume you promote a kind of 'paleolithic' diet which is also 'in vogue' now. I believe too this is a good thing as the kind of meat you then eat is better than our industrial Western meat. Still, the fact that are you inexpicably then claiming with the same breath that vegetarian diet is unhealthy, lacking and even dangerous and should to be replaced by (your) paleolithic diet, needs to be called and exposed clearly for what it is: Sheer nonsense. Sorry. But it must be said this way.

(Ps: I am NOT in this forum to argue about this topic any longer, so I will refrain from further posting and reading in THIS thread. The reason also is: I've done defending vegetarianism against biases and pseudo-science already elsewhere and I'm really a bit fed up with it. I also don't want to give any lenghty essays on nutrition anymore. Sorry. Plug needs to be pulled. No offense meant, nothing personal, so please excuse me, I respect every opinion on the subject. Still, if you write an answer, bear in mind that I do not read it. Thanks.)

[Ayan01]

I think you are actually talking about the purity of the food source, natural vs processed food here rather than vegetarian vs non-vegetarian. Can you give me a source? Heres one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSAZ1voWjGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSAZ1voWjGU) (Actually when people research this stuff it makes me think they are objectifying the people in the photographs and undermining the culture of the ingegenous peoples of the tribes mentioned, spread love I say...its like you cant spread love if you are messing with photos of people and making them examples of inequity...so I will site the nature of this video as being a bit offensive to some...he's actually trying to say they were all the picture of health before the processed foods came along...its like that whole thing where they find a native tribe in the amazon somewhere and they all have perfect teeth...etc) (let me know if its not the right one, I didn't have time to look through all the vids)

From 'TAUBES book 'why we get fat' where he directly talks about crowding of teeth, development of the jaw, growth of the skeletal system and attributes the irregularities to the introduction of processed foods into the diet. Weight and height to the genetics of the individual rather than the introduction of androgens or proteins. In particular I direct you to his research on the people of the northern circumpolar region whose diet consists of high amounts of saturated fat and little fish and whose body composition is of a low body fat, low cholesterol and low insulin levels (natural vs processed)

Basically hes saying all these people were healthier than we are now even though their diet consisted of very little meat (seasonal at best) and mostly natural food sources,)

The book you cited was first published by Sorenson in 1939 and included research from the previous century. This is before a lot of modern science was published which taubes includes in his book even though he had to go back in time for some of it. I invite you to look at his work...he is a proponent of meat. Im only pointing out your statement above and addressing it with knowledge I have acquired.

Meat just tastes good...cmon just say that. I like the informed decision thing, I think we all need to do that, often its a personal thing...I used to love eating meat...Im not going to say its bad...lots of people do it...its a personal thing...do what makes you healthy I say...maybe its different for me for a 1000 different reasons. I have friends that have higher metabolisms than me or naturally low iron etc..they might need to supplement...often its trial and error I think

Im still looking for good tofu if anyone has any suggestions? is it how you cook it? Im an impatient cook

[SiriusTraveler]

Personally I don't eat animals mostly because I feel the animal industry is just so bad and because of the health benefits (that's being proven over and over..) of not eating animals. I can't support such a wrong business as the animal industry so it makes it pretty simple for me actually. Basically I guess my choices are based on love, compassion and moral for others and for myself. Those are my choices and they are good for me :)