carnivores: old topic new(ish) thoughts

[Alaskans]

<For easy archive searching= energy food energy diet vegan vegan vegitarian vegitarian eating meat eating diet ethics animal cruelty >

Edit: Oh wait, I forgot one!
*Maybe eating plants are bennificial to spiritual growth because they are just better for you, as they have more vitamins and minerals. Um yeah, sorry, thats it, case closed... what a waste of pixels... well read on if you wish.



First of all, banish all feeling you or anyone else has about eating animal products, to make way for level-headed logic.

I havent been given a good reason for the whole go vegan thing. Why is eating plants considered more bennificial to spiritual growth?

I'm not saying it doesnt, but why would it? This topic seems to evade logical sense.

The common comments:
*Bad karma - if, through psychic gifts, you can communicate with nature and elements, you will see that all things are living. In fact, some things which are considered to have no thoughts are more advanced than any animal, and far more advanced than humans in some areas of consciousness. Trees fear for their lives, in fact, more so than animals, due to increased awareness. This means there is no difference between killing an animal and killing a plant. If you live and dont photosynthesize then you have to kill.

*Meat decays faster - this has some credence to it but not much, when mixed with stomach acid and digestive bacteria there is little difference between meat and plant matter.

*Animal cruelty (captive animals etc)- you know mass soy production is one of the main causes of the destruction of the amazon? (I know, a terrible irony... but the truth) many plants themselves are just as mistreated as the animals (chemicals, gene alteration, captivity). But more basic than that; both plant and animal products can be bought organic and freerange. So animal cruelty really doesnt hold.


Perhaps those reasons are too shallow..
*Collective energetic opinion - could it be that the general masses have just simply decided it is worse to eat an animal than a plant, conformity is powerfull and makes people believe what is not. In deciding this has there been a mystical energy link connected to eating animal products, that has, in a way, cursed it?

*Plant life matures slower - perhaps it is only my experiences, but it seems to me that plant life tends to mature intellectually slower than some animals. A 90 year old tree seems to be somewhat like a 7-10 year old human. So going by this, crops normally grown which are often planted each year, wouldnt be quite mature enough to really know what is happening. This is my best theory, except, many animals are profoundly stupid such as sheep, who often dont have the brains to save themselves from easy to escape problems.

*"You are what you eat" - hmm I just thought this one up; perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree (hah), perhaps the reason for eating plants is not that it is 'kinder' but that plants have a higher awareness than animals, and part of that awareness is transmuted into the one who consumes it. Or in the case of pork (an animal famous for gluttony), you will begin feel more inclined to satisfy every urge that comes along. So perhaps it has nothing to do with right or wrong, but a matter of being influenced by what you eat. (Btw, it has been scientifically proven some foods such as: garlic, yellow onions, and asparagus, actually change your DNA/RNA, so the seemingly ridiculous saying "you are what you eat" is actually scientifically true, who knew )

*Abolishing earthly attachments - perhaps not eating meat only helps spiritual growth because it removes one more thing that you desire; to eat it without desiring it is the same as a vegan diet.

Personally, I dont desire to eat meat, I in no way need it, though I dont object to it (except pork..yuk  ).

I know I didnt leave a lot up to discussion, but it has all been said before. Mull this over and try to think in a new direction.

[MisterJingo]

*Animal cruelty (captive animals etc)- you know mass soy production is one of the main causes of the destruction of the amazon? (I know, a terrible irony... but the truth) many plants themselves are just as mistreated as the animals (chemicals, gene alteration, captivity). But more basic than that; both plant and animal products can be bought organic and freerange. So animal cruelty really doesnt hold.

My only argument to this is while yes, plant production can be destructive, it doesn't have to be. Whereas any form of meat consumption will always be intrinsically cruel.
It seems empathy is a desired attribute, and if one was truly empathic to life around them, the consumption of meat would weigh heavily upon them due to the suffering caused to precure it.

[Alaskans]

Yes that is the common arguement, but that does not work, I am truely empathetic. I do think about the animal, but through my experiences I know that plant life is even more aware of its mortality than animals. You cut a road through a forest and the whole forest beleives it's next, theyre actually quite the drama queens. Science also backs up this claim.

I supose this is an old hornets nest I shouldnt be stirring up, but I dont see why so many people should obsess about not eating any animal products without a true reason.

[MisterJingo]

Yes that is the common arguement, but that does not work, I am truely empathetic. I do think about the animal, but through my experiences I know that plant life is even more aware of its mortality than animals. You cut a road through a forest and the whole forest beleives it's next, theyre actually quite the drama queens. Science also backs up this claim.

I supose this is an old hornets nest I shouldnt be stirring up, but I dont see why people should obsess about not eating any animal products.

But the above is a matter of opinion. Personifying plant matter does not give it the same awareness as humans. In a biological sense, a nervous system is needed to suffer, and specific emotions are the products of various neurotransmitters. As planets don’t have either, and the fact that the vast majority of plants we eat have evolved to be eaten as a way of scattering their offspring. Eating a plant is definitely a lot less
Morally wrong than eating an animal, in fact, if a plant has evolved to be eaten as a method or propagation, it could be considered morally right.
Regarding emotions, there is a tendency to project what we experience onto others and even into the astral itself. We can’t truly know if emotions experienced in the astral are just echoes of learnt responses from physical life – such as maintain a sex or human body shape are. Perhaps in the furthest astral, away from the human belief systems, emotions are gone and consciousness just is. But this is another discussion entirely.

[Alaskans]

Cant sleep  so I'll have the zombie smash something out on the keyboard. You do however make some interesting points there (if I had a brain right now I would be glad I got to use it.) I'm sorry there was some bad mojo, I removed it.

You are correct there is a lot of noise in the astral reguarding nature. Much of it I think was created by people stuck in the city. Some are pretty convincing currents that will take you a long way from the truth. You have to learn to stay away from them.

Nearly all of the stimulus taken in by intellegent plantlife is energetic (energy), and energy bodies can be hurt, although the pain is trivial in comparison to physical pain (well in MY experience). So yes they can feel, but less so than animals.

I've never made a connection with a small plant (no, not even weed), but I have had unintentional experiences with thier large counterparts, and the conciousness was unmistakable. Also, your forgetting every cell has intellegence (exept for the ones in my head  ).


But, your right, many plant foods were MEANT to be eaten, this coupled with the ability to give you superhuman powers (well thats what mom tells me) is a convincing argument for fruits an vegtables, two more than eating meat has.

[Stookie]

One thing that makes meat easy to eat is that for the majority of us, we're not doing the killing. If I had to kill a cow to eat a cheeseburger, I might switch to eating salad on a more regular basis. But fortunately for me, I can pull up to a menu in my car, roll down the window, and simply asked for a pre-killed cow sandwhich, no guilt involved. It was dead before I got there.

(I'm playing devil's advocate, though I do like a good cheeseburger)

[Alaskans]

Heyyy stookie  coming back to this site is like a family reuinion (with everyone being late and just showing up)
I must warn you I'm not much like I used to be, but then, who is 

[CFTraveler]

A couple of comments: First, I do eat meat, but have been an on-and off vegetarian for most of my life.  So I see everyone's point.
Some comments:  There have been experiments done on galvanic skin response on plants (done by the guy who discovered/invented the process, whose name escapes me), in which there was a sharp change in reading when the experimenter spoke or thought about pruning said plant.  So it appears that there is some sort of reaction to the thought of doing violence against the plant.  I would go as far as to deduce from that, given the readings to be correct, that plants don't like to be pruned, even if it's for their own good.
Yes, some plant matter is meant to be consumed, such as fruits and seeds, some of which will not germinate if they don't pass through the digestive tract of small animals.  So if you're going to eat vegan to avoid cruelty, fruits, seeds and nuts are the way to go.
I think that keeping a cow for its milk is probably more productive than killing it for it's meat.  But I'm sure someone will come up with facts disabusing me of that notion....
When I was young my brother got an easter chickie (you know how they dye their down and they're so cute) from the county fair.  We had the bad idea to keep it and watch it grow.  I can testify that chickens are the stupidest creatures alive.  I will not say any more grisly details, but after having one, I don't feel (too) bad about eating them.
Loose incoherent thoughts, I know.... I just woke up from a nap.

[Vvid1012]

I agree that killing either for food is morally acceptable...unless you are killing more than you need.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is...if you are what you eat, do you really want to eat the dumbest animal around...perhaps this is why some cultures eat dog

[Astir]

Some comments:  There have been experiments done on galvanic skin response on plants (done by the guy who discovered/invented the process, whose name escapes me), in which there was a sharp change in reading when the experimenter spoke or thought about pruning said plant.  So it appears that there is some sort of reaction to the thought of doing violence against the plant.  I would go as far as to deduce from that, given the readings to be correct, that plants don't like to be pruned, even if it's for their own good.

Similar or the same content: The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird.

[MisterJingo]

Some comments:  There have been experiments done on galvanic skin response on plants (done by the guy who discovered/invented the process, whose name escapes me), in which there was a sharp change in reading when the experimenter spoke or thought about pruning said plant.  So it appears that there is some sort of reaction to the thought of doing violence against the plant.  I would go as far as to deduce from that, given the readings to be correct, that plants don't like to be pruned, even if it's for their own good.

I know not a journaled source, but these experiments were recreated on a TV show called myth busters to stringent scientific standards (they used various plants as well as other biological mater such as yogurt cultures). Their experiments didn't see any response from the plants in any of the experiments. At first there was seeming response to certain stimulus, but it was discovered that this was due to vibration and so they put the plants into a sealed room and no response was noted.
This makes me slightly dubious of the originals findings. lol, I know, playing the cynic again :p

[Alaskans]

When did they do that show? I'm a fan. Must have been a recent episode. Unfortunately the mythbusters often overlook small but very important details that greatly change the outcome. Such as when they tested the myth about the jet airplane blowing a truck off a nearby highway. For a vehicle they chose a neon, one of the most aerodynamic vehicles. They kept upgrading the jets they were blowing on it and wondering why the car wasnt taking off flying (even though the paint was peeling), I just shook my head. They were unable to replicate it even though they had a video of a truck being being blown off the road by a jet plane. There is quite a few episodes like that.
There could be many small but important reasons they failed to reproduce the results, its a lot more delicate experiment to give yogurt a lie detector test than to blow a car over.

I'm really pleased with this thread, everyones more insightfull and less opinionated than I expected.

[MisterJingo]

When did they do that show? I'm a fan. Must have been a recent episode.

I’m not too sure when it was. I usually catch them on Bravo (uk) and it was during the most recent series I think.

Unfortunately the mythbusters often overlook small but very important details that greatly change the outcome. Such as when they tested the myth about the jet airplane blowing a truck off a nearby highway. For a vehicle they chose a neon, one of the most aerodynamic vehicles. They kept upgrading the jets they were blowing on it and wondering why the car wasnt taking off flying (even though the paint was peeling), I just shook my head. They were unable to replicate it even though they had a video of a truck being being blown off the road by a jet plane. There is quite a few episodes like that.
There could be many small but important reasons they failed to reproduce the results, its a lot more delicate experiment to give yogurt a lie detector test than to blow a car over.

Thinking about it, they actually conducted a series of experiments. The yoghurt experiment involved removing parts of the yoghurt culture, and then subjecting the removed culture to harmful and pleasurable conditions (such as high heat, or giving it sugar). The original culture was monitored to see if any sympathetic changes occurred. None did.
They then reproduced the plant experiment, and finally, one involving eggs. Each time the results came back negative.
In all these experiments there is definitely room for error, so their results shouldn’t be taken as absolute – but it does give reason for caution about the results of the original experiments (I’ve been looking for successful reproduction of these experiments, but found nothing as yet).
Something I intended to mention earlier was an AP experience a long time ago. I was riding on a train, napping, and felt conditions conducive to projection. The projection itself wasn’t completely immersive; I had body awareness and awareness of the astral at the same time. I was still seeing the train journey, but the trees lining the tracts had changed. They were now a pinkish colour, but rather than organic, they were crystalline. Like huge growths of vibrating crystal. It was a lot more than this – but words are a bit poor at translating such experiences. This gave me the idea that plants might have more akin with crystals than organic life forms with nervous systems.

[Selski]

At first there was seeming response to certain stimulus, but it was discovered that this was due to vibration and so they put the plants into a sealed room and no response was noted.

Hello cynic 

Interesting you mention vibration.  Perhaps everything is perceived on some vibrational level.  Our intuitions with regards to everyone/thing we come across might have its basis in vibration.  Or, another way to look at it would be to call it energy.

You must have had the experience of knowing someone is ticked off/happy/resigned/whatever just by their energy.  I don't mean you need to look at them, but simply by being close to someone, you can sense what mood they are in?

Well, if this is the case, perhaps plants/animals can do that too. 

Some animals may react when you lead them to the van that will take them to the slaughterhouse.  Vibration?  Energy? 

How come dogs know when they are on their way to the vet rather than the park when put in the car - even though being in the car more often than not means the park? (and I just read in another thread that dogs are supposed to be stupid... )   

And cats.  They know when a storm is coming.  And they sure as hell know when electric gadgets are about to blow.

However, put these animals in a sealed room and then suddenly zap them with a poisonous gas - they most likely won't show any response on a machine. 

And neither would humans.  In my opinion. 

Sarah

[Alaskans]

I was still seeing the train journey, but the trees lining the tracts had changed. They were now a pinkish colour, but rather than organic, they were crystalline. Like huge growths of vibrating crystal. It was a lot more than this – but words are a bit poor at translating such experiences. This gave me the idea that plants might have more akin with crystals than organic life forms with nervous systems.

Very cool experience. I know what you're saying. The astral more or less does mimic the physical (or visa versa). And plants dont have a known nervous system, so logically there is a pretty good chance that a nervous system wont be mimicked in the astral. But then there is many such instances of creatures and microorganisms functioning and 'thinking' without mapped out internal organs or nervous systems. Perhaps our physical forms aren't so important after all?...

Thinking about it, they actually conducted a series of experiments. The yoghurt experiment involved removing parts of the yoghurt culture, and then subjecting the removed culture to harmful and pleasurable conditions (such as high heat, or giving it sugar). The original culture was monitored to see if any sympathetic changes occurred. None did.

The problem is I dont believe the entire world is allowed to know, without a doubt, the truth. Theres never been a successfull highly publicized scientific study on the 'paranormal.' According to results there is no such thing as psychic powers, astral projection, auras, there is nothing according to them. Well, guess my life is over, might as well kill myself and fade into nonexistence... sorry I got carried away   You're only allowed as much as you can handle, correct? What would happen if all the hard nosed atheists out there were shown indisputable, impossible to deny proof of what we believe? It would be too much for them, as such, highly publicized experiments nearly always fail.

And Selski is right, the tests are always done in a way not conductive to the 'paranormal.' On top of this hot fudge sundae of orthodox sterility sprinkle a bunch of people who purposely sabotage the experiment or its results because they themselves are not able to look the truth in the face.

Im sorry, I know I totally overdid it, it's in no way directed to you MJ. Im just sorry for all those people who still dont beleive, and agitated I cant do anything about it. So much for keeping opinion out.