why is it that most spiritual and metaphysical people always advice to be a vegetarian and avoid meat. do we really have to be a vegetarian in order to achieve spiritual well being? what's wrong with meat?
maybe they are just trying to avoid the blood debt :wink:
:NoY:
There's nothing wrong with it.
It's, yet another, personal choice one can make and it's no more or less spiritual than anything else.
I work with a bunch of new age hippies (who drive me crazy). Most of them are vegetarians.
The other day I told the astrologer I work with (the most militant vegetarian of all of them) that I like the hot bar at Whole Foods better than the hot bar at the local market up the street (basically just a smaller version of Whole Foods). She glared at me and said, "carnivore". I said "excuse me?" to which she replied, "you like whole foods better because you're a carnivore and they support meat eaters, [other store] doesn't". That kind of ticked me off because first of all it's not true. The local market serves meat and whole foods serves much more in vegetarian fare than meat. But how dare she condescend me for eating meat. So I went on to explain to her why she is still murdering life to feed herself and I was better than her for it because I'm not in denial about it. Animals and plants are both living creatures. You kill both of them to eat them. For someone who constantly complains about why we keep pets but eat other animals (like pigs, because she has a pet pig) and preaches the equality of all animals, she certainly carries a double standard for plants. Apparently their form of life isn't as good as that of animals. Bull$hit.
I have no problem with vegetarians. In fact, I am in the process of switching to a vegetarian diet because my body wants balance (i eat too much meat, which i'll still eat sparingly). But if you are a vegetarian, don't think you're better than a carnivore because you don't kill animals. You kill plants and don't even thank them for it. You don't even think they need to be thanked.
Frank was a vegetarian & so am I. :-P Not that that matters. I think it being considered more spiritual is because some religions suggest it for peace.
* Buddhism
* Hinduism
* ISKCON (the Hare Krishnas)
* Jainism
* Sikhism
* Seventh Day Adventists
* The Society of Friends (Quakers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_religion
Quote from: mon9999 on May 04, 2011, 05:39:31
what's wrong with meat?
Maybe it is like a more powerful alien saying "what wrong with eating humans?".
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfyqcytpAm1qzftdso1_500.jpg)
I don't see why someones diet is such a big deal to other people. What someone chooses to eat should make no difference to anyone unless they are cannibals.
Its funny that people have often confessed to me that they wish they could give
up meat but at the same time they feel the need to put down vegetarians. :roll:
\o/ Kurt!
I really couldn't care less how people choose to eat. I think it's ridiculous to claim that vegetarianism is more peaceful (less violent) than eating meat. Just because an animal bleeds like a human doesn't mean that plants are of less value. They bleed their own blood just like everyone and everything else. Another example of someone's dogma run away like a freight train. Most vegetarian religions come from the east, which to me shows more of a cultural concern than a religious one. It probably just got somehow tacked on to the religion at some point. Nevertheless, it's just plain dumb to criticize anyone for their dietary choices. Maybe it's the people I hang out with, but I find that vegetarians are a lot more conceited about their diets than meat eaters. Who really cares? If you have a spiritual urge to eat a particular diet (which i fully understand), that's great, but it doesn't mean my diet makes me unclean. Same old story.
Its a lot more about how animals are being treated than the death of them. If you did research on the terrible conditions and tortue animals go through for mass production, then you would understand the peace aspect of it. I admire how native tribes hunt & respect their food. I cant say I admire what goes on in slaughter houses. There is a belief that when you consume flesh, you also consume the energy of what it experienced.
I think it is necessary to twist a lot of the facts in a grievously biased way, however, to say that it is the same to eat plants and animals, and that the treatment each receive are equivalent. As has been mentioned, animals kept on most farms are more or less in constant torture. And people do differentiate between how they treat lifeforms of different kinds of development, based on their perceived mental experiences; case in point- most people don't feel bad about stepping on an ant, but would think twice about crushing a dog under a giant dumpster.
There are economic arguments to make as well. Consider all the bio-matter that must be cultivated, transported, and distributed in order to feed and raise an animal to kill. The cost of all the produce it eats is hundreds of times the nutritional value of its meat. If we put the same resources we put toward raising livestock into producing vegetables and grain, we could feed the entire world many times over, rather than just barely, and having many in constant starvation. There are also massive quantities of energy consumed and pollution resulting from keeping the volume of livestock we do. It has been said that given a choice between getting rid of every motor vehicle in the country, and getting rid of the livestock industry, the latter choice would be vastly more beneficial in terms of energy and pollution.
It is indeed a lifestyle choice, but I think it is a vast misrepresenttion of reality to say it does not matter which you choose, and that there are no other consequences for the world.
Quote from: Lexy on May 04, 2011, 14:47:00
Its a lot more about how animals are being treated than the death of them. If you did research on the terrible conditions and tortue animals go through for mass production, then you would understand the peace aspect of it. I admire how native tribes hunt & respect their food. I cant say I admire what goes on in slaughter houses. There is a belief that when you consume flesh, you also consume the energy of what it experienced.
I agree 100%, especially about the emotion you absorb when you eat that flesh. I just assumed we were all aware of that aspect of the argument. The treatment of animals in mass slaughter is horrendous.
I switch between vegetarianism and omnivorous. I love meat but don't like how the industry treat animals for slaughter. So I do veg. for some time, until I can't help myself, and go back and forth.
Quote from: personalreality on May 04, 2011, 13:55:53
\o/ Kurt!
I really couldn't care less how people choose to eat. I think it's ridiculous to claim that vegetarianism is more peaceful (less violent) than eating meat. Just because an animal bleeds like a human doesn't mean that plants are of less value. They bleed their own blood just like everyone and everything else. Another example of someone's dogma run away like a freight train. Most vegetarian religions come from the east, which to me shows more of a cultural concern than a religious one. It probably just got somehow tacked on to the religion at some point. Nevertheless, it's just plain dumb to criticize anyone for their dietary choices. Maybe it's the people I hang out with, but I find that vegetarians are a lot more conceited about their diets than meat eaters. Who really cares? If you have a spiritual urge to eat a particular diet (which i fully understand), that's great, but it doesn't mean my diet makes me unclean. Same old story.
The only good reason to not eat meat is if you didn't like the taste of it. Fortunately, I love meat, especially with plenty of spices and hot sauces and I could care less what they do to fish, chickens, cows, pigs, and turkeys.
QuoteThe only good reason to not eat meat is if you didn't like the taste of it
Again, a significantly biased claim. It is okay to say it is a manner of opinion and choice, and that there is debate involved, since it is not a black and white issue; but to flat out say that there are no reasons of any kind to support a decision otherwise, and to say that the other side of the discussion has made no counterpoints is not only willful ignorance of rational arguments, it is also lying to yourself and lying to others.
Quote from: Stillwater on May 04, 2011, 22:36:08
Again, a significantly biased claim. It is okay to say it is a manner of opinion and choice, and that there is debate involved, since it is not a black and white issue; but to flat out say that there are no reasons of any kind to support a decision otherwise, and to say that the other side of the discussion has made no counterpoints is not only willful ignorance of rational arguments, it is also lying to yourself and lying to others.
It's black and white to me... Eat whatever you want. I don't see the point of depriving yourself the pleasure of eating the greatest foods on the planet because of some silly religious or cultural belief.
I haven't eaten meat since i was 10 years old because of how ridiculously squeamish i am, I used to imagine the pain of someone biting a chunk of flesh out of my arm, It got the point where i couldn't even chew it, I'd just swallow it.. and then as soon as my mum gave me a choice, i just opted out of it. I have nothing against people who eat meat though, not at all.
Quotebecause of some silly religious or cultural belief.
I will quote... myself... of 5 posts back :-D Religion is not even a part of where I coming from. It has been irrefutably established that the livestock industry is one of the absolute top causes of world hunger, and a principle source of world pollution and energy consumption. Merely for the unarguable good of other people on earth, and of future generations, it is a responsible choice to give up eating meat, or to even eat less. If with this understanding, you choose to eat meat, that is a personal choice, like driving an SUV to work, but don't dismiss reasonable, scientific facts by calling them religious mumbo-jumbo not worthy of your time. You can say that other people's wellfare is not a top priority to you, and it would be an understandable position in some ways, as you can either choose to spend your time caring about others, or do your own thing, but don't paint blatant facts to be "religious people stuff". It makes sense to me that one could say it was not a compelling argument to them, since they are focuesed on their own personal exerperiences, but to say it was not a rationalistic, factual-based argument can only be ignorant.
QuoteThere are economic arguments to make as well. Consider all the bio-matter that must be cultivated, transported, and distributed in order to feed and raise an animal to kill. The cost of all the produce it eats is hundreds of times the nutritional value of its meat. If we put the same resources we put toward raising livestock into producing vegetables and grain, we could feed the entire world many times over, rather than just barely, and having many in constant starvation. There are also massive quantities of energy consumed and pollution resulting from keeping the volume of livestock we do. It has been said that given a choice between getting rid of every motor vehicle in the country, and getting rid of the livestock industry, the latter choice would be vastly more beneficial in terms of energy and pollution.
Quote from: Stillwater on May 05, 2011, 03:27:27
I will quote... myself... of 5 posts back :-D Religion is not even a part of where I coming from. It has been irrefutably established that the livestock industry is one of the absolute top causes of world hunger, and a principle source of world pollution and energy consumption. Merely for the unarguable good of other people on earth, and of future generations, it is a responsible choice to give up eating meat, or to even eat less. If with this understanding, you choose to eat meat, that is a personal choice, like driving an SUV to work, but don't dismiss reasonable, scientific facts by calling them religious mumbo-jumbo not worthy of your time. You can say that other people's wellfare is not a top priority to you, and it would be an understandable position in some ways, as you can either choose to spend your time caring about others, or do your own thing, but don't paint blatant facts to be "religious people stuff". It makes sense to me that one could say it was not a compelling argument to them, since they are focuesed on their own personal exerperiences, but to say it was not a rationalistic, factual-based argument can only be ignorant.
So, your point is that the global economy is suffering because people eat meat?
Perhaps it is a matter of matching each persons needs for being healthy rather than strict rules or moral purposes.
We know that eating too much salt or sugar is not good for a human body, and there are general guidlelines for what a human body needs to stay healthy.
Eat enough but not too much. Maybe look for foods that are the closest to their natural state, and eat less of processed foods.
But foods are not the whole story. A strict vegan with a bad attitude or an ego problem is not better than a meat eater who has overcome bad attitudes or ego problems.
A diet for one person is not,perforce good for another. Pay attention to your cravings but not your addictions. Ask yourself questions about why you make the food choices you do
and why you like those choices and then be honest with yourself.
Your body is a pretty complex organism and it needs different nutrients at different times in your life.
What about the mental and emotional diets? Should we be more concerned with what we feed our selves mentally and emotionally?
Quote from: gdo on May 05, 2011, 08:37:50
We know that eating too much salt or sugar is not good for a human body, and there are general guidlelines for what a human body needs to stay healthy.
Eat enough but not too much. Maybe look for foods that are the closest to their natural state, and eat less of processed foods.
I know people that eat McDolnalds and KFC every day and live until there 90s. And I've known people that eat vegetables and fruit every day and have gotten lung cancer and died at 65. You could get hit by a car and die tomorrow, so eat whatever you want and be happy.
i agree kurt, but i can say that when i eat raw foods, especially fruits, i feel more energetic than when i eat meat. not in some metaphysical sense, i just have more energy, i'm more alert and ready to go.
but then again, i really like meat.
QuoteSo, your point is that the global economy is suffering because people eat meat?
Yes, actually, in the sense that there is less engergy and
signifcantly less food to go around while supporting a livestock system, by the nature of engery passed on at each level of the tropic food-chain. For every person you can feed with the engery and labor needed to raise enough animal weight to feed them, you can literally feed dozens upon dozens, and potentially even hundreds of people, based upon what crops are grown with those same resources.
Quote from: kurtykurt42 on May 05, 2011, 18:11:09
I know people that eat McDolnalds and KFC every day and live until there 90s.
Occasionally eating McDonald's and KFC... probably.
But more than that, it would take a very special individual to stomach that crap and live to 90.
Anyway, that's not even real meat! LOL
My opinion.
If you think there's nothing wrong with eating meat then you are just living acording to your nature and are doing nothing wrong. If you feel guilty about it but eat the stuff anyway then you will be acruing a certain amount of karmic debt and creating subconscious problems. To put it in christian terms you would be committing willful sin.
I believe when you eat something you take into your being. When you eat meat you are taking fear and slaughter into yourself. A book I've just read said plants grow from light so when you eat plants you are taking more light into yourself - it's a nice thought.
Another book I read(on hermetic magic) said you can imbue your food with any quality you like before eating it and over time you will take it on. I'm inclined to believe it as other things in the book proved to work.
I've found that the longer I stay away from meat the more repellant it becomes to me. I cant even eat quorn because it's too meat-like. The smell of pork cooking makes me gag nowadays. It really does smell god awful when your mind stops associating it with food.
Quote from: Stillwater on May 05, 2011, 22:02:31
Yes, actually, in the sense that there is less engergy and signifcantly less food to go around while supporting a livestock system, by the nature of engery passed on at each level of the tropic food-chain. For every person you can feed with the engery and labor needed to raise enough animal weight to feed them, you can literally feed dozens upon dozens, and potentially even hundreds of people, based upon what crops are grown with those same resources.
It is a shame... But I don't see how me not eating meat and promoting global awareness on the topic is going to help much.
Quote from: blis on May 06, 2011, 14:56:17
When you eat meat you are taking fear and slaughter into yourself.
You guys are the ones that are afraid to eat meat... :lol:
To step into sci-fi for a moment: if we had replicators that could freely make meat that was just as "tasty" and nutritional as real animal flesh do you think it would then be considered cruel to keep killing animals for food?
depends on your perspective.
like you mentioned, absorbing the energy of what we eat and all. for some who were raised (like myself) to revere and thank the animal that gave it's life for you to eat, perhaps the absorption of that energy would still motivate eating living animals.
but you make a legit point.
Quote from: Stillwater on May 04, 2011, 15:26:40
I think it is necessary to twist a lot of the facts in a grievously biased way, however, to say that it is the same to eat plants and animals, and that the treatment each receive are equivalent. As has been mentioned, animals kept on most farms are more or less in constant torture. And people do differentiate between how they treat lifeforms of different kinds of development, based on their perceived mental experiences; case in point- most people don't feel bad about stepping on an ant, but would think twice about crushing a dog under a giant dumpster.
There are economic arguments to make as well. Consider all the bio-matter that must be cultivated, transported, and distributed in order to feed and raise an animal to kill. The cost of all the produce it eats is hundreds of times the nutritional value of its meat. If we put the same resources we put toward raising livestock into producing vegetables and grain, we could feed the entire world many times over, rather than just barely, and having many in constant starvation. There are also massive quantities of energy consumed and pollution resulting from keeping the volume of livestock we do. It has been said that given a choice between getting rid of every motor vehicle in the country, and getting rid of the livestock industry, the latter choice would be vastly more beneficial in terms of energy and pollution.
It is indeed a lifestyle choice, but I think it is a vast misrepresenttion of reality to say it does not matter which you choose, and that there are no other consequences for the world.
I use to be a vegetarian (and at points vegan). I read all their propaganda. While this is true to an extent, that extent being only looking at factory farming, it isn't entirely true. Environmentally speaking factory farming is devastating. However this is true of raising fruits and vegetables as much as it is of raising animals. Is having toxic waste lands of fields of genetically altered crops where fields are sprayed with all kinds of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers really any better?
The problem is not with the animals, or the vegetables, but how it is done. A system that is as close to nature's way as possible is the best system. I have done both, raising food with no animal input. Both the animals and plants thrive and produce healthy food when they are combined.
In fact, meat (especially beef) can be one of the most environmentally friendly food sources if done naturally. Cows on pasture need very little to no outside input. As long as they have grass to eat and water to drink they are good to go. They don't need anything else brought in. They eat the grass and fertilize the field. It is a beautiful system.
Put some chickens out there with them and it is even more complete. Chickens eat bugs and seeds in the field. They love to dig through the cow poop looking for bugs and seeds. This aids in the fertilization by spreading it around (and providing their own). Also they help control flies by eating their larva in the cow poop.
Ok, maybe more information than some wanted so I will stop there. Eat a vegetarian diet for any reason you want, but don't think you are doing so for the environment. If your food source is factory farms regardless of what the food is, it is not good for the environment. The most environmentally friendly food system is one that mimics nature and nature uses both plants and animals.
I think the best diet is one that is local, fresh and natural. That can and is going to vary depending on where you live.
nice response walker.
good to see you here.
Quote from: WalkerInTheWoods on May 13, 2011, 09:06:37
I use to be a vegetarian (and at points vegan). I read all their propaganda. While this is true to an extent, that extent being only looking at factory farming, it isn't entirely true. Environmentally speaking factory farming is devastating. However this is true of raising fruits and vegetables as much as it is of raising animals. Is having toxic waste lands of fields of genetically altered crops where fields are sprayed with all kinds of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers really any better?
The problem is not with the animals, or the vegetables, but how it is done. A system that is as close to nature's way as possible is the best system. I have done both, raising food with no animal input. Both the animals and plants thrive and produce healthy food when they are combined.
In fact, meat (especially beef) can be one of the most environmentally friendly food sources if done naturally. Cows on pasture need very little to no outside input. As long as they have grass to eat and water to drink they are good to go. They don't need anything else brought in. They eat the grass and fertilize the field. It is a beautiful system.
Put some chickens out there with them and it is even more complete. Chickens eat bugs and seeds in the field. They love to dig through the cow poop looking for bugs and seeds. This aids in the fertilization by spreading it around (and providing their own). Also they help control flies by eating their larva in the cow poop.
Ok, maybe more information than some wanted so I will stop there. Eat a vegetarian diet for any reason you want, but don't think you are doing so for the environment. If your food source is factory farms regardless of what the food is, it is not good for the environment. The most environmentally friendly food system is one that mimics nature and nature uses both plants and animals.
I think the best diet is one that is local, fresh and natural. That can and is going to vary depending on where you live.
Hear Hear!
Remember when Travis Barker and DJ AM were in the plane crash and got burned? Here's a quote from him then:
"Because I was a vegetarian, for my first three surgeries, it was hard to get any of my grafts to take to my real skin. I have such low levels of protein. I need protein from food rather than just protein supplements. I changed my diet. I would do anything I possibly could if they said like, 'There's a possibility you might heal faster if you do eat meat or just change your eating habits.' So I did. I don't regret it at all, I feel so much better."
Personally, I go for a healthy balanced diet. And CF convinced me of the importance of buying organic, not just for heath, but for the industry.
that's what my neighbor says stookie.
he says he shops with one simple rule, 'does my food need that?'
what he means is, anything beyond the ingredients that are necessary to make that particular food is unnecessary and he doesn't eat it.
even "organic" foods can have preservatives and the like in it.
so he reads the labels and if there are any chemicals that he doesn't recognize as integral to the meal, he doesn't eat it.
he is a vegetarian, but that's because he just never has liked meat, but he's not opposed to meat when it's raised and slaughtered properly (as opposed to the mass slaughter and poor treatment).
Quote from: Stookie_ on May 13, 2011, 11:36:19
Remember when Travis Barker and DJ AM were in the plane crash and got burned? Here's a quote from him then:
"Because I was a vegetarian, for my first three surgeries, it was hard to get any of my grafts to take to my real skin. I have such low levels of protein. I need protein from food rather than just protein supplements. I changed my diet. I would do anything I possibly could if they said like, 'There's a possibility you might heal faster if you do eat meat or just change your eating habits.' So I did. I don't regret it at all, I feel so much better."
Personally, I go for a healthy balanced diet. And CF convinced me of the importance of buying organic, not just for heath, but for the industry.
I remember that, he could have gotten plenty of protein from plants but it doesn't look like he knew how to go about & instead relied on supplements for all of his protein.
Does that work? Relying upon supplements in that fashion?
Quote from: Xanth on May 14, 2011, 00:18:25
Does that work? Relying upon supplements in that fashion?
I don't think you can rely on supplements for all of your nutritional needs. It's better to eat lots of unprocessed foods, mostly in the raw state.
The more denatured the protein powder is, the less likely it's going to be absorbed, the body doesn't recognize it as actual food, making it difficult to digest.
You have to make sure you have high quality natural raw supplements which is expensive but it still shouldn't be used to replace healthy food.
Quote from: WalkerInTheWoods on May 13, 2011, 09:06:37
I use to be a vegetarian (and at points vegan). I read all their propaganda. While this is true to an extent, that extent being only looking at factory farming, it isn't entirely true. Environmentally speaking factory farming is devastating. However this is true of raising fruits and vegetables as much as it is of raising animals. Is having toxic waste lands of fields of genetically altered crops where fields are sprayed with all kinds of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers really any better?
The problem is not with the animals, or the vegetables, but how it is done. A system that is as close to nature's way as possible is the best system. I have done both, raising food with no animal input. Both the animals and plants thrive and produce healthy food when they are combined.
In fact, meat (especially beef) can be one of the most environmentally friendly food sources if done naturally. Cows on pasture need very little to no outside input. As long as they have grass to eat and water to drink they are good to go. They don't need anything else brought in. They eat the grass and fertilize the field. It is a beautiful system.
Put some chickens out there with them and it is even more complete. Chickens eat bugs and seeds in the field. They love to dig through the cow poop looking for bugs and seeds. This aids in the fertilization by spreading it around (and providing their own). Also they help control flies by eating their larva in the cow poop.
Ok, maybe more information than some wanted so I will stop there. Eat a vegetarian diet for any reason you want, but don't think you are doing so for the environment. If your food source is factory farms regardless of what the food is, it is not good for the environment. The most environmentally friendly food system is one that mimics nature and nature uses both plants and animals.
I think the best diet is one that is local, fresh and natural. That can and is going to vary depending on where you live.
In terms of environmental impact, I think it's more a factor of excessive consumption. It's not necessary to eat a pound of meat everyday to live. It's just too much. They have to cut down rainforests just to make room for more & more cattle. People eat more meat then what is needed or even healthy for the body or the planet.
I eat pretty much everything that's edible. I'm definitely omnivorous and proud. I also try to eat things that are rich in tryptophan so that an abundance of tryptamines is maintained in my system which appears to aid the vividness of my otherworldly night life. 8-)
I'm a fish eater... no non-fish... although I eat eggs and drink milk.
I take zinc as a supplement.
your body absorbs supplements from food differently than it does if you take a supplement pill.
plus there's always something to be said for the life energy in the food that isn't in a pill.
Quote from: Lexy on May 14, 2011, 01:26:24
In terms of environmental impact, I think it's more a factor of excessive consumption. It's not necessary to eat a pound of meat everyday to live. It's just too much. They have to cut down rainforests just to make room for more & more cattle. People eat more meat then what is needed or even healthy for the body or the planet.
This isn't just about producing meat. Land has to be cleared for new fields to grow produce as well. This is more of an effect of people being disconnected from their food. It wasn't that long ago when most people grew atleast some of their food on their own land. Within a community almost, if not all, of the people's food was grown. It was consumed fresh and at its peak, supplying the best nutrients as well as energy.
Now few people, atleast in the US, grow any food at home. It isn't that they don't have the means, it is that they just don't. I drive around and see acres and acres of nicely mowed lawns. There are houses sitting on atleast 1 acre, though many times a lot more than that, with nothing but grass on them. What do they do with that grass? They just mow it. What a waste! If they wanted just grass the least they could do would be to put a cow or goat (or a few) out there to eat the grass and keep the 'lawn' trimmed and neat. Then at the end of the season they could have some meat, or have milk most of the year. A few animals do not require a lot of space.
If they wanted to, they could be growing atleast some of their food on a small patch of that, or all of it. In the time they spent mowing their yards they could have put time in growing some of their food. This would not only reduce the need to destroy forests for new mega fields, it would also provide them with fresher, healthier food and create a more stable and sustainable food supply.
Again the only reason we have these problems is because of industrial agriculture. Farming spread out in the form of small farms is much more environmentally friendly. Large concentrated mono 'crop' operations cause a lot of problems because they are not natural.
Quote from: personalreality on May 14, 2011, 09:19:24
your body absorbs supplements from food differently than it does if you take a supplement pill.
plus there's always something to be said for the life energy in the food that isn't in a pill.
Well... regardless of this I still take zinc as a supplement. I'll stick to my reality... thanks though.
i didn't say don't take supplements.
it's just supposed to be more effective when you receive the same vitamins and minerals through food.
He never said that you said you did. Besides...
You take it and it's effective either way.
:-D
fair enough
I don't know if it's fair enough...
It's TRUE!
:evil:
Quote from: WalkerInTheWoods on May 14, 2011, 10:16:22
This isn't just about producing meat. Land has to be cleared for new fields to grow produce as well. This is more of an effect of people being disconnected from their food. It wasn't that long ago when most people grew atleast some of their food on their own land. Within a community almost, if not all, of the people's food was grown. It was consumed fresh and at its peak, supplying the best nutrients as well as energy.
Now few people, atleast in the US, grow any food at home. It isn't that they don't have the means, it is that they just don't. I drive around and see acres and acres of nicely mowed lawns. There are houses sitting on atleast 1 acre, though many times a lot more than that, with nothing but grass on them. What do they do with that grass? They just mow it. What a waste! If they wanted just grass the least they could do would be to put a cow or goat (or a few) out there to eat the grass and keep the 'lawn' trimmed and neat. Then at the end of the season they could have some meat, or have milk most of the year. A few animals do not require a lot of space.
If they wanted to, they could be growing atleast some of their food on a small patch of that, or all of it. In the time they spent mowing their yards they could have put time in growing some of their food. This would not only reduce the need to destroy forests for new mega fields, it would also provide them with fresher, healthier food and create a more stable and sustainable food supply.
Again the only reason we have these problems is because of industrial agriculture. Farming spread out in the form of small farms is much more environmentally friendly. Large concentrated mono 'crop' operations cause a lot of problems because they are not natural.
the less people that eat meat, the less of a need for industrialized agriculture. Cows cause pollution.
"Methane, which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a contributor to global warming, is produced daily by cows. In fact, agriculture generates about 14 percent of the greenhouse gases today -- including two-thirds of all ammonia -- from cows. Even though other grazing animals also expel greenhouse gases, statistics suggest that cows produce 26 to 53 gallons (and some say up to 132 gallons) of methane every day -- the same amount of pollution emitted by a car in a day. And it's only going to worsen: The U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization predicts a 60 percent increase in agricultural methane output by 2030" http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/cows-cause-pollution-than-cars
(http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/cows-cause-pollution-than-cars)
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." -Albert Einstein
btw, it's nice to see you here again WITW :wink:
Thanks everyone for your reply, though i don't eat meat because it is energetically dirty, based on clairvoyant observation the aura of meat especially pork is grayish red, but somehow i think that i still need meat occasionally to stay healthy. :-D
QuoteNow few people, atleast in the US, grow any food at home. It isn't that they don't have the means, it is that they just don't. I drive around and see acres and acres of nicely mowed lawns. There are houses sitting on atleast 1 acre, though many times a lot more than that, with nothing but grass on them. What do they do with that grass? They just mow it. What a waste!
I read this and I get a mental image of a suburban street, where the front yards are full of carrots and broccoli. :wink:
And yes, having yards full of grass, which demands care year-round, and provides no benefit, or even aesthetic appeal, is asinine; I think we can thank the 18th Century French for this concept; I also have no doubt the image of a yard full of grass has been partially propogated by corporate interests back in the 30's wanting to sell fertilizers and lawn-care products that serve no ultimate purpose.
I sewed my yard full of wildflowers, lol. The neighbor boys are always asking to mow it for money, but it looks better to me as it is.
i'm really interested in the green rooftops.
gardens and greenhouses on rooftops in the cities.