Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
perhaps emotional harm matches physical harm in which i implore us to be more mindful. It would bring me shame to observe my discussion to create heated words. So please state Ideas in way as to not affect the peace of our neighbors. Thanks and thank you even more for the insightful answers.
Being a vegetarian causes pain to beings, too. There is NO WAY to live as a human without causing the suffering of animals. It is not possible. All we can do is try our best to minimize that suffering, and I hope that any Buddhist would try to do that. Being a vegetarian IS NOT POSSIBLE for us, so stop trying to convince me that I'm being selfish in eating meat, because if we didn't, we'd have some serious health problems. I make the best choices I can for my family, and it's not nearly as simple as "because meat tastes good." I don't enslave any animals.
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2012
I don't think this is something we can solve while we still have so many borders and so much greed. Some areas of the planet are able to use our resources to forgo our carnivorous tendancies so why are there some that cannot?
If we had it together as a species, spent our energies on life affirmation instead of killing each other over what is foolishly seen as limited resources perhaps our shared knowledge would lead us to abundance.
Heck, we don't even have to kill to eat meat anymore with synthesisation.
If we could share our knowledge the answer is an emphatic no.
In other words, yes.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Being a vegetarian causes pain to beings, too. There is NO WAY to live as a human without causing the suffering of animals. It is not possible. All we can do is try our best to minimize that suffering, and I hope that any Buddhist would try to do that. Being a vegetarian IS NOT POSSIBLE for us, so stop trying to convince me that I'm being selfish in eating meat, because if we didn't, we'd have some serious health problems. I make the best choices I can for my family, and it's not nearly as simple as "because meat tastes good." I don't enslave any animals.
It is a reality for many healthy people the world over... Why do you say it is impossible for you personally?
My two cents: All beings subsist on food. Some beings eat plants. Some eat other beings. Some eat both. The Buddha strongly suggested for us not to eat other beings, but told his monks it's OK as long as the meat and fish are pure in three ways: if it hasn't been seen, heard, or suspected to have been killed on purpose for them (MN 55), which I take to mean already dead and ready to cook/eat. (It should be noted that in the story behind Dhp 163, the Buddha himself is said to have rejected Devadatta's demand to institute vegetarianism as a requirement, although he had no issuse with monks who chose not to eat meat.) And while it's the rule he gave to the monastic sangha, it seems like a good rule to live by in general. That said, I think that vegetarianism is definitely a more compassionate option that's in line with the Buddha's teachings on ahimsa or harmlessness, and it wouldn't hurt for us as Buddhists or as a society to eat less meat.
(If anyone's interested, you can find some of my thoughts about this topic here and here. But the short version is, more important than what you eat is how you eat.)
Being a vegetarian causes pain to beings, too. There is NO WAY to live as a human without causing the suffering of animals. It is not possible. All we can do is try our best to minimize that suffering, and I hope that any Buddhist would try to do that.
Yes, minimising harm is the whole point, and that applies to all aspects of our behaviour. But we are very good at rationalising when this involves giving up behaviours we're attached to. And my experience has been that people can get very attached to meat-eating.
Note that the "vegetarians causes killing too" line is a straw-man argument which crops up regularly in these discussions. Option 1: Grow grain crops and eat them; Option 2: Grow grain crops, feed them to animals, then kill and eat the animals. It's pretty obvious which option causes the least harm to living beings ( and also the least harm to the environment ).
We can get all the protein we need without eating meat these days.
Absolutely. We have a choice. I remember having discussions like this when I was a Tibetan Buddhist, people would say things like: "It's OK for me to eat meat because I'm a Tibetan Buddhist and they can't grow crops in Tibet." Then I would say: "OK, but we live in England and there is a supermarket round the corner with a full-range of meat-free products." And they would say: "I don't care, I like eating meat."
Being a vegetarian causes pain to beings, too. There is NO WAY to live as a human without causing the suffering of animals. It is not possible. All we can do is try our best to minimize that suffering, and I hope that any Buddhist would try to do that. Being a vegetarian IS NOT POSSIBLE for us, so stop trying to convince me that I'm being selfish in eating meat, because if we didn't, we'd have some serious health problems. I make the best choices I can for my family, and it's not nearly as simple as "because meat tastes good." I don't enslave any animals.
I think it would be safe to say that most people here shop in some kind of market with many choices. I think it would be safe to say that most people here are not Eskimos who live in the tundra region, the antarctic or on top of the Himalayas. I think it is safe to say, that when people say "picking meat is a wrong choice", they are referring to situations where there actually is a choice in the matter to begin with. As people that actually don't have a choice, are few and far between in the modern world. Are you an Eskimo who lives in the tundra who has no choice but to subsist off the land? If so, then I think it's obvious that these statements don't apply to people like that. At least I think it should be obvious. No one is suggesting that someone should starve themselves to death. What is being suggested is that it is much less harmful to walk down the produce isle at the supermarket than it is to walk down the meat isle at the supermarket. Most people walk down the meat isle, simply because it taste good.
Happened to read this article yesterday on Chungtsang Rinpoche from Drepung Loseling Monastery (India) who was visiting Wingate University in North Carolina. Asked what he eats back home, he said: "We are vegetarian. The food is rice and maize (corn) and vegetables."
Aside from the vegetarian comment, I found myself wondering how they use the corn, which I've always thought of as such a quintessential North American thing.
Didn't realize there was an entire culinary tradition in India involving corn! "India corn recipe" brings up many mouth-watering options, including the (for me) enigmatic Corn Masala Rice.
I did hear that many of the monasteries in India which were not already vegetarian were moving towards vegetarianism; don't know what the count is now.
"The vegetarian diet is praised for being sustainable and animal-friendly, but after 20 years of being vegan, Keith has a different take. She argues that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet. In service to annual grains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself. She argues that if humans are to save the planet, food must be an act of profound and abiding repair, generated from inside communities rather than imposed on them."
"The Meat Fix is the story of how eating meat again after twenty-six vegetarian years changed John Nicholson's life powerfully for the better, and his quest to understand why the supposedly healthy diet he had existed on was actually damaging him.
He is not a scientist and this is not your standard diet book. Rather, it is an explanation of how Nicholson discovered what works for him and why we should all look at nutritional advice through a clear lens, not the warped prism of what has become conventional dietary advice. This is a surprising, often hilarious, and shocking journey of discovery."
I don't live on the tundra, no, but I live in a very high northern latitude in a very remote area. Can I go to the store and buy produce? Yes. But from November to April, that produce is extremely limited in variety and edibleness. Much of it just cannot be shipped to where I live in the winter and survive, and that which does often gets frozen and turns to mush and is not edible by the time it arrives at the store. We are a single income family with 3 children, including one with strict dietary requirements because of health issues. It is not a matter of "we eat meat because protein comes from meat." It is an availability and a cost issue. Our groceries are extremely expensive here, but for us to travel to buy produce where there is more variety and affordableness, means we have to drive over 120 miles one way. We can't afford to take a 240 mile grocery shopping trip on a weekly basis. The things offered at my local stores in the winter: Apples, oranges, bananas, lettuce, spinach, sometimes peppers. The last time I bought asparagus at our store, it was $6 a pound. Milk is $6 a gallon. Ice cream (no, not a necessity but for comparison) is $7 a gallon. But I have multiple relatives who hunt and the family shares the meat, so we get 100% nutritionally valuable meat for free that is a hundred times healthier than the meat in the stores. I also have a 16 year old son who is a 3 sport athlete and eats over 3000 calories a day. You try eating 3000 calories in vegetables. He cannot at this point eat beans because he has sensory integration disorder, and the texture of certain foods makes him vomit and has since he was a very young child.
So, we do what we can to keep our children healthy and not go broke buying groceries. We grow an organic garden and we freeze and can everything we can. We have enough beans, carrots, peas, potatoes, onions, garlic, squash, and pickles to last us most of the winter. We fish, even in the winter. I do not hunt but like I said some of my family does and it is separated and given to the family members. My oldest son goes hunting with the family. Yes, people do still live this way, and yes, sometimes it is more necessary than those of you with a Walmart and Whole Foods on every block can understand.
Yes, people do still live this way, and yes, sometimes it is more necessary than those of you with a Walmart and Whole Foods on every block can understand.
I don't think that is the case. No one, from the beginning, has suggested that a person should put themselves in the poor house or cause themselves or their family to suffer from malnutrition, just so they can become vegetarian. That would be unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to assume that other people are being unreasonable simply because they say vegetarianism causes less harm.
"The vegetarian diet is praised for being sustainable and animal-friendly, but after 20 years of being vegan, Keith has a different take. She argues that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet. In service to annual grains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself. She argues that if humans are to save the planet, food must be an act of profound and abiding repair, generated from inside communities rather than imposed on them."
"The Vegetarian Myth" contains many myths in and of itself.
It’s next to impossible to review this book; it is so packed with misinformation and confusion that refuting the claims could be another book itself. This is a long post, and it doesn't begin to address all of the problems in The Vegetarian Myth.
I read the section on nutrition first. Since it’s my area of expertise, I figured it would give me some idea of the quality of her research and analysis. But quality isn’t at issue here because there is no research or analysis. Keith doesn’t bother with primary sources; she depends almost exclusively on the opinions of her favorite popular authors, which she presents as proof of her theories. For example, when she writes about evolution as it affects dietary needs, and suggests that “the archeological evidence is incontrovertible,” she is actually referencing the book Protein Power, written by two physicians who have no expertise in evolution or anthropology. It’s a neat trick, of course, because we have no idea where the Protein Power authors got their information. By burying all of the actual studies this way, she makes it laborious for readers to check her facts...
...Instead, we get page after page of contradictions, fabrications, and misinterpretations...
...This is ultimately a sad book. Lierre Keith has suffered from multiple health problems all of her life and was desperate to find an answer. She landed on vegetarianism and then spun a tale to support her theory. Her intent seems heartfelt; she sees herself very much as a savior of vegetarians and wants us to learn from her mistakes. And the book has been widely embraced by those who want to believe that meat-eating is healthy and just. The problem is that there is truly nothing in this book that accurately supports that conclusion. ....http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/review-of-the-vegetarian-myth.html
The sick vegetarian who started eating meat again.
Does not change the fact that the book contain no actual facts to back it up. :
Well, the book isn't really about nutrition, it's about agriculture and the environment. She probably didn't put too much into that section because it's not what the book is about. If people want a nutrition book they can get one, or read the books she mentioned.
"The Vegetarian Myth is a book written by anti-civilization activist Lierre Keith and published by PM Press in 2009. After 20 years of veganism, she decided that her many serious health problems were caused by her diet. She believes that a truly sustainable human society can only be attained by destroying modern technological infrastructure, decreasing the human population, and returning to hunting and gathering.
The sections of the book about the destructive nature of industrial agriculture and monocrops are valid, yet most of the conclusions drawn are irrational and misleading." http://vegetarianmyth.com/
If one is to make an informed decision, it is only appropriate to hear both sides of the story.
Hunter gatherer, eh? That does sound a bit nuts But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied. So maybe a crank took it a little too far but it doesn't make it any less true.
the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied.
Perhaps so for the negative effects of this agricultural system - it is a system of food production and distribution nestled within the current economic culture and structure... perhaps some of the negatives could be placated under another form of system.
Shrinking demand for meat on the market causes the price to drop which raises demand as people who want to eat the meat switch from more vegetables to more meat. The suppliers with a lower price, however, some may quit the business.
If the demand is more elastic than the supply then most of the change will be reducing demand. If the supply is more elastic then there will be relatively less production of meat.
I agree with robot. Are you ok with Christians telling you what you should do with your life based on their beliefs, and their interpretation of the Bible and Jesus' teachings? Are you ok with Muslim extremists doing what they do because it's what they believe of their interpretation of their religion? I'm not. Everyone thinks they have the handle on what the ONE true way is on everything. There is no one true way. Everyone is on a different path to the same place. Some of us are alike in some ways in our beliefs, and some of us aren't. Any path anyone takes that is right for them, is the right path. That doesn't mean their path is right for you, or anyone else, and certainly not for everyone else. Christians shouldn't, IMO, throw out what Jesus says in favor of random verses, and Buddhists shouldn't throw out the N8FP in favor of random verses, either.
Basically telling someone "you are a problem and you are not a very good Buddhist if you eat meat" is judgement. I'm pretty sure the generations of Tibetan Buddhists who eat meat would disagree.
I see what you are saying in a path, but I also think we are all alone on our own path to a separate place. We are connected by love, but if I eat a sandwich it won't nourish someone else. So my own karma I own in a sense.
I don't live on the tundra, no, but I live in a very high northern latitude in a very remote area. Can I go to the store and buy produce? Yes. But from November to April, that produce is extremely limited in variety and edibleness. Much of it just cannot be shipped to where I live in the winter and survive, and that which does often gets frozen and turns to mush and is not edible by the time it arrives at the store. We are a single income family with 3 children, including one with strict dietary requirements because of health issues. It is not a matter of "we eat meat because protein comes from meat." It is an availability and a cost issue. Our groceries are extremely expensive here, but for us to travel to buy produce where there is more variety and affordableness, means we have to drive over 120 miles one way. We can't afford to take a 240 mile grocery shopping trip on a weekly basis. The things offered at my local stores in the winter: Apples, oranges, bananas, lettuce, spinach, sometimes peppers. The last time I bought asparagus at our store, it was $6 a pound. Milk is $6 a gallon. Ice cream (no, not a necessity but for comparison) is $7 a gallon. But I have multiple relatives who hunt and the family shares the meat, so we get 100% nutritionally valuable meat for free that is a hundred times healthier than the meat in the stores. I also have a 16 year old son who is a 3 sport athlete and eats over 3000 calories a day. You try eating 3000 calories in vegetables. He cannot at this point eat beans because he has sensory integration disorder, and the texture of certain foods makes him vomit and has since he was a very young child.
So, we do what we can to keep our children healthy and not go broke buying groceries. We grow an organic garden and we freeze and can everything we can. We have enough beans, carrots, peas, potatoes, onions, garlic, squash, and pickles to last us most of the winter. We fish, even in the winter. I do not hunt but like I said some of my family does and it is separated and given to the family members. My oldest son goes hunting with the family. Yes, people do still live this way, and yes, sometimes it is more necessary than those of you with a Walmart and Whole Foods on every block can understand.
Hunting animals means that less starve.
There are always multiple causes for any phenomena. Good karma is created by providing for the family. Bad karma (if you believe) is caused by harming a life form. If a life form is going to be harmed it is better not to deliberately cause the harm even though it will die anyway. But there are multiple causes and some are creating good karma.
There is a point where someone is no longer guessing or wondering if the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves and their family is correct. The success or failure of their choices can be discerned. Superstitious fear of dire karmic conesquences subsides when one finds a way to fit into his surroundings. The results of killing and eating meat will be apparent in their life like any other factor. Someone may chose not to support the meat industry or the petroleum industry or the logging industry. Or they may chose to send money to support starving children. Or whatever cause they fancy. Another person may suggest a cause to support that they favor, but that's about as far as it goes.
Rather than trying to find ways to translate the Buddha's instructions "refrain from taking life" and "refrain from taking intoxicants," into "it's okay to take life" and "it's okay to take intoxicants," I think it's more honest to say (myself included) "I don't observe one or both of those particular instructions."
Rather than trying to find ways to translate the Buddha's instructions "refrain from taking life" and "refrain from taking intoxicants," into "it's okay to take life" and "it's okay to take intoxicants," I think it's more honest to say (myself included) "I don't observe one or both of those particular instructions."
Not for self-flagellation, but self-awareness.
That's reasonable.
My point of complaint on this particular topic is that some choose to single out eating meat and then nag and nag and nag others about it. Perhaps some of those people drink alcohol or take drugs or do petty theft or do petty stealing or commit inappropriate sexual acts or lie. I learned long ago to stop nagging others about those topics because I realized it caused dissension and stress in the forum. I don't mind (any longer) that people pick and choose within Buddhism, but I do mind when they pick and choose and then nag others.
Hunter gatherer, eh? That does sound a bit nuts But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied. So maybe a crank took it a little too far but it doesn't make it any less true.
No it doesn't make it any less true! But one now has to ask: Which kind of agriculture is more harmful? Raising plants for food is agriculture, raising animals for food is also agriculture!
"The vegetarian diet is praised for being sustainable and animal-friendly, but after 20 years of being vegan, Keith has a different take. She argues that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet. In service to annual grains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself. She argues that if humans are to save the planet, food must be an act of profound and abiding repair, generated from inside communities rather than imposed on them."
Actually vegetarian diet IS more sustainable and animal friendly. Approximately 68% of all agricultural land is permanent pastures used in the production of livestock and in the U.S., 70% of the grain grown is fed to animals on feedlots. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
The findings by leading water scientists at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said that about 20 percent of protein in human diets is currently animal-based, but unless that drops to 5 percent by 2050 there won't be enough food to nourish the additional 2 billion people estimated to be alive by 2050. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/vegetarian-water-food-shortage_n_1836273.html
Anyway I agree that vegetarianism must be a personal option and not force it to anyone.
Hunter gatherer, eh? That does sound a bit nuts But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied. So maybe a crank took it a little too far but it doesn't make it any less true.
No it doesn't make it any less true! But one now has to ask: Which kind of agriculture is more harmful? Raising plants for food is agriculture, raising animals for food is also agriculture!
Crops. It's pretty established that if we didn't eat animals we'd be overrun by them, or that they'd eat everything themselves, or eat nothing (because we protect the land and our crops) and die.
"The vegetarian diet is praised for being sustainable and animal-friendly, but after 20 years of being vegan, Keith has a different take. She argues that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet. In service to annual grains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself. She argues that if humans are to save the planet, food must be an act of profound and abiding repair, generated from inside communities rather than imposed on them."
I have seen this for myself...unlike the US or Canada the UK is a small place with few areas of wilderness. A few years ago we moved back to Greater London from an intensely agricultural part of the country called Devon. To a visitor it appears green and verdant. If you live there you realise that as far as wild life goes its a desert..Apart from farms where there is live stock. Otherwise all life has been driven off by the demands for cereal and veg crops.
Hunter gatherer, eh? That does sound a bit nuts But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied. So maybe a crank took it a little too far but it doesn't make it any less true.
No it doesn't make it any less true! But one now has to ask: Which kind of agriculture is more harmful? Raising plants for food is agriculture, raising animals for food is also agriculture!
Crops. It's pretty established that if we didn't eat animals we'd be overrun by them, or that they'd eat everything themselves, or eat nothing (because we protect the land and our crops) and die.
Overrun by animals that eat everything themselves, I don't know why but I have the impression than that is already happened caused by the meat industry.
Hunter gatherer, eh? That does sound a bit nuts But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied. So maybe a crank took it a little too far but it doesn't make it any less true.
No it doesn't make it any less true! But one now has to ask: Which kind of agriculture is more harmful? Raising plants for food is agriculture, raising animals for food is also agriculture!
Crops. It's pretty established that if we didn't eat animals we'd be overrun by them, or that they'd eat everything themselves, or eat nothing (because we protect the land and our crops) and die.
Pretty established by who? How can we be overrun by these animals if they aren't even being bred and born to begin with? These animals are not naturally born out in the wild somewhere. That does not make any sense... If we did not eat them, they would not even exist to begin with in such numbers... It's pretty established, by actual environmental scientists, that common day animal agriculture, is much more harmful than just crops.
But the negative effect of agriculture on the environment has been well documented and widely studied.
But feeding animals grain and then eating the animals is a much less efficient way of feeing people, so actually meat-eating leads to more agriculture, not less.
Will you be pushing for and eating vitro meat? or continue to insist on eating 'organically grown', where other life is killed during ploughing and indeed by the plants protecting their space?
Another possibility is textured mould [quorn] . . . maybe we could press for more of that?
Existence is suffering. Eating our way out may not be required if we can become more borg like and have our stomach removed and replaced with a solar powered nutrient system. Still awaiting the space pill for astronauts so we can practice more?
Of course the real issue is economic. How do we ship all our processed die hard vegetarians and retired animal slaves to feed those without the luxury of choice?
Comments
If we had it together as a species, spent our energies on life affirmation instead of killing each other over what is foolishly seen as limited resources perhaps our shared knowledge would lead us to abundance.
Heck, we don't even have to kill to eat meat anymore with synthesisation. I hope they don't. It is a controversal topic and nothing to run from.
There is one question I think that needs addressing.
In this day and age, do we need to eat meat?
If we could share our knowledge the answer is an emphatic no.
We can get all the protein we need without eating meat these days.
In other words, yes.
(If anyone's interested, you can find some of my thoughts about this topic here and here. But the short version is, more important than what you eat is how you eat.)
Note that the "vegetarians causes killing too" line is a straw-man argument which crops up regularly in these discussions.
Option 1: Grow grain crops and eat them;
Option 2: Grow grain crops, feed them to animals, then kill and eat the animals.
It's pretty obvious which option causes the least harm to living beings ( and also the least harm to the environment ).
Aside from the vegetarian comment, I found myself wondering how they use the corn, which I've always thought of as such a quintessential North American thing.
Didn't realize there was an entire culinary tradition in India involving corn! "India corn recipe" brings up many mouth-watering options, including the (for me) enigmatic Corn Masala Rice.
I did hear that many of the monasteries in India which were not already vegetarian were moving towards vegetarianism; don't know what the count is now.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vegetarian-Myth-Lierre-Keith/dp/1604860804
He is not a scientist and this is not your standard diet book. Rather, it is an explanation of how Nicholson discovered what works for him and why we should all look at nutritional advice through a clear lens, not the warped prism of what has become conventional dietary advice. This is a surprising, often hilarious, and shocking journey of discovery."
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Meat-Fix-Lifetime-Healthy/dp/1849541396
http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/treatment_ketogenic_diet
http://amnutrition.hu/downloads/upload/20091216114243ketogenic-diet.pdf
So, we do what we can to keep our children healthy and not go broke buying groceries. We grow an organic garden and we freeze and can everything we can. We have enough beans, carrots, peas, potatoes, onions, garlic, squash, and pickles to last us most of the winter. We fish, even in the winter. I do not hunt but like I said some of my family does and it is separated and given to the family members. My oldest son goes hunting with the family. Yes, people do still live this way, and yes, sometimes it is more necessary than those of you with a Walmart and Whole Foods on every block can understand.
Does not change the fact that the book contain no actual facts to back it up.
If the demand is more elastic than the supply then most of the change will be reducing demand. If the supply is more elastic then there will be relatively less production of meat.
There are always multiple causes for any phenomena. Good karma is created by providing for the family. Bad karma (if you believe) is caused by harming a life form. If a life form is going to be harmed it is better not to deliberately cause the harm even though it will die anyway. But there are multiple causes and some are creating good karma.
Superstitious fear of dire karmic conesquences subsides when one finds a way to fit into his surroundings.
The results of killing and eating meat will be apparent in their life like any other factor.
Someone may chose not to support the meat industry or the petroleum industry or the logging industry. Or they may chose to send money to support starving children. Or whatever cause they fancy.
Another person may suggest a cause to support that they favor, but that's about as far as it goes.
Not for self-flagellation, but self-awareness.
My point of complaint on this particular topic is that some choose to single out eating meat and then nag and nag and nag others about it. Perhaps some of those people drink alcohol or take drugs or do petty theft or do petty stealing or commit inappropriate sexual acts or lie. I learned long ago to stop nagging others about those topics because I realized it caused dissension and stress in the forum. I don't mind (any longer) that people pick and choose within Buddhism, but I do mind when they pick and choose and then nag others.
Approximately 68% of all agricultural land is permanent pastures used in the production of livestock and in the U.S., 70% of the grain grown is fed to animals on feedlots.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
The findings by leading water scientists at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said that about 20 percent of protein in human diets is currently animal-based, but unless that drops to 5 percent by 2050 there won't be enough food to nourish the additional 2 billion people estimated to be alive by 2050.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/vegetarian-water-food-shortage_n_1836273.html
Anyway I agree that vegetarianism must be a personal option and not force it to anyone.
Pretty established by who? How can we be overrun by these animals if they aren't even being bred and born to begin with? These animals are not naturally born out in the wild somewhere. That does not make any sense... If we did not eat them, they would not even exist to begin with in such numbers... It's pretty established, by actual environmental scientists, that common day animal agriculture, is much more harmful than just crops.
vitro meat?
or continue to insist on eating 'organically grown', where other life is killed during ploughing and indeed by the plants protecting their space?
Another possibility is textured mould [quorn] . . . maybe we could press for more of that?
Existence is suffering. Eating our way out may not be required if we can become more borg like and have our stomach removed and replaced with a solar powered nutrient system. Still awaiting the space pill for astronauts so we can practice more?
Of course the real issue is economic. How do we ship all our processed die hard vegetarians and retired animal slaves to feed those without the luxury of choice? Mrs Merton