We are made to eat fruit and veggies. Possibly, we can also eat insects. In special circumstances, we can survive eating animal based food too (milk, eggs, meat). But, eating just fruit and veggies does not make us better than meat eaters of this planet.

I do not eat raw fruit and vegetable because "killing is wrong", but because I was made for it. Just today I killed (I hope) ten mosquitoes. I probably also stepped on the number of insects and broke some branches and killed some tiny plants by stepping on them in the bushes (looking for berries).

On the other hand, being a vegan is a reward, I believe. It gives human body longevity, also our brain has developed that much due to the type of food we eat, and type of life we lead (or are supposed to lead). We became smart because we were given a chance to become smart.

But, killing is the way of the nature. Even my teachers, the chimps, occasionally kill other chimps, and they even eat them. Why would chimps do such a thing? My theory is - to scare other "tribes", to protect their orchards. As simple as that. There is no nutrition that is needed from flesh (they do this so rarely that it is more than obvious that they really do not need it). This means that chimps have a society, with rules similar to human.

Humans also fight over their orchards. We are not by nature "peaceful". We are competitors, just like all other animals. Living "in harmony" with nature and other humans is a nice ideal, but it is just that - ideal. It is only possible to enjoy all the goods in our lives because police, army and the whole system is protecting us, just like others.

Our aggressiveness does not come from meat and other SAD food, it comes from our nature, no matter what we eat.

There may be a way to create a true, "peaceful" society, but humans are very far from that point, it seems. Going back to our natural food is a good step towards a harmonious society, I believe. But, it is only a first step, there may be a thousand more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2010 04:30PM by rab.

The only point I disagree on is that aggressiveness doesn't come from eating meat. I used to eat meat, and I can say that especially red meat does indeed make one overly aggressively and patriarchal. And dairy does that too, though a little less so, and it makes one depressed and confused.
Regardless, though, I believe that the health and happiness argument for veganism is more effective than the moral or environmental one.

That's your opinion. I don't know that anyone on here has said 'vegans are better than meat eaters,' but certainly no one can argue that vegans strive to cause as little harm as possible; whereas meat, dairy, and egg eating typically cause harm/suffering. Killing isn't in my nature; competitiveness isn't either. We aren't all the same.

You also say "we became smart," what makes you think humans are smart? A comparison of humans to other animals? I don't think that's relevant for a determination of "smartness."

I don't kill mosquitoes; I just blow them off me. I was not this considerate toward Creation when still a meat eater.[sniff]

Tamukha, if someone here convinces me that termites are good for me, I will eat them.

omega-3 - I agree. People who eat meat are nervous and therefore overly aggressive. But, raw vegans are still very competitive, and you need to be aggressive to do that. If it weren't like that, I would not be a raw vegan. Aggressiveness is a normal component of human character. We can work around it, learn to control it, develop strong spiritual consciousness, but we can never completely eliminate it.

The scary part of our ability is our brain. It enables us to do a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, really bad things.

> Killing isn't in my nature;
> competitiveness isn't either. We aren't all the
> same.
>

And that's true for anyone regardless of diet.

I also don't believe that meat "makes" people aggressive. People are aggressive because they are products of their environment, not what they eat.

I don't think anyone could rationally argue that because
someone is more moral than someone else that he's a
"better" person than a less moral person because of it.

I do, however, think it could be argued that moral person
is healthier, more mature, and more rational than someone
less moral. Isn't being moral part of being a healthy,
mature, rational being?

Yes, killing may be the way of Nature for some animals, but
it is not for all. And it certainly is not for human
beings. Morality, and the need for it, is one thing that
distinguishes Man from other forms of animal life. Humans
must act moral in order to be in harmony with other
humans. And that is, I would argue, a peaceful nature.
(Anything else is a perversion of our nature.)

So who is right regarding the ethics of eating animals?
And how can we know? Reason and Ethics. The two are mutually
inclusive.

Ethics is a code of moral values in a particular context
used to guide actions. Ethics, as a science, involves
discovering and defining such a code. And it is through
man's unique capacity to Reason that allows him to make
various distinctions between positive/purposeful/productive
values vs. negative/purposeless/destructive values. Unlike
animals, a Man's needs must be discovered by his own mind
and then he must make decisions how to live life in
accordance with his professed values. (This is not to
suggest that Man isn't equally capable of forfeiting
making decisions; and/or that decisions he does make
will be infallible - or that his decisions will be, in
Reality, in accordance with his professed values. Man
has the choice to think or not to think; to focus or
not to focus; to be conscious or to be unconscious about
how to live life.) And, unlike animals, Man must choose
the values and goals that will direct his life.
The quality of his life (regarding factors he can
control) will reflect the quality of his choices.

So, from my perspective, we NEED ethics because we (unlike
animals) need to make distinctions and decisions about
how to think and act to positively further our existence.
(Granted, we can survive without ethics, but that will
probably land us in jail; and/or frequently in situations
that grossly undermine both mental health and interpersonal
relationships.) The purpose of morality (and a corresponding
code of ethics in a given context) is to teach you to enjoy
yourself and to live a productive and meaningful life. A
Happy life is, ultimately, a by-product of an ethical life
(rooted in self-awareness, self-acceptance, self-responsibility,
self-respect, etc.).

The science of ethics is about determining the appropriateness
of HUMAN behavior in a given context. Including HUMAN treatment
of animals and the environment. And to really get to the core
of ethics, one must look at the VALUES underlying ethics; and
whether or not those values are positive (i.e. life-affirming)
or negative (i.e., life-negating). Values such as Reason,
Productive Purpose, and Self-esteem are three such values
that affirm Man's life and promote emotional well-being.
These values also entail human virtues to adequately live
them, such as: honesty/integrity, rationality, respect, love,
pride, dignity, self-discipline, honor, autonomy, cooperation,
etc., etc., etc., etc.

It is really (in my mind) these values and virtues that the
anti-animal crowd chooses to ignore when it comes to HUMAN
treatment of animals and the environment. And it is VIRTUE
that is at the heart of the difference between right and
wrong in a given context. Which is why I keep asking the
anti-animal crowd such things as "How do you respect an
animal by eating it?" "How do you honor an animal by eating
it?" "How do you cooperate with an animal by eating it?"
Etc., etc., etc. Not only can people NOT honestly answer
these questions (nor do they even try), but then they point
the finger at animals and compare themselves to, e.g., lions
and tigers! As if a lion or a tiger (or some other carnivore)
has anywhere need the same type of nutritional needs (and
psychological needs) as a human being.

I could say a lot more about this topic (what you've seen
above is just the tip of a very large iceberg), but the
bottom line is that ethics is about living in accordance
with healthy values and virtue (NOT unhealthy values and
vices).

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2010 02:16AM by paragon1685.

paragon1685 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Humans
> must act moral in order to be in harmony with
> other
> humans. And that is, I would argue, a peaceful
> nature.
> (Anything else is a perversion of our nature.)


Well, this seems more like a wishful thinking. Humans act in a "moral" way because of the LAWS. Punishment is the driving force. No laws, no society. And who (or what) enforces the laws? Force. Yes, faith, ideology or any other system of values can be used to teach individuals how to behave, but without laws, it would not be possible to implement those teachings.

For raw vegans - how can you be sure that nobody will take all the fruit from your organic garden? Law. Who enforces the law? Police, as a part of the legal system. What do they use to do that? Force. So, we can be grateful that we can be non-aggressive, mind our own business as long as we are protected.
If someone steals an apple from your orchard, will you shoot him/her? Probably not. But, if your children are starving, and all you have are a few trees, and some thieves are trying to take your fruit in order to make money, and there is no police to help you....it is a different story, isn't it?

Being "non-aggressive" is a privilege, we should be grateful for our safety. But it is not a permanent state of the human mind, of course. We use aggression when we have to.

Only extremely spiritual people, usually inspired by religious or spiritual teachings, are ready to be completely non-aggressive, to the point to sacrifice their lives.

A lot of 'raw vegans' seem to be diluting the very spirit of veganism. Turning an ethical practice into a practice about self only.

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are made to eat fruit and veggies. Possibly, we
> can also eat insects. In special circumstances, we
> can survive eating animal based food too (milk,
> eggs, meat). But, eating just fruit and veggies
> does not make us better than meat eaters of this
> planet.
>
> I do not eat raw fruit and vegetable because
> "killing is wrong", but because I was made for it.
> Just today I killed (I hope) ten mosquitoes. I
> probably also stepped on the number of insects and
> broke some branches and killed some tiny plants by
> stepping on them in the bushes (looking for
> berries).
>
> On the other hand, being a vegan is a reward, I
> believe. It gives human body longevity, also our
> brain has developed that much due to the type of
> food we eat, and type of life we lead (or are
> supposed to lead). We became smart because we were
> given a chance to become smart.
>
> But, killing is the way of the nature. Even my
> teachers, the chimps, occasionally kill other
> chimps, and they even eat them. Why would chimps
> do such a thing? My theory is - to scare other
> "tribes", to protect their orchards. As simple as
> that. There is no nutrition that is needed from
> flesh (they do this so rarely that it is more than
> obvious that they really do not need it). This
> means that chimps have a society, with rules
> similar to human.
>
> Humans also fight over their orchards. We are not
> by nature "peaceful". We are competitors, just
> like all other animals. Living "in harmony" with
> nature and other humans is a nice ideal, but it is
> just that - ideal. It is only possible to enjoy
> all the goods in our lives because police, army
> and the whole system is protecting us, just like
> others.
>
> Our aggressiveness does not come from meat and
> other SAD food, it comes from our nature, no
> matter what we eat.
>
> There may be a way to create a true, "peaceful"
> society, but humans are very far from that point,
> it seems. Going back to our natural food is a good
> step towards a harmonious society, I believe. But,
> it is only a first step, there may be a thousand
> more.


Just to Clarify. chimps don't kill other chimps and eat them, they occasionaly hunt and eat monkeys that stray into their territory looking for food as there is not enough any more due to habitats being lost due to deforestation.

It is only the higher hierachy male chimps that kill, and they do it about twice a year. It is some sort of status thing. The females do not kill but will eat some meat if it is given to them.

It is lack of food in habitats that is causing these animals to eat other animals and is not an essential part of their diet. Primates can live perfectly healthily on fruit, green and seeds diets, but will eat meat if there is not enough food.

I don't know of any animal that kills and eats its own apart from the weak offspring and young that die will get eaten by the parents but this is just nature taking care of things as rotting flesh from dead young amongst the rest of the young would not be healthy. rats and mice will eat their offspring that die. I'm not sure about lions or chimps or dogs and cats, but I don't think so. Animals instinctively seem to know what to do.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2010 12:43PM by Ariel55.

Ariel55, I accept the explanation about chimps, but I have watched a documentary where I believe there was something like a "war" between two tribes, and a monkey was eaten as a result of that. I still don't think the reason they eat flesh is the nutrition, but to scare others (who will find bones and traces of their eaten relatives) from using the "orchard".

Either way, once or twice a year means almost no difference in nutrition, but does show aggression.

I think Ariel's post is spot on. When food is plentiful, most primates will eat either a fruit & green diet (maybe with small amounts of insects) and little if any meat. During the dry season when fruit maybe scarcer, chimpanzees may resort to hunting (red colubus monkeys in particular). Other primates such gorillas and orangutans do not exhibit this hunting behavior.

Chimpanzees have also been known to kill in territorial conflicts. [www-bcf.usc.edu] btw, if you are interested in primate predation in general, Professor Craig Stanford of USC is a very useful resource.

I guess the bottom line is though, what, if any, relevance does this have to the moral and dietary choices we make as humans today? To me, not much. Homonids evolved away from non-human primates over 1 million years ago. There is evidence of early hominids hunting over 4 million years ago. Does that mean I have to hunt? Nope.

In my opinion, the choices we make as vegans have very limited dependence on how we evolved. Practicing Ahimsa is a moral choice, not an evolutionary one. You can decide to abstain from cruel practices because you aren't facing food scarcity. When food becomes scarce, you can decide between survival and ethics as it may be. But it's pretty clear that early hominids did both hunt and scavenge. And that our evolution away from non-human primates is probably greater than you might think.

I debated this with Chris at some length and provided my support in the thread if you are so inclined. [www.rawfoodsupport.com]. I would advise against it. It's a painful thread. If you do go in, just look for the links in my posts and click on them.

In short, we aren't in a state of nature, and the fruits that the fruties eat aren't an aweful like the wild fruits eaten by early hominids millions of years ago. To me, that makes the whole proposition that "nature knows best" suspect. It doesn't. Natural selection affects survival of the species, not survival of an individual in a species.

I think eating in season like early humans had to makes sense. The food is fresh, local and minimizes your footprint on the planet. But we are millions of years removed from what primates did in a state of nature. Time for us to consider 21st century moral choices and see what our best chess move both morally and nutritionally. Best.

Paul



Ariel55 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rab Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We are made to eat fruit and veggies. Possibly,
> we
> > can also eat insects. In special circumstances,
> we
> > can survive eating animal based food too (milk,
> > eggs, meat). But, eating just fruit and veggies
> > does not make us better than meat eaters of
> this
> > planet.
> >
> > I do not eat raw fruit and vegetable because
> > "killing is wrong", but because I was made for
> it.
> > Just today I killed (I hope) ten mosquitoes. I
> > probably also stepped on the number of insects
> and
> > broke some branches and killed some tiny plants
> by
> > stepping on them in the bushes (looking for
> > berries).
> >
> > On the other hand, being a vegan is a reward, I
> > believe. It gives human body longevity, also
> our
> > brain has developed that much due to the type
> of
> > food we eat, and type of life we lead (or are
> > supposed to lead). We became smart because we
> were
> > given a chance to become smart.
> >
> > But, killing is the way of the nature. Even my
> > teachers, the chimps, occasionally kill other
> > chimps, and they even eat them. Why would
> chimps
> > do such a thing? My theory is - to scare other
> > "tribes", to protect their orchards. As simple
> as
> > that. There is no nutrition that is needed from
> > flesh (they do this so rarely that it is more
> than
> > obvious that they really do not need it). This
> > means that chimps have a society, with rules
> > similar to human.
> >
> > Humans also fight over their orchards. We are
> not
> > by nature "peaceful". We are competitors, just
> > like all other animals. Living "in harmony"
> with
> > nature and other humans is a nice ideal, but it
> is
> > just that - ideal. It is only possible to enjoy
> > all the goods in our lives because police, army
> > and the whole system is protecting us, just
> like
> > others.
> >
> > Our aggressiveness does not come from meat and
> > other SAD food, it comes from our nature, no
> > matter what we eat.
> >
> > There may be a way to create a true, "peaceful"
> > society, but humans are very far from that
> point,
> > it seems. Going back to our natural food is a
> good
> > step towards a harmonious society, I believe.
> But,
> > it is only a first step, there may be a
> thousand
> > more.
>
>
> Just to Clarify. chimps don't kill other chimps
> and eat them, they occasionaly hunt and eat
> monkeys that stray into their territory looking
> for food as there is not enough any more due to
> habitats being lost due to deforestation.
>
> It is only the higher hierachy male chimps that
> kill, and they do it about twice a year. It is
> some sort of status thing. The females do not
> kill but will eat some meat if it is given to
> them.
>
> It is lack of food in habitats that is causing
> these animals to eat other animals and is not an
> essential part of their diet. Primates can live
> perfectly healthily on fruit, green and seeds
> diets, but will eat meat if there is not enough
> food.
>
> I don't know of any animal that kills and eats its
> own apart from the weak offspring and young that
> die will get eaten by the parents but this is
> just nature taking care of things as rotting flesh
> from dead young amongst the rest of the young
> would not be healthy. rats and mice will eat
> their offspring that die. I'm not sure about
> lions or chimps or dogs and cats, but I don't
> think so. Animals instinctively seem to know what
> to do.

er..I think everyone missed rabs point about primates entirely, he was saying that he believed the killing and eating of other chimps (which DOES happen) and monkeys, was more of a societal posturing than for food, he was trying to showcase the aggressive behavior inherent in primates, and trying to equate that with our behavior as well... and I dont think there is anyone on here who can honestly say that if it was down to their life and the lives of their loved ones, and the life of a stranger who is trying to steal from/hurt you and your family, that they would not fight for their survival... Just feel happy that most of us don't have to make that choice.

On some of his other claims, I know PLENTY of aggressive, and in a few cases, downright Cruel vegans, And I know some absolutely meek and loving and gentle meat eaters who just love a big juicy steak, and PLENTY of meat eaters who although they aren't as sweet as those previously mentioned, they are really nice friendly & warm people... the ONLY thing that's been proven about eating meat as far as it effecting ones behavior goes, is that those who eat commercialized mass produced and brutally slaughtered animals, can suffer from drastically raised stress levels do to all the stress hormones they ingest along with the meat, this increase in stress hormones in their body resulting in them feeling more stressed out, and partially more aggressive behavior, was non-existent amongst those who ate large amounts of meat from sources that had very little if any stress in their lives, and where slaughtered under the best possible circumstances.

As far as what is and isn't moral, In the end that's up to each individual to decide for themselves,based on whatever criteria they want to base it on, hopefully its at least close in some ways to some of societies morals, or else one may find themselves in prison.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Thanks, Curator.

Yes, I am arguing a very simple argument - while I agree that non-aggressiveness is a virtue (I was born and raised an Orthodox Christian), I don't think that this principle can be enforced for everything we do every day, diet related or not. So, for instance, if I spare a mosquito, it is going to follow me home and bite me ten more times.
We are not Gods, we are humans, just humans.

Curator,

Thanks. I got rabs point. And there is both a seasonal and territorial aspect to the killing. See above My point is that it has little to do with the moral choice that you and I make as moral agents today. Even non-vegans face the same choices. Plenty of omnivores engaged it in sit ins and boycotts back in the 60s through today. It wasn't evolution that drove them. It was their conscience and awareness.

Paul

Curator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> er..I think everyone missed rabs point about
> primates entirely, he was saying that he believed
> the killing and eating of other chimps (which DOES
> happen) and monkeys, was more of a societal
> posturing than for food, he was trying to showcase
> the aggressive behavior inherent in primates, and
> trying to equate that with our behavior as well...
> and I dont think there is anyone on here who can
> honestly say that if it was down to their life and
> the lives of their loved ones, and the life of a
> stranger who is trying to steal from/hurt you and
> your family, that they would not fight for their
> survival... Just feel happy that most of us don't
> have to make that choice.
>
> On some of his other claims, I know PLENTY of
> aggressive, and in a few cases, downright Cruel
> vegans, And I know some absolutely meek and loving
> and gentle meat eaters who just love a big juicy
> steak, and PLENTY of meat eaters who although they
> aren't as sweet as those previously mentioned,
> they are really nice friendly & warm people... the
> ONLY thing that's been proven about eating meat as
> far as it effecting ones behavior goes, is that
> those who eat commercialized mass produced and
> brutally slaughtered animals, can suffer from
> drastically raised stress levels do to all the
> stress hormones they ingest along with the meat,
> this increase in stress hormones in their body
> resulting in them feeling more stressed out, and
> partially more aggressive behavior, was
> non-existent amongst those who ate large amounts
> of meat from sources that had very little if any
> stress in their lives, and where slaughtered under
> the best possible circumstances.
>
> As far as what is and isn't moral, In the end
> that's up to each individual to decide for
> themselves,based on whatever criteria they want to
> base it on, hopefully its at least close in some
> ways to some of societies morals, or else one may
> find themselves in prison.

Rab,
I think any dietary ideal can cause some misunderstandings if not presented correctly. When I did strictly raw and vegan, I made the mistake of ordering a salad at a steak house. I asked that there be no cheese or bread. I was so shocked when the waitress said bitterly, "anything else you object to?" As if I was a lifetime member of an animal rights group. I had only been trying raw and vegan for about two weeks!!! It can be such an emotional thing for alot of people.

I was also taken by suprise when my mother in law criticised me when I suggested she needed a particular food. She said she didn't believe in superfoods, weird foods or supplements, and that if I reached her age I would have the right to claim any benefits from them. She said it really really hurtfully. on another occasion she said she wished that I had the problems she had. I found that rather hurtful, as I often wish she didn't have the troubles she had. I have my own problems, I never wish them on her.

Well, thank you for listening. I was a real point for me that I had to examine. Did I judge her for her living and eating habits? I found out that I did, and do, if on a very subtle level. I think that is what brought on this reaction. Prior to that she had rather constant praise for how healthy I am. (although I have started eating more junk since living with her) But i just tried to maintain certain habits, because I feel better with them.

Oh, actually I agree with that Paul, I don't believe "evolution" drives people anywhere near as much as our conscious choices do, our ability to make those choices that may not always be in our best interest for the sake of something we believe is right, is in my opinion, one of the key parts of our sentience.

I only stated what I did, as it didn't SEEM from the responses that anyone understood what he was trying to say as much of the responses didn't have much to do with the main point of what he posted, BUT that could have just seemed that way to me, maybe a different interpretation of what the focus of his post was?

But whatever our choices we make today are, most of us, are still more than willing to fight for our survival if need be, and the majority out there in the world are apt, more often than not, to take it a few steps further and actively try to increase their position within society, often to the detriment of other humans, let alone animals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator,
I often wish I had more assertive drive, its seems to be what gets people noticed, and advanced in positions in society. I just finished reading a good philosophical book. It suggested that if anyone is miserable, very one is, but maybe not to the same degree. Another was that the physical world will respond to meet our needs, to nurture us. I want to believe that, because it gives me hope, all too often nature and humanity seems indifferent.

I find myself wishing the same sometimes Mislu, your not alone in that,lol... but in the end some people just aren't cut out for that kinda place in society, we have our own place, where we can be happy and fulfilled ^_^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Please let me know how to make it work, or some suggestions. I would accept some bit of fame if I knew that what I contributed would radically change the world for the better. That is another thing this book mentioned, how when this person or that came along they introduced particular concepts that nobody thought of before. Sometimes they never benefited directly, but often did.

In my opinion, one does the best they can possibly do in this world, by learning to love their self completely, then allowing that love to overflow and envelop everyone they come in contact with...easier said than done... and also doesn't mean one should be a total sucker and let people take advantage of them, one doesn't need to offer anything to the world but their love... and the hardest part, or at least has been hard for me, is to not want or expect anything at all in return... Be a light unto the world... a really difficult thing to be sometimes...or often...lol

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

I am not certain how this discussion is supportive of people exploring the raw food diet.