Rabello -

I agree with you that nothing is going to change as far as the animal agriculture industry is concerned.  That is, nothing in the foreseeable future will change as long as life goes on as it has, at least in the industrialised societies.

Should climate change in future become truly catastophic, to the point where even major cities are racked with floods, hurricanes, and other natural phenomena, and people find themselves without electricity or water, or even homeless - well, then, all bets are off.

If the cattle ranches are flooded out of existence or hit with droughts so severe with nothing can survive, perhaps the fast food people won't be able to sell their products so cheaply anymore, leading to a decline in sales that might even cause some of their franchises to close.  As well, people who have been left destitute by rampaging weather patterns, without food or decent shelter, are not going to be worrying about whether they can get their happy meals or burgers anymore.

I know this all sounds draconian, but it is a possibility.  It does seem a shame, though, that it would take calamities and horrendous misfortunes to bring people to their senses.

Solfeggio wrote:

> Well, Abner, my goodness!  Thank you for the compliment.  I really did mean what I said, too. 

If I could present one thing for you to really mull over and think about seriously ... I would suggest posting in that style for all your posts.

Abner -

Regarding writing style: Point taken.

By the way, I do agree with you that when a person has adopted a personal philosophy, it is difficult to rationalise why others don't share your philosophy.  (I'm fortunate in that myself and my husband and married daughter and her husband all share the same basic life philosophy, so that in family gatherings we are generally all in agreement on the fundamental issues.  It really does help to have at least a few people in your court, so to speak, even if they are family.)

But, yes, I know what you mean when you suggest that it is hard when, after a painstaking process of having your thinking patterns evolve over the years to the point where you have reached some sort of philosophical milestone, to find that, where most of your circle of friends and acquaintances is concerned, you're alone in your thinking.

They're still back where you started, but you can't very well tell them that, of course.  So, you have to be philosophical about it and understand that everybody is at a different place in his/her life, or perhaps that you are on the 'road not taken.'

It can be lonely.  And frustrating.  That's why it is fun and educational to bat these issues back and forth in a discussion forum like this one.

And you always pick up at least one or two little bits of useful information here and there.  For example, I had not thought of the fact that, even if the whole world was vegetarian, there would still have to be agriculture to feed everybody, and that would put strains on the planet as well.

Even at that, I'd still like to see it, though, because then at least there would be so much less cruelty to the animals.

Solfeggio wrote:

> Regarding writing style: Point taken.

Thanks!  I really have no objections to vegetarianism or veganism ...  I just have objections to certain argument styles, and think they can be counterproductive.

> By the way, I do agree with you that when a person has adopted a personal

> philosophy, it is difficult to rationalise why others don't share your philosophy. 

> (I'm fortunate in that myself and my husband and married daughter and her

> husband all share the same basic life philosophy, so that in family gatherings we

> are generally all in agreement on the fundamental issues.  It really does help to

> have at least a few people in your court, so to speak, even if they are family.)

You are indeed lucky.  My family has a much wider variety of philosophies and religions, which can make family reunions and other interactions something of a strain.  There's a huge number of topics we have to avoid entirely ... or anything that might lead to them ... if we want to get through an event peacefully.

> So, you have to be philosophical about it and understand that everybody is at a

> different place in his/her life, or perhaps that you are on the 'road not taken.'

Agreed.  I am strongly of the opinion that there are multiple valid lifestyles (as well as many more invalid ones), and it's very important to keep in mind the difference between 'not to my taste' and 'wrong'.  There are a lot of people who can't make that distinction ...  my mom, for example, is honestly of the opinion that everyone in the world would be happier if they lived exactly the way that she does.  And one of my coworkers is strongly of the opinion that I should get rid of all my cats and get a dog, because dogs are better than cats for everyone.  Oh, and that I should change how I dress, and get contacts or Lasik, and stop eating olives because they're horrible-tasting, and go to Hooters instead of D&D games, etc.  He just can't understand that I don't *want* to live like him - he's happy living his way, so everyone else would be too.

> And you always pick up at least one or two little bits of useful information here and there. 

> For example, I had not thought of the fact that, even if the whole world was vegetarian,

> there would still have to be agriculture to feed everybody, and that would put strains

> on the planet as well.

That's an ugly truth that many people never can come to deal with: *every* action people take has an environmental cost or effect.  The question is whether it's worth it or not for a given activity, and whether or not there is an alternative path with lower costs if you search for it.  Most people don't even think about the issue, which is where I get that frustrated feeling that you get when people don't think about their food choices.  How can people not think about the costs of their activities?  I don't expect them to make the same choices I do, but it's kind of hard to wrap my brain about the idea that costs aren't even in their considerations.

> Even at that, I'd still like to see it, though, because then at least there would be so

> much less cruelty to the animals.

Hrm ...  see my next post, I think it will have a lot for you to mull over.

Vegetarianism is just one answer among many - and one which IMO doesn't address the route problem, which is unsustainable agricultural practices and other environmental damaging activities.  If everyone became vegetarian and continued eating the products of conventional agriculture, we'd still continue damaging our environment faster than it can heal itself.  It wouldn't even necessarily improve their health, depending on *what* vegetarian things they ate.  Remember ... there are vegetarian twinkies.

Not all answers are on the same level. Vegetarianism is not just concerned with  "unsustainable agricultural practices".  There is more to it than that.

 "If you meditate long enough, deep enough, it is impossible for you to hurt anybody for food; it is impossible. It is not a question of argument, it is not a question of scriptures, it is not who says what, it is not a question of calculating that if you take vegetarian food you will become spiritual; it is automatic. It is not a question of cunningness, you simply become spiritual. The whole thing seems so absurd. Just for food, killing animals, birds, seems so absurd, it falls down.

 But the inner change is the first thing and everything else is just a consequence. If you reverse the order you will miss then you will become a food addict.

 Life in its infinite forms exists as one organic unity. We are part of it: the part should feel reverence for the whole. That is the idea of vegetarianism. It simply means: don’t destroy life. It simply means: life is God — avoid destroying it, otherwise you will be destroying the very ecology.
 

 Buddha  was from the warrior caste, son of a king, trained to kill. He was not a vegetarian. But when meditation started blossoming in him, just as a by-product the vegetarian idea came into his being: you cannot kill animals for eating, you cannot destroy life. While every kind of delicious food is available, what is the need to kill living beings?

This is nothing to do with religion. This is simply to do with your sensitiveness, your aesthetic understanding. Jainism and Buddhism are the only religions without God and without prayer, and both automatically became vegetarian. The same is happening to sannyasins. Christianity is not vegetarian, Mohammedanism is not vegetarian, Judaism is not vegetarian -- for the simple reason that these religions never came across the revolution that meditation brings. They never became aware of meditation.

And everything that follows it is virtue, because it comes of its own accord. You don't have to drag it, you don't have to discipline yourself for it. I have nothing to do with vegetarianism, but I know that if you meditate you are going to grow new perceptivity, new sensitivity, and you cannot kill animals.

Have you observed one fact? -- that the vegetarian societies have the most delicious kinds of foods. The Buddhists, the Jainas -- they have the best dishes in the world, for the simple reason that through their meditations they had to drop meat-eating. They became more inquiring into delicious food so they didn't miss meat, on which they had been brought up from their childhood -- it had become almost their second nature.

And the earth is capable, man is capable of creating enough vegetarian food -- vegetables, fruits, new fruits which have never existed before. Just crossbreeding is needed, and we can have the best kind of food available for everybody."  Osho