RE: Plants Do Feel Pain. But Why Do Vegans Argue Otherwise?
This is an important topic. I understand that there is ultimately only one being in existence, manifesting through innumerable forms. This means that all plants are a form of consciousness, just like us and animals.
Pain is a message that personal limits are being exceeded and thus the will is being over-ridden. If I WANT you to eat me, then is it a problem for you to eat me?
How do we know if a plant or animal want us to eat them? What signals might they give us?
Have you ever seen a cow trying to force itself into your mouth? Or do we see birds flying straight towards shooters with guns aimed at them, trying to get shot? I have never seen either of these. I have though seen (repeatedly) animals trying to get as far away as possible from humans since they perceive them as predators and these animals choose to live.
Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that are brightly coloured to attract our attention? Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that are sweet tasting and smelling to attract our attention?
Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that contain seeds that when eaten pass through the digestive tract and further propagate the species of the plant?
I have seen all of these and this is because many plants are food baring plants, specifically - they produce food that is specifically intended and designed to be consumed.
The only problem with modern veganism is that many have not considered that if we kill the plants then we are not really respecting life. It is possible to live a vegan diet that only consumes parts of plants that are intended to be consumed. That is how to be balanced.
By giving examples of fruits & seeds, you make a good case for fruitarianism.
I also respect your opinion with regard to modern veganism. It's a step ahead and is very much like the philosophy of Jainism.
Jainism is the only example of an 'ism' that I have found on Earth that deeply resonates with me, yes - though I don't know a lot about it yet.
I think fruitarianism is a good choice, though we might be best served by also bringing in other plants too. Many plants die each year whether we eat them or not - so it seems a little short sighted to remove them from our diet because they don't produce fruit
While it is easy to make mental leaps for and against veganism, I find that if you think of all life as an interconnected web, we will find that there is a natural balance that starts to emerge. In Damanhurian philosophy, we are omnivorous, giving each person the opportunity to eat in harmony with the planet and their own bodies. In our experiences, if raised with love, care, and respect, plants and animals when harvested in gratitude, naturally give of themselves. It is when we become gluttonous and eat beyond our needs that we start to enter into problems. In my personal experience, as I dove deeper into my study into plant intelligence, the more I felt the need to come into contact with my food before it ever reached my plate. I have now participated in the growth of pigs, chickens, rabbits, fruit trees, vegetables... and this connection has lead me to eat more in harmony with their cycles, not overeat (because why would I disrespect them by taking more than I need), eat seasonally, increase my gratitude, and feel more nourished. In turn, I have learned personally and with the aid of people that work even closer with these beings than I do, that when it is time, the plant or animal will willingly give of him/herself, as a parent gives selflessly to care for a child.
I strongly disagree with you on animals giving themselves off naturally. Irrespective of your love, care & gratitude towards them, when you try to "harvest" (what a euphemism!!!) them for your food they try to escape and run away as much as they could to save their own life. One's own life is dearest to all beings. No one wants to lose their lives. If it is so, why does an animal never jump in the fire to become food for you? Why do they cry and suffer at the time of slaughter? Why do they try to run away from the site of slaughter in case they find an opportunity to do so?
Where's the harmony in witnessing the blood? Do a kid feel excited and happy when witnessing the process of slaughtering? In fact, I've seen them crying in horror. Many adults can't even see the video recordings of slaughter houses.
So when you talk about eating beyond our needs, I'd say eating animals is beyond our needs when we can get all our nutritional requirements fulfilled from plants. How can you justify eating animals while being in harmony with nature?
I've studied biographies of several saints and prominent personalities like Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, Swami Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. But never found anyone consuming meat. In fact they were very vocal against consuming meat in favour of harmony.
Does any human parent ever willingly give of himself / herself or his/her child to a carnivorous animal as a gratitude and to demonstrate our harmony with nature and life?
I can completely understand your reaction, never having witnesses what I am talking about. In my case, I see animals that choose--and I do believe based on my personal experiences that they are choosing--to follow the person who is going to transform them into food. There is no crying, there is no coercing, there is trust between two beings. Honestly, I would be skeptical myself, had I not been a part of it.
Just last week, one of our pigs was slaughtered, this weekend the other one will be. It is done out in the open, and there is no crying in horror, because the two people that are doing it are doing it with love. They have an intimate relationship with the animal, caring for it for more than a year, as do I, since I frequently go visit and and spend time with this magnificent creature.
And in this same way, I feel that plants also give themselves. Talking about vegetarianism as if it is better than eating animals negates the argument about plant intelligence. If plants and animals are sentient, then how can we believe that there is a difference eating one over the other?
You are talking something mystical and out of this world. Perhaps, intense love for food may blind someone to the sufferings & plight of others, I dunno! But I know there may be exceptions everywhere ...may be one animal didn't cry in horror (though I doubt), but I feel this couldn't be generalized to every animal you have got.
Regarding your query:
I'd request you to read the last section of the post once again:
"So Why Should We Not Kill Animals Instead Of Plants?"
I read your post, but then in your previous comment you state that eating animals is eating beyond our needs because we can get everything we need from plants. You contradict yourself between article and comment, hence why I ask the question. Just like you say that every saint is a vegetarian (which I disagree with, but not important enough to argue about) as a reason why we should not eat animals, but then start this last comment saying that my comment mixes science and mysticism. Which way do you want it, mixed spirituality and science or separate. It is your article, so you can choose, but you can't use both yourself then call out the contributors for using both, as well. :)
My comments are based on science and spirituality both personally applied in the physical. I happen to be both a scientist in this field and live in a spiritual community rooted in action. Where does your base come from?
Sorry, didn't get you.
May I request you to quote where I contadict myself?
My comment referred to your entire article. In it, you talk about plant intelligence, then basically conclude that you should not eat meat because animals are sentient and feel pain. It is a contradiction.
Plant Blindness is something most humans struggle with. The thought that everything in our world is actually "alive", therefore the criteria we have been using most of our lives to make choices are no longer valid is a hard thing to assimilate. For most, they can't make the leap, preferring to convey some kind of higher meaning to one type of being (in most cases animals because it is easier to relate to them) over another. Aristotle set this into motion over 2300 years ago, and his view stands even in the face of a growing body of science that his assertion is wrong. We were born into a world with plants, therefore they are part of the background, a position that is much more comfortable for us to leave them in given just how much we rely on them. I mean, is humanity ready to give up its position at the top of the food chain?