People and their animals [and PETA]

annaedith · Post by **annaedith** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:17 pm

that's true that one should respect any creature and being and be aware of this when consuming. nowadays, with everything being available in vast amounts for not much money, you can loose this awareness. my grandmother who experienced the war and the hard years after behaves very much like one should. she never throws anything away that is still edible and only buys really the "raw materials" and makes everything out of it on her own. and i still was educated like this: food that is still alright may never be thrown away or even used for "lower" purposes. I still have a bad feeling - and i want to keep it - when sharing a fresh loaf of bread with my horse. horses can get old, dried bread, but not good fresh one. and when we were children, we once bought a egg and used it for making sand cakes or anything like this. when our parents found out, they were very angry with us and we were told that it is not alright to spoil edible things.
haven't yet heard of the idea to life from air, though. would be good to have so much discipline.
anna

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Tue May 03, 2005 2:44 pm

Actually it is not air that feed us, it is while breathing that we are absorbing the energy contained in the universe. (Like this is not by chewing and gulping(!) food that we are substained, but by tranforming the food in energy for the body. The yoga technic allows to do this by breathing instead of eating, because the whole universe is energy. But. True or not, it is not someting anybody can do. I mentioned this 'cause I knew some people how tried. Believe me or not. Yes they did. Without the training the yogi had, furthermore. Don't ask me...

I., respect is a value that is laughable at a lot it seems. Just too bad.

Yes they can do it, "flush" the toilet. It is amazing what animals can do. Some of them are even able to keep the seat down (I'm sorry gentlemen, this one is too easy, almost as to keep the seat down, try it next time!)

Annaedith, this is respect in my liking. With this we can afford the luxury

Nature is so generous.

Have a nice day folks, 'have to run now !

Tri-me · Post by **Tri-me** » Sat May 07, 2005 4:58 pm

I don't buy meat anymore, but if I am out I will eat it. I was a vegetarian for years, but it gave me alot of anxiety around eating.

I encourage people to cut back on their portion size. In North America our portion sizes are too big "super size me" oh ya we are super sized here

. I was told by a dietition that a portion of meat should be the size of the palm of our hand.

We have plots here and there for people who want to garden where I live + we have a garden at the Shambhala center. I like getting my hands dirty.

I worked in a vegan restaurant for a summer and learnt alot of great recipes. Here is the most popular one.

SUN BURGERS errr Patties errr THINGIES
this is a huge batch

3 1/2 c Water
1/3 c Soy Sauce
1/2 c sunflower seeds
1 1/2 c Carrot Pulp from juicing
1/2 c brown rice (cooked)
1/2 c chopped coriander
30 ml coriander seed (toast and grind)
40 ml Mexican Chili (this chili has coriander in it)

Combine ingredints. Bring to a slow boil. Then add slowly
6c Quick Oats
3c Regular Oats

Cook on medium heat 10-15 min stirring constantly. Remove from heat, allow to cool 30 min or until it is cool enough to handle. Grease up your hands and form into pattites or balls. Bake on an oiled sheet 30 min at 350 degrees farenheight (177C?).

Patties can be re-heated in the toaster. Will store in the freezer for a long time. Nummy, I love coriander I think customers became addicted to them.

Another trick I learnt was making "cream" from Millet. 1c milllet to 3c water boil until it is mush them puree, add flavours to create a sauce like brewer's yeast for cheese or can be used as a base for soup. This recipe is good for people who have celiac disease.

witty_owl · Post by **witty_owl** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:24 pm

In years past I have endured periods of vegetarianism but ultimately returned to eating meat of various types because it improved my health, strength and fitness. I prefer seafood but I do include red meat in my diet. Mind you I prefer red wine!

There is no way we can survive without killing something for sustenance, whether our bent is vegetarian, omnivore or carnivore. The way I see it; all the life that sustains me will one day be sustained by me when my flesh fails. Or when I get eaten by a shark or a tiger or whatever. Probably I shall be eaten by the humble worm. Nothing so grand as one of the top predators.

And that is the crux of it all. The universe is predatorial in nature. And the highest predators are also the most intelligent and empathetic organisms, (dogs, wolves, dolphins, lions). So I accept my nature and respect all the life forms that feed me. I take only what I need. Humanities sins are not the killing of life to feed but the excesses of gluttony and greed etc.
So that is my viewpoint on the question of whether or not to eat meat. Killing does not necessarily = murder.
Cheers, Witty Owl.

Jonnie Falafel · Post by **Jonnie Falafel** » Wed May 11, 2005 4:56 pm

Jonnie Falafel - Vegan here! Read some earlier posts but decided I need to find the time to read them all before I reply to any. Lizzy's first post caught my eye re: anthropomorphism... can I suggest a couple of books on the subject:

1. Dogs Never Lie About Love (The emotional life of dogs)
2. The Pig Who Sang to the Moon (The emotional life of farmed animals)

Then never apologise again for anthropomorphism.

Mrs. Trellis · Post by **Mrs. Trellis** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:02 pm

Here's a handy tip for you, when you put your cat out, always use a good quality extinguisher.

Mrs.T.

Kush · Post by **Kush** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:34 pm

I like and agree in entirety with Witty owl's post on this.

I would only add something to the following.....

Humanities sins are not the killing of life to feed but the excesses of gluttony and greed etc.

While the above may seem quite blatantly obvious I also think it is inevitable becoz' of the greater range and complexity of emotions that the interaction of our limbic (emotional) and enlarged cortical systems of the brain give rise to. Humans are capable of more complex love, hate, greed, gluttony, compassion, humor, suffering than any other creature. These abilities gives us the power to create art, literature, science, technological warfare, biomedical advances etc etc. It comes with the package. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The challenge for humanity now may lie to best harness our abilities in the best possible manner for long-term survival and growth (assuming that that is a worthwhile objective)......neither for short term gluttony nor for short term feel-good value.

I'll catch up with other threads later on...these are busy days. This one caught my attention.

p.s.

On the other hand...I think the way of the universe (cosmos) down to all life has always been 'short-term advance'.....evolution and adaptation has always looked to the shortest term for advance ...never long-term. So long-term survival and growth in itself is a very modern human (and perhaps unnatural) thought, all animals always think of only short-term survival. And at most levels perhaps we do too. But our enlarged cortex and ratinal brain opposes it by attempting to think long-term.

annaedith · Post by **annaedith** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:53 am

in fact, i'd say your first thought is right, kush:
evolution has always aimed on the long-term improvements. thousands of lifes have been sacrificed for the great result. mutations occur in a huge variety, and it has always been like this that most of them had no advantages. those creatures often suffered and died earlier. but one of thousands of mutants had a succesful mutation, and this creature lived longer and had more offspring than others, thus passing on its mutation and spreading it. the survival of one being means nothing in evolution, but the survival of the group is the aim.
humans, on the other hand, tend today more than ever to search the short-term improvements: for most, it is okay to spend a happy evening drunk and perhaps even made artificially more happy by drugs, in spite of knowing that the next day one won't be able to do good work and the money may have been spent more wisely.
so i agree with you, kush, it would be wise to think in longer terms.

Kush · Post by **Kush** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:00 pm

annaedith...I'll write more later...but just a quote from Carl Sagan writing on evolution.....

"There is no end in mind. There is no mind to have an end in mind".

I have to respectfully disagree with your post about long-term improvements in evolution (only with the specifics)....I agree in general that given the enormous technological power humans have today in manipulating nature.....the only way is to be able to think long-term..to get better and better at predicting the consequences of our actions.

p.s. On second thoughts A. ...you've brought up an interesting issue...get back to you later on.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:17 pm

By the way....does Leonard Cohen have a pet?

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:29 am

Interesting question Sandra

I don't recall to have read somewhere that he had a pet, though I recall having read here that his daughter who was living in the basement of his house in L.A. had (has?) a dog. A dog that almost made the top model for the CD TNS, if my memory is good.

Kush and Annaedith, I don't think this is an issue of long or short term.

I think that at this point of the history of humanity, human beings are able to think in term of long term, and are able to see the consequences of their acts more than before. I see this more like a matter of consciouness. First.

Second, of consciouness that our survival passes through our will and capacity to live in harmony with nature, even though we can by-pass jere and there the almighty power it once had over us, we have to take it as "partner" 'cause we need it. Nature does not need us, by the way. So "the deal" is all in our own advantages.

But maybe I have it all wrong.

Maybe the nanotechnology will change all the rules in a couple of years. And other technologies that we don't know now.

Maybe it is because I like nature too much that I want to live in harmony with it. Maybe not. Maybe it has a root of truth. I think that if we could be a little be less "control freaks" the quality of life could be idyllic, the paradise on earth. No. We have to judges and rules everything. For example, i think that homosexuality is the solution that Nature has to avoid overpopulation (which could be deadly for us and for Nature as well) and of course our "good" human wisdom condemn homosexuality as being against nature. And so on and so on.

I stop here, now.

Jonnie Falafel · Post by **Jonnie Falafel** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:00 am

somewhere on the leonardcohenfiles.com site a picture of a TNS cover with the said dog is posted!

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:14 am

Hum.... maybe LC had a dog after all :

http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/thebest.html

Yes, JF, I was talking about this dog. Too funny this dog!

annaedith · Post by **annaedith** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:11 pm

a lot of people here seem to wish to live in harmony with nature, that is fine. you said some very true things, tchoco. it's only when comparing cultures that lived so harmonic (indians, eskimos etc.) one sees that though they were happy, they didn't have all these things we have now. and it is worth thinking if we want to give it up all, i suppose hardly anybody would like to: no more warm central heating when coming home, no more electrical light, hot water without having to prepare it, good education, help in case of illness or old age, science like medicine and technology to lenghten and easen our lifes. no system to catch you when you make a mistake or have an accident.
living like the native cultures means to take only as much as you have to in order to survive, but nothing more. the western way of living takes more, also on the costs of other human beings (asian children who have to work in factories,...) , in order to live a bit better than necessary. but nature is that rich that this has worked well for several hundred years now and will still coninu for some time. technology may still make this possible for some longer (cars that need less petrol to run...), but can't stop it.
and so i think it isn't evident for everybody that this way of living isn't good forever.

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:44 pm

Who I am to make definitive affirmations?

But.

I am like those bench coaches. I like to yak a dee yak about the possible issues of the game. And say what I think the players may do. Of course.

According to many scientists of their time, boats can not float, planes would neve flies, we could never get free from the gravity force, etc, etc, etc. According to others all this were possible and more is still too come.

Living in a nanotechno world would be like living in Walt Disney World : a magical environment that will obey to all our desire illico presto. Though those who suffer of the Frankenstein (so tiny little monsters in comparison) syndrome say that nanotech will create a new form of pollution that would be very nasty.

Also, if the gap between the "rich" and the "poors" continues to go further, I'm afraid that the 25% of people who are controling the business and money will be considered as people. All the others?.... pffff... maybe like the slaves in the Antic Greece or the lower classes in Great Britain and India, not so long ago. And those of the third world at present, or not so long ago. So the problem of natural ressources wont' occur for the few "people" left.

Annaedith, it is impossible to live in the past. I do not even wish to live in the past. I meant living in harmony with nature by developping and using technologies that won't destroy the ecosystem and humanity at large with it, which is possible but is in contradiction with the laws of economy. ad nothing else, i.e. take the car industry and with it the war industry.

Another example : solar energy could bring all the comfort you are talking about in a house, no need to heat with fuel.

I wrote also on other threads about electric cars, wind mills, green roofs.

What else, there is thousand of hundred millions solutions.