Dietary (and related) ethics [split from Do plants have minds?]

[Laird]

I'm not going to watch that over hour-long video, Jim, but just responding to the title: it's possible to eat a high-fat vegan diet too.

I'm not going to watch that over hour-long video, Jim, but just responding to the title: it's possible to eat a high-fat vegan diet too.

I think so, vegetable oil is mostly unsaturated fats. Nuts have a lot of fat too.  But I don't know if you would get the kind of effects she is discussing in the video.

She says, "We are made out of saturated fat, red meat, and cholesterol".

The video is divided into chapters with descriptive titles that make it easier to browse its contents. There is a table of contents in the description with links to the relevant chapters.

[Laird]

But I don't know if you would get the kind of effects she is discussing in the video.

Nor do I, especially having not watched the video, but even if not, the implicit argument kind of sounds like "It's OK to kill animals because animal products get you high", which is just a souped-up variation of the "But I like eating meat" refrain (to which I responded earlier). I might be misunderstanding what the "effects" being referred to actually are, but that's my initial impression.

Nor do I, especially having not watched the video, but even if not, the implicit argument kind of sounds like "It's OK to kill animals because animal products get you high", which is just a souped-up variation of the "But I like eating meat" refrain (to which I responded earlier). I might be misunderstanding what the "effects" being referred to actually are, but that's my initial impression.

She is saying mental illness and mood disorders can be helped by eating meat and avoiding too much of the wrong types of carbohydrates.

[Laird]

She is saying mental illness and mood disorders can be helped by eating meat and avoiding too much of the wrong types of carbohydrates.

I see. I'm skeptical. It seems a bit black and white. Doing a bit of web searching on the relationship between a plant-based diet and mental health turns up mostly results related to depression, and the current (limited) state of the evidence seems to be ambivalent: some studies show benefit, some don't, some show a detrimental effect; likewise for the reports of depressed individuals (as opposed to studies) on plant-based diets.

Given that some depressed people report, and some studies show, a benefit for depression on a plant-based diet, it is unlikely that eating meat is unequivocally and universally of help for mental illness and mood disorders.

In any case, even if it were:

1. A person's health extends beyond their (so-called) mental health, and plant-based diets, when planned well and nutritionally complete, are often associated with health more generally.
   
2. My original reaction applies with a little adjustment: even if you told me as a so-called "mentally ill" person, "Your mental illness can be helped by endorsing us killing (say) this pig", and you could prove that you were right on the assumption that I then ate the pig's flesh (on an ongoing basis), I would respond (as I think all right-thinking people should), "Jeez, that sounds like a pretty bad deal for the pig. Count me out."
   

I thought it would be interesting to look at how some of the most ancient religions view eating and diet. Supposedly there might be some sort of wisdom there, supposedly communicated over the ages by highly intuitive mystics and sages and even by the founders of these religions, who might have sensed the truths of all this, including (as per our discussion) a recognition that there is an inherent cruelty in meat eating that should be minimized if at all possible by practicing vegetarian or even vegan lifestyles, and our more modern suspicion that even plants have a sort of life force that unfortunately has to be destroyed by even a vegetarian diet. Unfortunately, none of the old established religions seem to have this latter view of the life of plants.

I briefly looked at Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism. These faiths all tend to at least have the teaching and tendency to ideally abhore meat eating, but don't seem to have any sort of understanding or spiritual insight that even plants are living beings that unfortunately have to be killed in order to sustain human life.

- Vegetarianism is a dietary ideal among many Hindus, based on the concept of ahimsa — non-violence and compassion towards all beings. It is also considered satvic, that is purifying the body and mind lifestyle in some Hindu texts.

- Many Buddhists follow a vegetarian diet, though it apparently wasn't specifically taught. Some Buddhists believe that eating meat can lead to bad karma, loss of purity, or harmful toxins, and that a vegetarian diet is a logical extension of the Buddhist moral precept against killing.

- In Zoroastrianism, the flesh of cow, ox, bull, steer, cattle and wild cattle, and all other animals including pigs and wild boars are not permissible for consumption, with no restrictions regarding milk and milk products and vegetables and grains.

These are some of the oldest most ancient religions. The historically more recent religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity have a more complicated view, prohibiting just things like pigs and pork for instance.

I thought it would be interesting to look at how some of the most ancient religions view eating and diet.

Interestingly enough the neighbors I'm cat sitting for left Animal Welfare in the World Religions on their counter. Will flip through it and see what's written there.

I am guessing that plants won't be given too much focus. Like you I don't think any old religion focused that much on plant suffering, though Jains will seek to eat only the products of plants and avoid any root plant whose consumption would kill the plant.

There's at least one old Chinese vision (possibly NDE, have to go back and check) where someone is told to become a vegetarian to avoid a bad afterlife. But IIRC this was recorded in the Shadow Book of Ji Yun, which at times seems to have possibly embellished paranormal events...or at the least was selective in their recording so as to promote a particular moral outlook....

And I think we should base our ethics on our best assessment of the empirical facts, rather than the reverse, which (the reverse) is what you seem to be proposing (in this instance).

The problem is that if consciousness doesn't have some sort of scale you just go crazy.

Ordinary soil is teeming with all sorts of things. If you turn the soil over with a spade (or a piece of farm equipment) you are likely to kill a fair few such creatures.

I remember once as a kid, a tiny insect that was barely visible to my naked eye crawled onto a microscope slide. I trapped it in some way and viewed it. I felt rather awkward because there it was there squirming in its efforts to free itself - looking very much alive and conscious.

It is easy to say that all animal life is equally conscious, but it is utterly impossible to follow that through consistently Every time you walk on open ground you are likely to leave a trail of tragedies like that (except that nobody will see them).

I felt my morphic field proposal was at least a way to rationalise what is going on.

David

Here's my reading of the train of thought of your post, using your own words as much as possible:

The fate of farmed animals is to be "sliced in two from end to end", "[y]et [...] for much of their lives they are able to roam free", and so "I don't force myself into" refraining from eating their flesh.

If it's a misreading, then it's at least a plausible one. I wasn't trying to spin it.


"Appalled"? Huh. The basis of my views is empathy and respect for all living beings. However badly I might advocate for them, being appalled given their (I'd hope obvious) basis seems like a misplaced (over)reaction.

Sorry, @Laird. I did not need to be so severe or harsh in my response.

At that point I felt misunderstood or misrepresented. These things are not necessarily intentional, but to be misunderstood is one of the deepest pains.

I'd like to let this go, it has blown away in the wind and I hope it will be possible for you too.

[Laird]

The problem is that if consciousness doesn't have some sort of scale you just go crazy.

I see, so, you propose that to stave off insanity, we make up comforting lies, or, as you put it, we "rationalise what is going on".

Ordinary soil is teeming with all sorts of things. If you turn the soil over with a spade (or a piece of farm equipment) you are likely to kill a fair few such creatures.

For organisms as big as an earthworm[1], that's probably true. I doubt that a spade or plough is going to do anything to most soil organisms given their tiny size though.

In any case, no-till farming can largely avert this problem.

[1] Although some earthworms can to some extent regenerate themselves if their tail part is cut off - not that that makes it OK of course.

It is easy to say that all animal life is equally conscious, but it is utterly impossible to follow that through consistently

If you mean it's impossible to totally avoid killing other life forms in the ordinary course of living our own human lives, that's probably true. There are plenty of ways we can mitigate the risks and harms though, even if...

Every time you walk on open ground you are likely to leave a trail of tragedies like that (except that nobody will see them).

...we don't go quite to the extent of those devout Jains who sweep the path ahead of themselves.