Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How My Primal Instincts Led Me to... Veganism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I wrote my feelings about vegetarianism a while back on paleohacks, and I still stand by that post. If you really want to avoid all unnecessary suffering, then why live at all? Every part of our lives is death. The fact that we live in houses, or apartments, drive cars, or use transit, eat, breathe, live..the fact that we even exist AT ALL is DEATH. Life is a constant cycle, a dance of living and dying.

    I appreciate your compassion. That has come from mindful thought, and meaningful introspection. You are questioning your position on this planet, and who is anyone to berate or judge you for that?

    I don't believe animals 'know what really matters in life'. They do not possess the same consciousness as humans. They survive on instinct. You could say however, that animals are excellent at being in the moment, and being fully present. But that's because it is all they know... their lack of that which says "Oh, snap...gotta make sure I get enough grass in mah belly so baby cow can have some milk", or "Oh man, I gotta take a dump. Oh look, here's a good spot". They have survival instincts and nothing more. They do not possess the "I" that is Ego. But humans do. It is our detriment as well as our ally.

    I think primal/paleo people are perhaps the most compassionate of all omnivores. We actually care about where our meat comes from and how it affects our planet, and how it affects the animal, the farmer, the earth. Granted, is isn't entirely self-less: we know that particular meat is probably better for us too. But the fact that we take the time to actually think, and make informed choices, THAT says a lot about us (well, most of us).

    I find it insulting when vegetarians/vegans (and I'm not speaking directly to you 2ndchance) insinuate that eating meat means hating animals. I have raised my two cats from whence they were kittens. They are part of my family. That is not the same thing as eating beef, pork or chicken. That is an entirely different relationship. Yes, that animal was raised to be slaughtered for my benefit. But that is because meat and fat are king in terms of nourishment and sustaining health. Talk about #firstworldproblems. Only in the Western world can we debate the 'politics' of eating meat. I think it's silly.

    I'd rather meditate on loving-kindness for 20 minutes a day and send that positive energy to all creatures, including those I will ingest. That I feel, is a better way to spend my existence. We can talk about whether or not eating meat is ethical, and I admit, I love the conversation at hand. It makes us more aware, and it make us think about our choices in this life. At the end of the day, these are opinions we offer, not facts, but feelings only. It is one big circle jerk. As we grow as individuals, we become more aware of our existence on this earth, and how we may live it more fully, more respectfully, more compassionately, more mindfully. We begin to question our choices. You have questioned yours. I do not begrudge anyone this journey. Questioning one's morals, one's path is yours and yours alone. No one can sway you from your own choice at the end of the day. I wish you all the best on your journey, 2ndchance. We'll still be here should you need some help I cannot speak for your journey, just as you cannot speak for mine. That is beauty in and of itself. It is yours only.

    I wish you only the very best. We are here if and when you need us I send my brightest blessings, and my goodwill to you!
    A Post-Primal PrimalPat

    Do not allow yourself to become wrapped up in a food 'lifestyle'. That is ego, and you are not that.

    Comment


    • #77
      OP, I hope you're taking a B12 supplement because even pro-Vegan "experts" know you can't get that from plants. (Which is one reason that I think vegetarianism makes more sense.)

      I figure that we all choose what we eat whether we're Vegan, Vegetarian, Omnivore, or Carnivore. I don't think any one of those should feel superior to the others.

      As far as Grok thinking, "Hey, I want a banana," and then going out and finding one, well I find that an unlikely scanario. More like modern human thinks, "Hey, I want a banana," and then goes to the corner store to find one. Grok ate what was on hand or s/he starved. In some areas, when it was cold, vegetation might be hard to come by. In others, vegetation was plentiful year round.

      There's a whole world of food out there. Someone once posted that food should be for nourishment and not for entertainment. I think it's both. A beautiful steak cooked just right, a red juice spurting burger, oysters floating in a creamy broth, a BAS made with care and beautiful veggies - nourishment all, but don't we smile when we eat them?

      If the wheat and corn grown in this country weren't so questionable, I might indugle more than once or twice a month. Except for health purposes, I find it a little odd to completely vilify any one food group. Decreasing a food for its lack of nutrients is fine as is increasing a food that is laden with nutrients.

      As to the ethics, my understanding is that about the same amount of old growth forests have been cleared to grow soybeans as have been cleared to raise CAFO beef. Also, is a wolf or lion unethical because it eats meat? Our teeth are made for both shredding of meat and grinding of veggies. But we're not slaves to our biology.

      Eat foods not laden with chemicals. Move a little. Lift stuff. Pull yourself up into the occasional tree. Get some sun. Sleep the sleep of the innocent. Play. Which section of the Vegan ----> Carnivore spectrum one lives is completely up to the individual. And taking the middle road isn't always a bad thing.

      Good luck in your new journey.
      "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

      B*tch-lite

      Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
        Animals are really just concerned with eating, fucking, sleeping, and shitting. Probably in that order. I agree that doing those things proficently are among the things that matter in life and if humans were better at those four things, I think our lives would be much happier and healthier. But I don't think animals have a 'sense' about what they're doing...they act on instinct, based on what is programmed into their genes.

        So why not support some local ethical farms who let their animals eat, fuck, sleep, and shit in the happiest, healthiest ways, followed by a much faster and more humane death than nature would ever provide. Animals in the wild do not live to be 'old and happy'. Once they aren't on top of their game, something comes along and rips out their flesh, bite by bite, with sharp teeth. That's not my idea of a happy ending.
        +1,000,000 best post I've read this week
        "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
          Animals are really just concerned with eating, fucking, sleeping, and shitting. Probably in that order. I agree that doing those things proficently are among the things that matter in life and if humans were better at those four things, I think our lives would be much happier and healthier. But I don't think animals have a 'sense' about what they're doing...they act on instinct, based on what is programmed into their genes.

          So why not support some local ethical farms who let their animals eat, fuck, sleep, and shit in the happiest, healthiest ways, followed by a much faster and more humane death than nature would ever provide. Animals in the wild do not live to be 'old and happy'. Once they aren't on top of their game, something comes along and rips out their flesh, bite by bite, with sharp teeth. That's not my idea of a happy ending.
          You put this very bluntly. I love it. Thank you.
          A Post-Primal PrimalPat

          Do not allow yourself to become wrapped up in a food 'lifestyle'. That is ego, and you are not that.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
            So why not support some local ethical farms who let their animals eat, fuck, sleep, and shit in the happiest, healthiest ways, followed by a much faster and more humane death than nature would ever provide. Animals in the wild do not live to be 'old and happy'. Once they aren't on top of their game, something comes along and rips out their flesh, bite by bite, with sharp teeth. That's not my idea of a happy ending.
            Hey, that's Groks lifestyle as well; bellum omnium contra omnes, those were the days...
            "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

            - Schopenhauer

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
              Hey, that's Groks lifestyle as well; bellum omnium contra omnes, those were the days...
              Were???

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by quikky View Post
                You're kind of stretching it there. Sure, there are plenty of vegetarians/vegans with the "I'm better than a meat eater" attitude. However, there are also those that don't consume animals for moral reasons without condemning those that do - I've met one personally. You can be moral about something on a non-judgemental personal level.
                I'm not reaching at all. I don't believe a human exists on the face of the Earth that doesn't judge. Being able to judge is a survival instinct. If we didn't have the ability to make decisions by looking at things at face value, we would have expired as a race a long time ago. Some people are far more judgmental than others, but everyone judges. Just because someone doesn't condemn something outright doesn't mean they like it.

                Originally posted by quikky View Post
                Also, as I previously exemplified, why is it bad to be "above Mother Nature" in some cases? Sex is the perfect example of why it is indeed better to be above nature. Almost every man out there would love to have sex with tons of women of his choice - it's simply in our nature. My animal instincts want me to spread my DNA as many times as possible, they don't want me to ask permission and get consent. Do I have a "self-righteous God complex" if I think I am above this?
                Sex is a terrible example. It is not human nature to forcefully rape women. I challenge you to find historical data that shows at any point in human history rape is the norm. The whole reason why society probably evolved such harsh punishments for rapists is because it's so frowned upon in human nature. Hell, ancient societies punished that stuff by death and genital mutilation. We are far more lenient today than a lot of ancient people. Pursuit and force are two wildly different things.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  I'm not reaching at all. I don't believe a human exists on the face of the Earth that doesn't judge. Being able to judge is a survival instinct. If we didn't have the ability to make decisions by looking at things at face value, we would have expired as a race a long time ago. Some people are far more judgmental than others, but everyone judges. Just because someone doesn't condemn something outright doesn't mean they like it.


                  Sex is a terrible example. It is not human nature to forcefully rape women. I challenge you to find historical data that shows at any point in human history rape is the norm. The whole reason why society probably evolved such harsh punishments for rapists is because it's so frowned upon in human nature. Hell, ancient societies punished that stuff by death and genital mutilation. We are far more lenient today than a lot of ancient people. Pursuit and force are two wildly different things.
                  You've nailed it. it's gotten to where one must prove their non judgementalism bona fides so that the non judgementalists won't judge us. Ditto on P2: Self-restraint is a pillar of civilization.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    I'm not reaching at all. I don't believe a human exists on the face of the Earth that doesn't judge. Being able to judge is a survival instinct. If we didn't have the ability to make decisions by looking at things at face value, we would have expired as a race a long time ago. Some people are far more judgmental than others, but everyone judges. Just because someone doesn't condemn something outright doesn't mean they like it.
                    Sure, but you can't say a huge group of people all act morally superior because they don't consume animals. It's a generalization at best.

                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    Sex is a terrible example. It is not human nature to forcefully rape women. I challenge you to find historical data that shows at any point in human history rape is the norm. The whole reason why society probably evolved such harsh punishments for rapists is because it's so frowned upon in human nature. Hell, ancient societies punished that stuff by death and genital mutilation. We are far more lenient today than a lot of ancient people. Pursuit and force are two wildly different things.
                    I don't know how much actual data I can find on rape in prehistoric times. I am not sure we even fully know how sex took place way back when. The point is that if you strip away morals and modern society, and make man simple, "natural", and raw, it's not hard to imagine that when groups of horny cavemen hung around, sometimes there wasn't much romance involved with sex. It's not that we have a natural urge to rape, it's that we have a natural urge to have sex, and when we're primal and don't necessarily have strong right-vs-wrong feelings and the physical strength to get sex, it seems quite plausible that forced intercourse did take place. Also, I am not talking about ancient societies, I'm talking about the pre-historic, primal, hunting with clubs and sticks, cave-dwelling, so to speak, man.

                    In any case, the point here fundamentally is that it isn't particularly disgraceful to reject our nature, as you've indicated.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      As humans we can understand suffering, and even empathize with other beings even if they are from another species. I agree that its a worthwhile goal to minimize all kinds of suffering, but where do we draw the line? Its one thing to treat other beings humanely, but quite another to reject what you are.

                      I recommend reading "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins. Its sure to make you question what exactly "a moral high ground" even means in this context.
                      "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I find it kind of irritating when people say that animals are different because they "have instinct" or run on instincts. This is incorrect. Humans have instincts, animals have instincts. Instincts are things like: wanting to eat, newborns rooting for a nipple, babies getting up and walking, cats chasing things that move, moms taking care of their babies (and depending on species, dads), pulling away from something that hurts. Etc

                        Humans and animals also have emotions. Animals can be scared, angry, happy, saddened. They express it in their bodies, in their faces, just like we do. They are all different. They can be laid back or nervous. Some have tempers, some do not. Some are lazy, some are energetic. There is more to an animal than most think, but not in the ways that people who love animals often think. I mean, animals have facial expressions. I could tell my cow was going into labor because she had a look of concern and soberness on her face. And she was not chewing her cud. Wasn't long she was pushing. But people attribute human reasoning and thought processes to animals. Their dog will do something and they come up with some complex reason why he might have done it had he been a human. But he's a dog and had much, MUCH simpler reasons. A dog doesn't like that you are happy because he wants you to be happy, he likes that you are happy because he associates that mood with you being better to him. More pets, maybe more treats etc. And I think its instinctual for a dog to be happy that his master is happy- it means everything is ok, because his master knows best, knows better than he does. If master has no concerns, all is right in the world- I'm safe. But he's not able to reason that, its instinctual, just like a little child is fine when all is fine with their parents. But if mom or dad is scared or angry, then things are not.

                        Humans and animals also learn- their instincts may push them to learn something. For example, a cat has an instinct to be interested in a mouse. But he may not get it. But after a few tries, he may learn and become a better hunter, same as people.

                        However, animals are different than humans. I'm around them every day. I have horses, I am a farrier, I have beef and dairy cattle, I have cats, dogs, I have chickens and dairy goats. I not only am around them every day, I work with them, I train them, I learn how they think, how to get them to do what I want them to do- I have to know what they are going to do before they do it as much as possible, to not only prevent injury to them or myself, but to keep things going smoothly- because upset animals don't produce as well, or don't do what it is I need them to do as well. I also consider them because I love animals and their little worlds interest me. Their psychology is very similar to ours, with different variations unique to different species. They learn by sensitization and desensitization, they associate. And all the social animals all have a hierarchy. Someone is in control at all times (when I'm around it's me). This animal or human, if a good leader, is a comfort to the subordinates, even if they correct and control the others, even sometimes harshly (but fairly). Anyone who thinks it's cruel to "control" a horse, needs to watch a herd for a while. There is no horse who is not controlled by somebody at least part of his life and he doesn't care if it's horse or human (except when the human is not good at speaking or understanding horse and causes the animal stress because of it). If he's in control, he's earned it and he's probably been through a lot and a very fast and smart and even "wise" (not philosophical wise, but doesn't get upset easily, knows what things are worthy of fear and what are not, knows better ways to get out of bad situations from experience etc) animal (in a wild herd). It is in a horses nature to be controlled, to have a leader, far more than to be one.

                        That said, how are animals different? I think one big thing is, they do not understand time. Time of day, yes. They have routines. But they don't know how old they are. They don't know how long ago the ice storm came or how old their babies are (but they do know who they are). They all die. But if they die at 20 years old or 1 years old, I don't think it matters to them. They don't wish for longer lives, they just have that instinct that us humans have, to survive- they never really "want" to die, but they all do. They don't know when it was that a dog got in the herd and killed one of their own, they just know that they have an association that they are terrified of dogs. Animals don't know how or why, they don't, they cannot think outside their lot in life. They know the things they need to do (but don't know they know them, if that makes sense), they have the skills for their own little world, they start with the minimum and have the capacity to learn within that set lot in life. But nothing else beyond it. But they are very sensitive, small changes can totally change the hormone environment in their body. A smell, a certain person's presence.. all by association or instinct.

                        Animals are killed every day in nature, much more traumatically than we humans usually kill them (but thankfully are equipped with hormones and systems that will put them in shock and prevent a lot of suffering). We are the only predator that considers the feelings of our prey- as we ought to. But I can tell you, they don't consider ours.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by otzi View Post
                          Mark Sisson's wife and daughter, I believe, are vegetarians. I think one could pull it off, but can't see me doing it.
                          As I understand it, they eat fish.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by AshleyL View Post
                            *long, nice post*
                            i like that whole thing
                            beautiful
                            yeah you are

                            Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                            lol

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by quikky View Post
                              Sure, but you can't say a huge group of people all act morally superior because they don't consume animals. It's a generalization at best.



                              I don't know how much actual data I can find on rape in prehistoric times. I am not sure we even fully know how sex took place way back when. The point is that if you strip away morals and modern society, and make man simple, "natural", and raw, it's not hard to imagine that when groups of horny cavemen hung around, sometimes there wasn't much romance involved with sex. It's not that we have a natural urge to rape, it's that we have a natural urge to have sex, and when we're primal and don't necessarily have strong right-vs-wrong feelings and the physical strength to get sex, it seems quite plausible that forced intercourse did take place. Also, I am not talking about ancient societies, I'm talking about the pre-historic, primal, hunting with clubs and sticks, cave-dwelling, so to speak, man.

                              In any case, the point here fundamentally is that it isn't particularly disgraceful to reject our nature, as you've indicated.
                              How do you spell speculation and/or nonsense?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by whitebear View Post
                                How do you spell speculation and/or nonsense?
                                Thank you for your insightful contribution.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X