vegetarian's you also eat another life form?

[CLN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

sravna: When the question is applied with respect to preying for food, it is more of a rational question devoid of any ethical underpinnings. A more intelligent creature is a greater asset to nature than a lesser one and nature having put more effort into it. That is the reason you have the more intelligent one as the predator and the lesser one as the prey.

Shri Sravna ji,

I agree with you when you say that it is rationality rather than ethics that comes into play, in preying. But as to your observation that the more intelligent is the predator and the lesser one is the prey, I am not all that sure. Can you confidently say that a lion is more intelligent than an elephant? Or, a cheetah is more intelligent than a gazelle? Perhaps hyenas are cleverer than lions (I have no proof!) and so they are capable of stealing the 'kill' of a lion (at least a portion of it) right under its very nose! The lesser the position of the genus of a creature in the evolutionary hierarchy, the more abundant it is in nature, perhaps, to compensate for it falling prey more easily to creatures at a higher level. Where this balance is vitiated, the lesser organism dwindles soon in number and goes extinct!

 

[Nara]

........ These modern and sophisticated people can be both rational and egotistic, selfish and egalitarian and all other set of such qualities you can think of. They expect you to listen to their rational and egalitarian talk but you would not want to talk on what is moral to them because you can be sure you wouldn't be heard.

Wow sravna, you are so sure about yourself!!

I think it takes lot of arrogance, inflated ego, and baseless overconfidence to, as you say, "talk on what is moral to them", them being, I suppose, "modern and sophisticated people".

What is bothering you dear sravna, what do you have against people who would like to be modern in their thinking? I have two shoulders on offer, lean over it and sob if it will help, unburden, you seem to be carrying a very big load indeed.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I agree with you that plants and trees are life forms and they do respond, in their own way, when danger strikes. My point was only that there is no way for them to feel pain as a brain and central nervous system are prerequisites for feeling pain.

If we go back to the genesis of life on earth, the earliest single cell organisms must have multiplied only because it was able to discriminate between what was favorable condition and what was not favorable. So, the very primitive behavior mechanisms for gene survival and reproduction must have included (i) recognition of the environment, (ii) avoidance of danger, and (iii) pursuing what is advantageous for survival and reproduction.

Depending on the early manifestations of the advantageous gene mutations, different species evolved and multiplied into the countless variety of lifeforms we see today. Depending upon the environment, and the dangers and opportunities in that environment, different species developed different ways of coping with these three issues.

The plant species are immobile and therefore, a whole set of physical features and behavior that are essential for mobile species are of no use to them. So they have not evolved arms, legs, eyes, etc. But they have developed other features, such as the chemical secretion you have cited to guard against dangerous intruders.

Whereas, the species that are mobile were able to get tremendous advantage with physical features that let them move about in more effective and efficient ways. They have arms, legs, eyes, nose, ear, etc., all which need a brain and a central nervous system to function. The neurons of the nervous system interacting with the brain cells produce all the sensory perceptions that include pleasant feelings for things that are advantageous and unpleasant feelings -- including pain -- for that which needs to be avoided. Thus, a functioning central nervous system and brain are essential for feeling pain.

Tress and plants are not going anywhere, so no need for the biological systems such as the central nervous system and brain, without which there is no way to feel pain. Yes, they do respond to harm, otherwise, they will not survive, but pain perception is of no "use" to their survival. Nature is quite fastidious, only useful features will get selected in the natural selection process. There is a sea creature called Tunicate that needs a kind of proto-brain to move about and settle down on a rock to spend the rest of their lives. Once settled on a rock, this creature digests its own "proto-brain" that functioned in a way human brains would have for the purpose of movement, because it no longer needs that "brain", it is not going anywhere!

My position on NV vs. V is based on three points I already mentioned, absence of pain for plants and trees is only one. The other two being, unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals for the sake of mass production and the environmental degradation caused by meat production vis-a-vis plant products.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

nv is digestible and excretable so is v.i think thats what matters.a kshatriya has to kill as its his dharma otherwise he/she will go mad.better to kill animals,plants..etc is my thinking now.even after killing animals,plants etc kshatriyas want to kill own species namely human,either in a war or becoz of a fight.?warrior have the urge to kill,so that is why nv is popular.once the dried blood is tasted from meat,people will want more of it,like vampire who suck blood.

as a 95% vegetarian,i have experianced it all.human are omnivorous.that is why nature is still providing us with canine teeth,a set pair i believe.the molars and pre-molars,to grind and masticate.if we let our nails grow,they will resemble the animals,no doubt in my mind.

if half the people in the world see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA.org they will stop eating animal flesh completely.and of course there is this halal meat.

nv has got nothing do with gunam at all.i have found so many noble souls who eat nv and are much better than v people in their gunams.one can be equally sathvic even though one eats nv,is my understanding now.

 

[nachi naga]

i think

.....absence of pain for plants and trees is only one.....

,dr.bose proved to his peers,that plants have life to.therefore in their own way they feel pain or pleasure in their ways contrary to human emotions.i think,we should NOT kill plants,vegetables too.rice,wheat,barley,maize..etc have life too.everything has life actually.then it becomes only degree of variation between v and nv,who are we as tambrams,to pass judgement on other human beings ways of living,ultimately.milk is a form of blood meant for its calf,happily we take it saying,its producing more than required for the calf,huh!

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna ji,

I agree with you when you say that it is rationality rather than ethics that comes into play, in preying. But as to your observation that the more intelligent is the predator and the lesser one is the prey, I am not all that sure. Can you confidently say that a lion is more intelligent than an elephant? Or, a cheetah is more intelligent than a gazelle? Perhaps hyenas are cleverer than lions (I have no proof!) and so they are capable of stealing the 'kill' of a lion (at least a portion of it) right under its very nose! The lesser the position of the genus of a creature in the evolutionary hierarchy, the more abundant it is in nature, perhaps, to compensate for it falling prey more easily to creatures at a higher level. Where this balance is vitiated, the lesser organism dwindles soon in number and goes extinct!

Dear Shri CLN,

Unlike humans animals do not possess real intelligence. That place is taken by strength or force. So the physically more powerful creature generally has its way. That power can be seen as a form of intelligence. Otherwise the prey would keep dodging the predator if it had superior intelligence. The fact that the lesser creatures are more in number can be seen as a compensatory factor for their lower intelligence

 

[ambes]

Good one Raghy

 

[pviyer]

Dear Shri P.V.Iyer,

I did not base my claim on any research findings. My logic is you need consciousness to be self aware. A non-living being can be assumed to not have that self awareness or at least not to the extent a plant has and so on. Increased self awareness is likely to make your experiences more acute. Thus as a human you feel the pain or pleasure the most.

i Potentially agree with you statements. I have always thought of such a reason. I am stuck up in reaching a point beyond this, because I am not aware of any scientific findings in this regard. In fact I have my own doubts whether it is possible for science to measure pain. Here again we have to fall back on spiritual experiences. But I think a large section of modern people do not consider spiritual experiences valuable.

 

[pviyer]

i Potentially agree with you statements. I have always thought of such a reason. I am stuck up in reaching a point beyond this, because I am not aware of any scientific findings in this regard. In fact I have my own doubts whether it is possible for science to measure pain. Here again we have to fall back on spiritual experiences. But I think a large section of modern people do not consider spiritual experiences valuable.

Logic based discussions lead us to an inconclusive result if we dont take some common views across the three Indian religions- hinduism, buddhism and jainism as axioms, since they have been time and again been validated by personal experiences in these traditions. There is one another concept also known among the chineese in a vague way, that we kind of become affected by the mental and karmic tendencies of the living being which we consume. This is one another reason why "certain food were prohibited and certain foods were consumed" in our land. An interesting observation from Megasthanes was that Indians did not eat domesticated animals as food. I can provide a link to that if needed by anyone. I think that sums up one fact- that supporting slaughterhouses as in the present day models, was certainly not a feature in ancient India.

 

[saiwarie]

thanks all

 

[sravna]

Wow sravna, you are so sure about yourself!!

I think it takes lot of arrogance, inflated ego, and baseless overconfidence to, as you say, "talk on what is moral to them", them being, I suppose, "modern and sophisticated people".

What is bothering you dear sravna, what do you have against people who would like to be modern in their thinking?
Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Selfishness which I associate with modern thinking is harmful not only to the society but even to self. I suppose that there have been even scholarly articles from the west supporting and advocating selfishness.

I have two shoulders on offer, lean over it and sob if it will help, unburden, you seem to be carrying a very big load indeed.

Is this your latest research on unburdening?

 

[ambes]

I FULLY AGREE WITH Mr.Pviyer no argument based on logic can be made for or against vegetarianism.
All living beings require food for their survival.For eg. Jainism acknowledges that it is impossible to discharge one's duties without
some degree of himsa/violence, but encourages to minimise as much as possible.Jains usually do not consume root vegetables such as potatoes,garlic,onions,carrots,radish,turnips etc., as the plant needed to be killed in the process of accessing these prior to their end of life cycle.Brinjals are also not consumed by some Jains owing to large no of seeds in the vegetable,as seed is a form of life.However they consume rhizomes such as dried turmeric & dried ginger. Most Jain receipes substitute potato with plantain.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Shri Nachi Naga Sir: In the process of evolution, man is ultimately going to lose his teeth, hair and nail. In that eventuality, only vegetarians, perhaps, may evolute further.

 

[nachi naga]

Shri Nachi Naga Sir: In the process of evolution, man is ultimately going to lose his teeth, hair and nail. In that eventuality, only vegetarians, perhaps, may evolute further.

iyya,agreed its a possibility.as men have started losing chest hair,head hair and finally no hair including eyebrows and eye lashes..typical gargoyles..who knows...my reflection is,veggies like me enjoy eating everything without guilt or some dogma breathing down my neck.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

There are organisms in water and in air. There are many vegetables which have seeds. If you have infectious fever you have to take anti-biotic. Jains generally drink boiled water. Does not boiling the water kill some organisms. Moksha is the only way to avoid ahimsa.

 

[tks]

One life forms need another to survive. Nature is highly evolved and intelligent and this is the intelligent order.

There is intelligence from atomic/cellular levels to cosmic levels expressed in terms of laws of physics, physiology, biology etc. In this scheme of intelligent order, the only 'cook' that makes food from carbon-di-oxide (given out by animals and humans), sunlight, and soil etc are plants and trees. They provide protein, carbohydrates and vitamin in a consumable form and are the only intelligent cooks for other life forms to survive.

Trees and plants dont run away and there is plentiful of food available. Some animals without free will can only eat other (vegetarian) animals. They do not make concious decisions and again this is part of the intelligent order.

Humans have a choice to consume vegetarian food and cause mimimal sufferings in the universe. Or eat (vegetarian) animals as a meal whcih has suffered and died for your eating choice.

Minimizing (not eliminating) cruely and suffering is possible for human beings since we are endowed with free will to make a choice. This principle is expressed as Ahimsa being paramo dharma. One is free to aid cruelty and suffering of animals by eating them. Or Not!

 

[Raghy]

Good one Raghy

Thank you Sir!

 

[KRS]

Meat eating is part of human history on this planet, as evidenced by our evolution to be omnivorous.

This eating meat and associated hunting are ingrained in the culture of lots of people around the world. Sophisticated major cuisines have evolved around the globe, centered on preparing meat, poultry and fish. In some countries, cuisines have evolved so much so that they are viewed on par with religion.

There are folks who convert to being vegetarians or vegans, based on different concerns of ethics, morality, environmental and health reasons around the world. Anecdotally, I have seen many in their youth switch to a vegetarian/vegan diet, only to go back to become non vegetarian. Likewise I have also seen many who grew up with vegetarian diet and switched, go back to being vegetarians again. I have also seen many who have converted either way and stayed with their choices.

Benjamin Franklin, (who is thought to be a vegetarian) describes his conversion to vegetarianism in Chapter 1 of his Autobiography, but then he describes why he (usually) ceased vegetarianism in his later life: "...in my first voyage from Boston...our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food... But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you.' So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."
Reference: Ethics of eating meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This shows, how hard it is to change the diet one is raised on. Majority of people in this world are not capable of doing it.

I do not think that humans will give up meat eating that easily. So, in my opinion, what is important is to make the process of meat, poultry and fish production as humane as possible. While the roots of vegetarianism is rooted in the ahimsa principle, to me the issue is not religious. Even the avatar of ahimsa, Buddha himself, did not ban meat eating. There are also religions that prohibit one from being a pure vegetarian.

So, like hunting, the farming and harvesting of meat etc., should be done in a way that gives dignity to the animal and does no harm to the environment.

Given that the humans are atop the food chain and the vast majority of the people are non vegetarians, 'konna pavam thinna pocchu' holds.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Raghy]

Sri.PViyer asked to Sri. Sravana-

One doubt here sravna sir, what are the medical facts regarding the link between nervous system and pain. Is there a proof that we have that animals with more complex nervous system have more pain? If so, how do we define complexity in this specific context. I think this becomes pertinent to our entire discussion on [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]plants[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] being able to or unable to feel pain.

Sri.Sravana Sir Said -

I did not base my claim on any research findings. My logic is you need consciousness to be self aware. A non-living being can be assumed to not have that self awareness or at least not to the extent a plant has and so on. Increased self awareness is likely to make your experiences more acute. Thus as a human you feel the pain or pleasure the most.

Sir, in the absence of nervous system, there would be no conductors of pain. Such areas with out nervous system would not suffer pain. For example, in the case of third degree burns, at the middle of the portion, damage would have completly burnt the skin, up to the muscle may be even exposing the bone. The patients don't feel pain at the centre of the wound, since all the nervous systems are completly burnt out; they feel excruciating pain at the edges, where the nervous system is intact. Similar wounds can develop after a cellulitis gets severly infected. (Cellulitis wound can advance quite rapidly; mostly on the limbs, mainly on the lower legs and feet; within a week, the bone would be visible).

Animals and human beings have the similar DNAs. We are made of similar proteins. Animals feel the same kind of pain as we do. (well, we are part of the animal kingdom, anyway). So, Sri.PVIYER Sir, the answer to your question is, yes, nervous system is essential to feel pain. In the absence of nervous system, the pain would be absent too.

Don't much about plants. Don't know whether they have nervous system , feelings etc.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

... Even the avatar of ahimsa, Buddha himself, did not ban meat eating. There are also religions that prohibit one from being a pured vegetarian.

Dear Shri KRS, I agree with your observations. Just one comment, it is my understanding that Buddha did not prohibit eating meat from an already dead carcass, but not kill and eat the meat. He himself is supposed to have died after eating contaminated pork, probably due to some natural decay after the death of the animal. What the present day Buddists do is a different matter altogether!

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

Please see: Buddhism and Vegetarianism

Seems like he prohibited any meat from animals 'heard, seen and killed' for the specific consumption of the monks. So meat from bhiksha was allowed, as I understand.

Moreover, I think this edict was for the monks, not for the general public.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...Please see: Buddhism and Vegetarianism

So meat from bhiksha was allowed, as I understand.

Dear Shri KRS, I have no idea how far this web site is authentic, but a quick look seems to support what I stated, see for instance:

"This rule technically applies only to monastics, but it can be used as a reasonable guide by devout lay people."
​

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara, Shri KRS,

From whatever I have read Buddha was against cruelty to anyone, anything, including animals and preached it also. But he was aware that meat eating was very common even among the Brahmans. (Just one instance: the priest who is allotted the duty of laying the bricks for the atirātram sacrifice, is prohibited from eating meat of any 'bird' commencing from a certain number of days before the piling, till the atirātram is over. It still allows, technically, eating of non-bird meat!)

So, Buddha said to his monks not to refuse whatever food was given to them by the public and eat it.

Buddha's last meal was from a devout follower but a very poor person. Hence one opinion is that such a disciple could not have given any meat to Buddha, which the disciple knew, his guru was against. The Pali wording being as confusing as Sanskrit, it is now said that most probably it must have been a mushroom which caused fatal allergies in Buddha; in support of this, it is pointed out that such allergies do happen to some people even if they eat approved mushrooms. Recently one young girl who ate a piece of bread (probably stale stuff kept by the shop-keeper) got such fatal allergy and has survived because of expert and timely medical attention for several days in hospital. The girl's father humorously remarked to me that this could be the costliest slice of bread in the world!!

 

[Haridasa Siva]

There are also religions that prohibit one from being a pure vegetarian.

Regards,
KRS

That is interesting. Can you please name those religions? Thanks.

 

[pviyer]

Sri.PViyer asked to Sri. Sravana-



Sri.Sravana Sir Said -



Sir, in the absence of nervous system, there would be no conductors of pain. Such areas with out nervous system would not suffer pain. For example, in the case of third degree burns, at the middle of the portion, damage would have completly burnt the skin, up to the muscle may be even exposing the bone. The patients don't feel pain at the centre of the wound, since all the nervous systems are completly burnt out; they feel excruciating pain at the edges, where the nervous system is intact. Similar wounds can develop after a cellulitis gets severly infected. (Cellulitis wound can advance quite rapidly; mostly on the limbs, mainly on the lower legs and feet; within a week, the bone would be visible).

Animals and human beings have the similar DNAs. We are made of similar proteins. Animals feel the same kind of pain as we do. (well, we are part of the animal kingdom, anyway). So, Sri.PVIYER Sir, the answer to your question is, yes, nervous system is essential to feel pain. In the absence of nervous system, the pain would be absent too.

Don't much about plants. Don't know whether they have nervous system , feelings etc.

Cheers!

Thank you for a perspective which is leading us somewhere.

The next question then is what about complexity of nervous system. For one thing I am not aware even whether humans have necessarily the most complex nervous system, it may be true that we have the most complex nervous system, just I am not aware.

Every animal or plant if we go by scientific definitions has some decision making centres. When path to decision or pain centres are cut off, there is no pain sensation being conducted. These decision centres can be more centralized as in humans with a brain or it may be distributed( potentially as it happens in computer networks but I am not sure if there are living beings with such distributed decision centres). So the next step in proceeding on this argument, is to show if the modifications in nervous systems, as we go lower down in animal kingdom somehow prevent the signals from transmitting correctly to the decision centers.

So there are two things here,
1. Whether animals lower down the human order have less capability to conduct nerve signals

2. Whether there are experiments to prove that the decision centers are less capable of demonstrating pain to that self in that animal, if they happen to be lower down in the animal kingdom.

These two things remain unclear to me, to be honest, I am not trying to dispute any idea or modern science, but I am not able to see how these two things are well answered by science.

To give you an example, there may be a human with lot of nerve problems , underdeveloped in intelligence as well. Can we prove they experience less pain. Why all that, less than 1 year old babies supposedly have less developed nervous system. Can they feel pain less than an adult? A 6 year old boy has the same pain as an adult, but he still has incompletely developed nervous system.A baby cannot report pain well or remember pain sufficiently well, to prove that he suffered pain less than an adult.

May be a biologist here can throw some light in this area.