Social Question

serenade's avatar

Is vegetarianism a morally and spiritually evolved practice?

Asked by serenade (3779 points ) October 12th, 2012 from iPhone

I’m not asking this out of total ignorance, but to get a survey of the arguments. I came across a quote of Leo Tolstoy “As long as their are slaughterhouses there will be batlefields,” which led me to other quotes with similar sentiments. I’d be interested to hear articulation arguments for vegetarianism as well as against based on morality and spirituality.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

69 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

No. Because depending on the type of vegetarianism, they can still eat eggs, fish and crabs, and they are just as much animals as cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and dogs.
Veganism is.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Not in my opinion. Although veggies and vegans like to justify their choices by floating these self-serving slogans as if they were true.

Food selection / dietary intake is a personal choice, at least in the West. If a person chooses to only eat plants, great for them. But that doesn’t automatically make them morally superior, except in their own rationalization.

Remember, too, that Tolstoy was a fiction writer.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

It’s a choice, like I’ll have fries with that. The fruitcakes that take it further are just that:fruitcakes.

Coloma's avatar

No. It’s a misconception and true ” spirituality” is about acceptance of others, of ourselves and, most importantly a non-divisive attitude. Judging what others eat is an act of separation and an ego boost to self. Thinking oneself to be morally superior based on diet choices is the antithesis of “spiritual” practice.
ANYTHING that creates a ” I am better than….” mindset is ego at work.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I think it’s a form of spiritual simplicity and ‘causing no harm to other living beings’. I’ve tried it and I like the way it makes me feel. I admire people who do it for those reasons rather than being brats and being rude to others who make different choices…you know the politically correct types who do it for ‘show’.

But on the other hand, it’s more expensive buying soy milk/burgers, etc.., a little more difficult in dining, and doesn’t taste anywhere near as great as a steak. :)

Seek's avatar

To me it’s just a way to keep my digestive system from killing me until I can lock in some health insurance.

We’re all animals, and sometimes animals eat each other. That’s nature.
I don’t see anyone complaining that the lions aren’t passing on wildebeest.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@KNOWITALL – it’s all fine and dandy that you feel good about eating vegetarian and finding the spiritual simplicity.

But to go back to the OP’s question: Is that giving you moral ascendancy over me or anyone else? Or is something that makes YOU feel good?

Coloma's avatar

Yes, I agree with @elbanditoroso
I eat little meat and was a vegan for years in my younger days, I also keep farm animals for pets, have a wildlife preserve on my property, feed the wildlife and use no pesticides on my property but… I put some hamburger in my chili yesterday, so shoot me. lol
Everyones part is their part and as long as you are doing something, anything, to better the planet and ease suffering you’re ahead of the game.

thorninmud's avatar

Not necessarily. Plenty of people who are vegan or vegetarian are motivated by health concerns, not moral imperatives. I would also argue that people who wear vegetarianism like a badge, publicly advertizing their high ethical standards and contrasting their own choices with those of others, are likely more concerned with their self-image than with the welfare of animals.

A willingness to take an honest look at the impact of one’s life choices on other beings and make personal sacrifices to benefit others does reflect a moral/spiritual sensitivity. Prioritizing the well-being of others over convenience, craving, habit and custom is, arguably, at the heart of spiritual work. For some people vegetarianism is a natural part of that package.

There are compelling arguments to be made both for and against eating meat. We’ve had many such debates on Fluther. But those arguments really have little to do with the spiritual aspect. Spirituallity, from where I sit, is a matter of sensitizing oneself to the connectedness, interdependence and unity of all beings. I would never say that someone who eats meat is incapable of doing that. I do know that in my case, when I stopped putting animals in the category of “food”, that fundamentally shifted how I relate to animals in a way that I hadn’t expected. I understood that consigning another being to the role of satisfying my needs requires that I desensitize myself to our commonality, in much the same way that you can’t “use” people—objectify them—and still honor them.

I sure don’t always live up to this standard.

wundayatta's avatar

I never heard a moral argument for vegetarianism that I found persuasive. I’m also not sure how it connects with spirituality, either. For me, spirituality is about feeling a sense of connection with the world or even the universe and further feeling a sense of oneness with it. If you are not separate, then it doesn’t really matter if that you are connecting with is inside or outside of you. Or if you are inside or outside another.

Of course, separateness also matters. Without separateness, you cannot understand oneness. We can separate ourselves from what we eat, and from various forms of it: animals and vegetables. But for the most part, we must consume other forms of life for our own sustenance.

Some people feel the consciousness of animals is different from that of plants. Maybe they don’t think plants have consciousness at all. So it’s ok to eat creatures with no consciousness, I guess, but not ok to eat creatures with a certain level of consciousness.

There are many spiritual practices based on the consumption of meat. Perhaps fewer based on the consumption of vegetative matter. I think a sense a gratitude helps us, but one can be grateful to animals and vegetables alike.

I don’t identify with animals the way I do with humanity. So I can’t give animals some privileged position that would keep me from eating them. Not on moral or spiritual grounds, anyway.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@elbanditoroso I certainly don’t think going vegan makes anyone superior to anyone else or more spiritual than someone else. It’s a lifestyle choice for most but religious/spiritual choice for others.

Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[4] and are regarded by the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle.

I began to see clearly that veganism is essentially a contemporary iteration of the ancient Eastern spiritual principle of ahimsa which is non-violence. Ahimsa is a core principle in all religions, actually, and it is based on the universal wisdom of the Golden Rule and also of karma – that whatever we sow, we will reap: when we harm others, we harm ourselves, and when we enslave others, we enslave ourselves. Spirituality is about liberation, and thus always calls us to awaken to the interconnectedness of all life, and to practice kindness and respect for others. These are both pre-requisites for – and the natural results of – authentically realizing our essential nature as spiritual beings.

Donald Watson, in coining the term “vegan,” specified that the motivation in vegan living is to abstain from cruelty and exploitation to animals (and humans). This is ahimsa, and has always been my primary motivation, though I’ve also been motivated by the health, environmental, and spiritual purification reasons as well.
http://thethinkingvegan.com/tag/spirituality/

wonderingwhy's avatar

Spiritually, recognizing animals as more than just a source of nutrition certainly seems to fit an “evolved” spiritual sense in my view; which defines spirituality without god but as a better understanding of interdependency and place. Morally, perhaps as a recalcitrant meat eater I’m biased but, no, I don’t think it’s evolved just different. There are many aspects to vegetarianism so I certainly don’t want to imply there aren’t improved moral aspects, I’m just speaking generally, and certainly not every moral argument is embraced by each vegetarian. But even that general position could be easily swayed, say by resource arguments, for example.

gailcalled's avatar

For me it was simple. Once MIlo arrived in my life, I was no longer able to eat any animal protein. I found and find myself weeping over road-kill.

I did notice also that my GI tract behaved much better. (I do have occasional dreams about brisket, burgers, bacon and barbecue.)

Dutchess_III's avatar

No. It’s a luxury for those who have too much to eat, and have the luxury of eating whatever they want to. It’s a luxury for those who don’t have to worry on a daily basis about getting enough to eat. Veganism / vegetarianism is not found in starving, 3rd world countries.

It’s rather like a very rich person taking the morally high road and saying, “There is more to life than money.”

thorninmud's avatar

@Dutchess_III In India, the majority of the population used to be vegetarian. That’s actually decreasing as the country becomes more economically developed, since meat is now seen as a mark of affluence.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Does that apply to the entire population, even those who are starving?

Seek's avatar

@Dutchess_III – a cow can provide beef for a short time, but milk and cheese for years. The ultimate reason that the cow is sacred in India is because it is more useful to the starving when it is alive.

thorninmud's avatar

@Dutchess_III Take a look at this map of per capita meat consumption over the world, and see how it correlates to “developed world vs. starving third world”

Dutchess_III's avatar

My point, @Seek_Kolinahr. What if they were actual vegans. Would they starve to death rather than eat milk and cheese?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@thorninmud thanks but that doesn’t mean anything, really. The places marked in red are the more affluent areas. The poorer countries, where people are hungry, obviously don’t have access to meat. If they did, they’d eat it.

This is about people who have access to whatever kind of food they want, as much as they want. That allows them the luxury of deciding what to eat and what not to eat.

majorrich's avatar

Does the map count fish, insects and other non-traditional forms of animal protein as meat?
an old boy scout joke was Vegetarian was Delaware Indian for “Bad Hunter”.

thorninmud's avatar

This Q is about morality, and morality is about choices. When there’s no choice, you can’t really talk about morality. That’s why we generally consider that when a mother steals a loaf of bread so her kid can eat, that’s not an instance of immorality.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My point is, if a person can pick and choose what they want to eat, that is a luxury. To respond to the question, I’ve never heard of a true spiritual high ground that has its roots in luxury. So to that end, I think it is simply a choice, nothing more.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’ve never heard of a morality that is based on a luxury either.

wonderingwhy's avatar

I would suggest you can be spiritually evolved by simply recognizing the place of animals beyond that of “just food”. That doesn’t entail or exclude being vegetarian and is most certainly not based on means. Morally, it’s too much of a grey area. However just because one is starving doesn’t mean they’ll, in all cases, go to any and every length to avail themselves of any source food.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Sure they will @wonderingwhy. They eat out of trash cans—any where that they can get a scrap of food. There is nothing moral about letting your kids starve to death if there is SOMETHING to eat.

tom_g's avatar

Wait…what? @Dutchess_III: “So to that end, I think it is simply a choice, nothing more.” I think I get (and sympathize with) what you’re saying here. Maybe. Are you saying that an upper-middle class resident of Boston, with access to the healthiest non-meat options, can choose to pay someone to kill other animals for him for his consumption (and support the meat industry) and not have any problems when he sits down to evaluate his actions? If his actions are causing suffering, and the actions are completely unnecessary because of his bourgeois lifestyle and access to other foods, then it’s simply a choice – like chocolate or vanilla ice cream?

I’m surprised at the above conversation. It seems that many of the people here who are usually quite insightful are considering the question of consuming animals for the first time…here…in this thread. Someone even did the “well lions eat other animals!” Really?

Dutchess_III's avatar

There are cases where people reverted to cannablism to survive.

tom_g's avatar

Disclaimer: I was a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 9+ years for ethical reasons. I started eating meat again back in 2000 because I was convinced that it was bourgeois and had convinced myself that since I was not going to be able to affect change to end all of the human suffering I was complaining about, why would I stick to the vegetarian thing.
In reality, I think I was lazy and bored.

So yes – I eat meat. But I can’t justify it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Thanks Tom! My point exactly. Affluent people have more choices than regular people. Also ‘affluent’ doesn’t always equal money. Compared to some other nations every single American is affluent in one way or another. Even if it’s just in an over abundance of food. Which we have.

wonderingwhy's avatar

I’ve not run across too many cases of parents resorting to cannibalsim to feed (on) their children as a means of survival. World War II certainly, but cannibalism hardly seems endemic to third world nations with starving populations.

Edit, to add:

And even then it’s a moral choice. To what extent are you willing to go to ensure your survival. Morality may be the philosophical toy of rich nations but its genesis, at a personal level is found in everyone. Even someone who is starving can choose to kill another for food or die. Certainly that choice is weighted differently but it is still a choice with moral, among other, implications. I’m not suggesting that someone who is well fed can judge that choice meaningfully for someone who is starving, just that it’s still a choice based in morality just as it is a choice based on survival, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I was responding to your comment that you don’t think that starving people will go any length to avail themselves of food. I say of course they will. If your kids were literally starving to death is there any line you wouldn’t cross? Forget the canniblism thing. That’s been recorded only under certain extreme and freezing conditions where the bodies would keep for months conditions. So take that off the board.

tom_g's avatar

Just like there are hardly any atheists who claim that they can prove there is no god, I am yet to meet a vegetarian who claims that eating meat is morally wrong for everyone. This seems like a straw man.

What is more common, however, is evaluating situations. Many people around the world must eat meat. There is no problem there, right? But again – when we move to countries like the US, we get into some gray areas. There are many variables too, like class, rural/urban, etc. There is also the big issue of the meat industry. Many vegetarians I know have little problem with people hunting for food or supporting free-range, ethical farms.

Also, don’t confuse arrogant holier-than-though attitudes from people like me (or your vegetarian neighbor) and the actual implications of eating or not eating meat. Some people (like me) are obnoxious. But it doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.

Coloma's avatar

Well, as always, it’s the “pick your poison” deal.
I really, really, LIKE the idea of being this perfect being, no bad habits, no vices, no meat, whatever…but, perfectionism is imperfect itself. If we were all meant to be perfect we would have no reason to even be here, we would have evaporated in the white light years ago. lol
People are fickle and hypocritical creatures that rationalize whatever it is they want, to a large degree.

I have known militant vegans that think nothing about using pesticides around their house or letting their kids inhale toxic fumes from pottery glazes in their art studios, and those that refuse to vaccinate their pets because of their disagreement with vaccinating.

Oookay….hey, great, wow, awesome you, you don’t feed your kids hot dogs but you don’t take issue with rabies? Oh brother!

tom_g's avatar

^^ Right. That’s where I was at in 2000 when I started eating meat again. It was an all-or-nothing feeling. I’m not sure this is correct though. I mean, don’t we (or shouldn’t we) strive to do what we can to alleviate suffering in this world within reason?

I’m not sure what it’s called, but I see this reasoning used elsewhere. People criticize Al Gore for advocating for action to address climate change while flying in a private jet. We can’t live a hypocritical-free life. But we can take little steps to improve things.

Coloma's avatar

@tom_g Yes, I agree 10,000% in doing whatever we can to alleviate suffering.
I think my 14 year old goose would be very grateful that I did not cook him for Xmas dinner, nor his wives.
If he was the last edible thing on earth I would tuck him under my wing and we would die together. lol

Seek's avatar

@Dutchess_III Your point (back to me) is a straw man argument. They aren’t vegans. They are vegetarians. Morals have nothing to do with it – the hungry people aren’t not eating cows because of their moral fiber, they’re not eating cows because if they eat all the cows, they won’t have any cheese next year.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t even realize we were have a disagreement @Seek_Kolinahr! I don’t think I ever responded to your live cow/dead cow post.

I shall do so now. I understand your logic @Seek_Kolinahr. But I don’t think we’re talking about the same kind/group of people. If they have a cow and are eating the cheese and the milk and are surviving, then they aren’t starving. Of course it only makes sense to keep the cow alive. No argument there.

Paradox25's avatar

According to most of the spiritual teachings and communications with mediums from the ‘other side’ that I’ve read about, yes. Many animals probably wouldn’t even exist though if we didn’t consume at least the dairy products, and meat that we get from them.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They wouldn’t @Paradox25? How do you figure?

Coloma's avatar

Well shit..I guess my bowl of Wheaties has just taken the grain right out of some poor cows mouth. Ya just can’t win can you? Somewhere a cow is 2 cups short of grain this morning and still giving me the milk for my cereal. lol Admittedly I can live without meat, but, I am a confirmed cheese-a-holic.

wonderingwhy's avatar

@Dutchess_III Sorry, of all things, I had to step out for lunch. I think we’re in agreement that vegetarianism is not an equally, or even a, moral question across the board. And as a choice, in the sense the OP’s question regards it, I’m not convinced in general that it is evolved, only different. However I don’t believe it to be devoid of moral choice or aspect, particularly as one advances into greater affluence, and I think the decisions made at the extremes say a lot our moral character as individuals and a society. As to what I would do, I’m not a vegetarian so that’s easy I’d feed them whatever was handy but even then there are likely exclusions. Beyond that, into more extreme territory, I don’t know, but today I believe there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. To what ends would I hold true to those beliefs, I really can only guess.

@tom_g alleviating suffering, there are a lot of aspects to that but just for sake of off-point discussion, absolutely. Interestingly that’s one of the better “moral” arguments I’ve heard for vegetarianism. I can’t say I’m up on the science behind it or where the argument is now, but the basics as I recall were that we as a world society spend enormous food calories and arable land on raising livestock that, in disproportionately large part, only benefit the top end of society. Rather than continuing to excessively invest resources as such it should be the obligation of society to better use those calories to the benefit of the greatest numbers, particularly when so many are comparatively lacking in basic nutrition. Thus making adopted vegetarianism by those with sufficient availability to choose the morally “better” option. And at the very least, calling for society to make an “evolved moral” choice, and modify its practices when it comes to farmed animal protein.

@Coloma at least you’re enjoying your Wheaties; I think my cats eat enough grass to be metaphorically taking food out of some poor cow’s mouth, of course they just throw it up on the carpet because apparently tossing it up on the easy to clean wood just isn’t how such things are done.

Coloma's avatar

@wonderingwhy LOL..cats are nuts! My 2 have about 20 acres of land to crap on between me and the neighbors places but they run back into the garage to use their litter box. Go figure. haha

Dutchess_III's avatar

@wonderingwhy Good post. Of course, I’m hard pressed to imagine what lengths I might go to to get food, for me or my kids, if I was actually starving. But I have never been starving. Been really, really hungry, but never starving.

I just hear about the horrific things that actual starving people go through. I see pictures like this of children trying to find food in garbage dumps and trash cans. It is so, so sad

I read about things like The Donner Party, and, of course Alive the book about the Uruguayan rugby team that was in a plane that crashed into the Andes mountains. In both of these famous cases, the survivors resorted to cannibalism. And because of it, they stayed alive long enough for help to come.

I’m sure there are so many more instances of what incredible lengths starving people go through to get something, anything, to eat to keep them alive one more day.

While we, in America, debate the spiritual virtues of Veganism and Vegetarianism.

Coloma's avatar

Actually, speaking of cats briefly….but, one of my “pet” peeves are militant vegans that insist of feeding cats, true carnivores, a vegan diet. It’s bad enough to be arrogantly militant about anything but foisting your choices on your pets is really taking it to the limit IMO.
If you can’t feed your carnivorous pets meat then maybe get a vegan pet like a tortoise or a goose. ;-)

everephebe's avatar

Yes kind of. It’s pretty relative though. Eating meat can be a spiritual or deeply moral experience too, but as far as historical precedent goes vegetarianism has a pretty rich background.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m not getting this spirituality surrounding food! Food is food! We eat it to stay alive! Do lions experience spirituality when they eat? Do horses and geese and dogs?

elbanditoroso's avatar

And then there are the parents who force their children to be vegan and are arrested for undernourishing their children.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/04/20080704parker0704.html

thorninmud's avatar

@Dutchess_III Spirituality and morality are mostly about the little choices we make in doing the ordinary stuff of life. Shitting is a pretty basic necessity of life too, but in choosing where I shit, I’m engaging my sense of what’s best for the world, and that has a moral and spiritual dimension to it. In choosing what I eat, I can choose to minimize the suffering I cause to others.

ninjacolin's avatar

Every decision equates to a moral decision since each carries with it the risk of producing either desirable or undesirable results.

If you have a health concern, then it becomes moral not to indulge eating habits that threaten or negatively impact your desired level of health. If you hate pollution, then it becomes moral not to indulge a way of eating/living that threatens or negatively impacts your desired world conditions.

Your conclusions about how you ought to live, eat, love, play, work, etc,. are your morals in all cases. I don’t believe there are any exceptions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@thorninmud And you have the luxury of making that “moral” choice because you have more foods to choose from to eat than you know what to do with.

thorninmud's avatar

@Dutchess_III Again, it’s only when we have a choice that there is a moral dimension to our actions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have to think about that @thorninmud.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. I’ve been thinking about it. I agree. There can not be any moral “choices” if there is no choice.

However, many people assume “morality” = “wisdom.” Many people take the high ground on their morality and many are arrogant about it, and think it makes them wise. However, to understand your own “morality,” you have to be able to compare the choices you have made against those who have no choice. Hopefully that would temper the arrogance and upgrade the humility….which is where wisdom comes from, I think.

fremen_warrior's avatar

Other animals have done nothing to me, so why should they die to satisfy my hunger if I can sustain myself on plant-derived nutrients instead? I do not eat people, so why should I eat other sentients?

Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Killing for food is in my opinion:

- brutal
– inefficient
– unnecessary
– an unjustifiable barbarism
– a remnant of our savage past

Try using a religious argument against this type of reasoning, and I will laugh at you.

Coloma's avatar

I had blueberry pie for dinner, and I couldn’t help but think of all the bears and birds and various other critters that would have liked those blueberries. I’ll probably put put the leftover pie for the Raccoons tomorrow night. haha See…while I had beef in my chili yesterday I shall make restitution by feeding the raccoons my blueberry pie. It all balances out I think. :-)

rooeytoo's avatar

Seems as if there are many who think they are morally and spiritually superior because they are vegans or vegetarians, but personally I don’t really care what they think. I eat meat because I am at the top of the food chain. However I only eat meat that is free range and has a good happy life until it is killed. Now there is a problem for me. I cannot find a chicken farmer who kills his own chickens on his own property. I can find beef but not chicken. So I am buying and eating free range that has a wonderful life until it is loaded into cages, placed on a truck and hauled to a slaughterhouse. I hate that idea. I think in the very near future I am going to start raising my own chickens. Then I have complete control of their diet, lifestyle and can be sure that they were killed quickly and efficiently where they lived. I might do the same with a Dexter heifer, although we rarely eat beef so I am not sure if that would be necessary. But if we had our own chickens, I figure if we killed 2 a week, it would keep us just fine. And I would feel much better about it. I just simply must not name or become attached to the chooks!

Coloma's avatar

@rooeytoo I kept chickens for years and collected their eggs but I couldn;t kill them for the table. Yes, they all had names and personalities. One hen I named ” Picnic chick” because she was always hanging out with the family at the picnic table in our yard. She would hop on the table and run off with hamburger buns or other goodies when our backs were turned. haha

I was happy with just getting the chicken and goose eggs, but yeah, never name something you intend to eat, it never works, never.
I remember a neighbor butchering a steer and giving me some beef once. The steer was named ” Walter” and I had fed him a few times and knew him well for 2 years from calf to slaughter weight.
It was impossible to eat Walter. :-/

majorrich's avatar

I know from working in a Processing plant that all parts of the animal are used. Either eaten, used for cosmetics, leathers or skins, used in education as specimens for study and many other things I don’t know where the parts went. I find it disingenuous for people to say ‘meat is murder’ wearing leather shoes, or make-up, or dyed cotton clothing. Animal products are used for so many things that I find it almost impossible to look at anything that doesn’t have some kind of something derived from animal products.

ninjacolin's avatar

Maybe a stronger form of this question is.. Would the world (or, say, you or your family or your city or your country or your economy or the world economy or world health and happiness) be better off if everyone stayed as they are now or would everyone find more benefit and enjoyment if everyone were vegetarian and/or vegan. Which would make for a better world?

I’m neither vegetarian or vegan, but I would have to concede that from the little i know.. I expect better things from a reduced meat diet than from our current average diet. I think vegan would be an elevated/enlightened/beneficial standard if we could all do it, yes.

Seek's avatar

@Coloma Oddly enough, we didn’t find it at all difficult to eat “Sirloin” or “Cheeseburger”, my uncle’s two cows.

Perhaps a psychological thing?

Coloma's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Yeah, probably you just didn’t feel all that attached to them. I didn’t feel attached to Walter but because I knew him it was hard to look at the meat and not see Walters cute little face and long, prehensile tongue begging for a handout. haha

majorrich's avatar

i’ve never been able to eat tongue with much relish. Could be the way my Mother prepared it. That and Tripe and organ meats. Ok.. I’m a 60 year old 12 year old. lol

Coloma's avatar

^^^ Oh God, disgusting! Bleh, excuse while I go throw up now. haha

ragingloli's avatar

stomach, liver and tongue are in my top ten list of most disgusting “food”, too

Seek's avatar

I’ve never been able to eat any part of any animal’s digestive system. Sorry, I know what those organs do when they’re not being paired with caramelized onions.

serenade's avatar

I feel like I asked and then promptly abandoned this question, so please forgive me (those of you who are left).

I came across this journal article that is a footnote in the “locavore” page on Wikipedia. I really like the thinking involved. Click the link and then select “view full article (HTML).”

fremen_warrior's avatar

@OP Gandhi’s quote comes to mind “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” – if I can get enough food without causing some critters to be harmed/killed, I am all up for that sh*t. I mean I could probably kill in self defense, but if there’s another way, I’ll take it. Why cause more suffering in this already unpleasant world? </pathos>

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther