(Haven’t watched the video yet); As a spiritually-inclined person who is also vegan, I do think that is something that other religious people need to come to terms with. Particularly when it comes to witchy and neopagan communities, there’s too much (ie., more than zero) interest in reviving the dead practice of animal sacrifice.
On the other hand I would like to see some data on which proportion of people in each religion are vegan. Which belief systems have the highest percentages of vegans, relative to their own populations?
Just to add to the mix: Third Day Adventists encourage going vegan, and quite a few of them are vegetarian. It’s not a huge religion, but I know that they’ve even been studied for their longevity.
Real productive arguing whether a faceless stranger online is healthy.
You can be both healthy and unhealthy without animal products just the same as you can be consuming them. Organic and GMO foods aren’t limited to vegan and non-vegan diets, and processed food is readily available for both.
For me personally, it’s about not paying someone to kill an animal that did nothing to deserve being confined and slaughtered. I’m passing all my physicals and check-ins with flying colors, so I’ll continue not scarfing down dead animals down my throat.
Would you care to elaborate on these “strict buddhists”? Provide sources please.
The myth of people needing animal proteins has been so thoroughly debunked for so long now that anyone still making that claim should not be providing dietary advice without getting properly informed.
The wikipedia article on Buddhist vegetarianism covers everything here. You can see from some writings that Buddha had made some concessions of eating animal flesh for members of the sangha, but that was only because of their specific context, where they were operating outside the normal economy and relying on receiving alms. Another passage sets further restrictions on monastics:
“… meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten.”
Another text further declares that there are five type of livelihood that the lay follower should not engage in - one of them is the selling of animal flesh.
So to situate these requirements in a modern context, it would be like a person living a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle to the best of their ability - but also accepting whatever the food pantry has to offer, or possibly going dumpster diving and eating whatever they find. The point is to seek to do the best we can, as much as our circumstances allow.
In Mahayana the injunctions against consuming animals only gets more direct and unequivocal. And in general Buddhist ethics are naturally very aligned with at least the reduction of suffering side of vegan ethics.
The example in your video sounds like it was largely a socioeconomic matter - they do what they can, with what they have. Of course it could also be, at least to some extent, that they haven’t engaged with the matter enough to move away from oyster consumption. They might not have a central nervous system, but things are not so cut and dry.
I’m sorry, but if the insights of a respected and accomplished Standford scientist, who routinely contributes original science on the relevant subject matter, is spreading unscientific lunacy - then what exactly counts as good science to you?
The industry is still quietly sponsoring fake studies to push their agenda. The whole modern veganism is their invention. Every time you see a pro vegan study without any sponsors (which rarely happens in real science) you know it’s 100% fake shit. Especially when it goes against multiple other valid studies.
Some Buddhists are okay with meat, but clearly Siddhartha Gautama himself was absolutely not.
That article quotes Marion Nestle, someone who has been interviewed on Plant Chompers before. Sorry, but you really just sound like a conspiracy theorist - the bottom line is that the full volume of evidence in nutritional science leans way more in favor of plant-dominant diets than anything else.
It’s implicit in their stance against exploitation. A chicken, for example, cannot give their eggs to a human, with informed consent, and therefor taking their eggs is a form of theft and exploitation.
Okay, but that’s a whataboutism and has nothing to do with animals. Think about the lowly bee, for example. People often get tripped up when it comes to bugs and veganism. They’re smaller, and must be dumber right? And anyway their minds work in such an alien way to our own that we can’t assume they even perceive things the way that we do.
And yet if you poke a beehive, the behavior of its inhabitants appears to be something that’s functionally identical to anger, and they begin defending their colony in a way where they seem to be expressing something that strongly resembles a lack of consent to having their home assaulted. So even in this case of such a vastly different kind of animal it’s natural to conclude that any taking of their honey is not wanted - not consented to - and thus is a form of exploitation.
How is it not a whataboutism? You’re talking about a completely different form of exploitation that has nothing to do with animals (unless we’re talking about habitat destruction displacing wild animals).
If a dog is excited to see you, and trying their best to chase your hands with their head, is that not a form of the dog giving you consent for pets? Animals to some limited degree can give consent for things like that at least. But most other things, if they can’t give consent then you should assume that you shouldn’t do the thing.
A chicken has eggs for their own reasons. They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children? They are not yours to take. Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd, as compared to concluding wholesale that they just can’t give consent and therefor… what? Do we just do whatever we want to them?
(Haven’t watched the video yet); As a spiritually-inclined person who is also vegan, I do think that is something that other religious people need to come to terms with. Particularly when it comes to witchy and neopagan communities, there’s too much (ie., more than zero) interest in reviving the dead practice of animal sacrifice.
On the other hand I would like to see some data on which proportion of people in each religion are vegan. Which belief systems have the highest percentages of vegans, relative to their own populations?
Buddhism and other neighboring systems tend to arrive at veganism being virtuous
That’s also my hunch - that Buddhism in particular has a high percentage of vegans. I still would like to see the data though.
Just to add to the mix: Third Day Adventists encourage going vegan, and quite a few of them are vegetarian. It’s not a huge religion, but I know that they’ve even been studied for their longevity.
I Adventist health studies are amazing.
Except that a strict Buddhist diet is not vegan. Somehow traditional religions always realised that humans need animal protein.
Why am i still alive and healthy when we need animal proteins so bad?
Are you healthy though?
Real productive arguing whether a faceless stranger online is healthy.
You can be both healthy and unhealthy without animal products just the same as you can be consuming them. Organic and GMO foods aren’t limited to vegan and non-vegan diets, and processed food is readily available for both.
For me personally, it’s about not paying someone to kill an animal that did nothing to deserve being confined and slaughtered. I’m passing all my physicals and check-ins with flying colors, so I’ll continue not scarfing down dead animals down my throat.
Good luck to you!
Would you care to elaborate on these “strict buddhists”? Provide sources please.
The myth of people needing animal proteins has been so thoroughly debunked for so long now that anyone still making that claim should not be providing dietary advice without getting properly informed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwf_9wqWY0&pp=ygUqZXZlcnl0aGluZyB5b3Uga25vdyBhYm91dCBwcm90ZWluIGlzIHdyb25n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDC6Q5upKPE
Also the interview you’ve posted is a complete unscientific lunacy and propaganda.
The wikipedia article on Buddhist vegetarianism covers everything here. You can see from some writings that Buddha had made some concessions of eating animal flesh for members of the sangha, but that was only because of their specific context, where they were operating outside the normal economy and relying on receiving alms. Another passage sets further restrictions on monastics:
Another text further declares that there are five type of livelihood that the lay follower should not engage in - one of them is the selling of animal flesh.
So to situate these requirements in a modern context, it would be like a person living a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle to the best of their ability - but also accepting whatever the food pantry has to offer, or possibly going dumpster diving and eating whatever they find. The point is to seek to do the best we can, as much as our circumstances allow.
In Mahayana the injunctions against consuming animals only gets more direct and unequivocal. And in general Buddhist ethics are naturally very aligned with at least the reduction of suffering side of vegan ethics.
The example in your video sounds like it was largely a socioeconomic matter - they do what they can, with what they have. Of course it could also be, at least to some extent, that they haven’t engaged with the matter enough to move away from oyster consumption. They might not have a central nervous system, but things are not so cut and dry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zvE7W1l8wfY
I’m sorry, but if the insights of a respected and accomplished Standford scientist, who routinely contributes original science on the relevant subject matter, is spreading unscientific lunacy - then what exactly counts as good science to you?
Well, as we can see, Buddhists are ok with meat. That’s the whole point! The same is true for Hindus, etc.
As for “scientist” - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
The industry is still quietly sponsoring fake studies to push their agenda. The whole modern veganism is their invention. Every time you see a pro vegan study without any sponsors (which rarely happens in real science) you know it’s 100% fake shit. Especially when it goes against multiple other valid studies.
Some Buddhists are okay with meat, but clearly Siddhartha Gautama himself was absolutely not.
That article quotes Marion Nestle, someone who has been interviewed on Plant Chompers before. Sorry, but you really just sound like a conspiracy theorist - the bottom line is that the full volume of evidence in nutritional science leans way more in favor of plant-dominant diets than anything else.
The only animal product you’re required to consume in Christianity is the body and blood of Christ.
Yeah but that was given consensually (ostensibly), so it’s still vegan.
consent is not mentioned in the definition of veganism from the vegan society
It’s implicit in their stance against exploitation. A chicken, for example, cannot give their eggs to a human, with informed consent, and therefor taking their eggs is a form of theft and exploitation.
chickens can’t consent to anything at all. it’s absurd. I oppose exploiting fossil fuel deposits, but that has nothing to do with consent either.
Okay, but that’s a whataboutism and has nothing to do with animals. Think about the lowly bee, for example. People often get tripped up when it comes to bugs and veganism. They’re smaller, and must be dumber right? And anyway their minds work in such an alien way to our own that we can’t assume they even perceive things the way that we do.
And yet if you poke a beehive, the behavior of its inhabitants appears to be something that’s functionally identical to anger, and they begin defending their colony in a way where they seem to be expressing something that strongly resembles a lack of consent to having their home assaulted. So even in this case of such a vastly different kind of animal it’s natural to conclude that any taking of their honey is not wanted - not consented to - and thus is a form of exploitation.
There’s nothing absurd about valuing consent.
it’s not a what aboutism.
How is it not a whataboutism? You’re talking about a completely different form of exploitation that has nothing to do with animals (unless we’re talking about habitat destruction displacing wild animals).
it’s fine to value consent. but it’s absurd to talk about consent from something incapable of it.
If a dog is excited to see you, and trying their best to chase your hands with their head, is that not a form of the dog giving you consent for pets? Animals to some limited degree can give consent for things like that at least. But most other things, if they can’t give consent then you should assume that you shouldn’t do the thing.
A chicken has eggs for their own reasons. They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children? They are not yours to take. Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd, as compared to concluding wholesale that they just can’t give consent and therefor… what? Do we just do whatever we want to them?
It would be absurd to mention in any practical context.
I agree but somehow I think it’s not for the same reason
What do you mean?
Too much mercury from all the fish