Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

@manored,

From Melanie,

YouTube - ORIGINAL Elephant Painting

@manored,

manored wrote:

Personally I think life is too short and unpredictable to dedicate a considerable part of it, such as eating, to making it longer

Off course, not having a health diet is different from having an assassin one.

Also, I think that in case of doubt about whats healthier eating the biggest variety of food possible is probally better.

I think that it is because life is too short that we should experiment and play with it as much as humanly possible. Try different diets and self experimentation.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

I think that it is because life is too short that we should experiment and play with it as much as humanly possible. Try different diets and self experimentation.

Well I dont believe in a final dead so im not in a hurry to experiment things, although I end up doing a lot of experimentation anyway Smile

I head that there is a specific gene that influences how fast people get bored of the common and go for new things. It comes a single time or repeated up to eight times, and aparently the more it is repeated (or less, dont remember) more adventurous the person is. Its funny that how adventurous one is can be graded with some accuracy from 1 to 8 Smile

The fact that an elephant can be taugh to paint doesnt means that it actually knows what it is to paint. If it reproduces things it sees around itself or complex images winhout being taugh to do so first then I will believe it is human-like smart, but we cannot assume all elephants are human-like smart based on one.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Well I dont believe in a final dead so im not in a hurry to experiment things, although I end up doing a lot of experimentation anyway

I head that there is a specific gene that influences how fast people get bored of the common and go for new things. It comes a single time or repeated up to eight times, and aparently the more it is repeated (or less, dont remember) more adventurous the person is. Its funny that how adventurous one is can be graded with some accuracy from 1 to 8

The fact that an elephant can be taugh to paint doesnt means that it actually knows what it is to paint. If it reproduces things it sees around itself or complex images winhout being taugh to do so first then I will believe it is human-like smart, but we cannot assume all elephants are human-like smart based on one.

Excuse me for differing but,

I don't think mankind is smart at all. Have a look at what we've made of this planet, of ourselves. Were so stupid we not only kill other animals and eat them, we torture and kill ourselves and at the same time are truly and equally torturing and killing the planet as well.
If we harm and kill the Earth we harm and kill ourselves.
Smart? We have a long long Way to go.

=
MJA

@MJA,

The resiliency of this thread is fairly amazing.

MJA,

Overall, a good discussion. But I'd have to say; Vegetarianism hasn't been shown to be a, "... Higher Level View" at all. I respect your expressed views here (and I applaud your hanging them out here for folks to take shots at - very brave!).

I'd like to concede..

Yes, animals shouldn't be made to suffer needlessly
Yes, humans have disrespected other species on this planet
But no, there's nothing wrong with eating them. Your "higher" view seems to ignore the fact that we; too, are part of the food chain.

And if I can wander out on a limb a bit more on my disagreement: it sounds as if you've morally elevated yourself above others who eat differently. I'd like to suggest that this is an arrogant and presumptuous view. It assumes that your morals, with regards to diet, are superior, correct and without bias.

I'll apologize if this is taken badly - as I suspect it will be - but if I didn't phrase this as such, I'd be disingenuous.

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

The resiliency of this thread is fairly amazing.

MJA,

Overall, a good discussion. But I'd have to say; Vegetarianism hasn't been shown to be a, "... Higher Level View" at all. I respect your expressed views here (and I applaud your hanging them out here for folks to take shots at - very brave!).

I'd like to concede..

Yes, animals shouldn't be made to suffer needlessly

Yes, humans have disrespected other species on this planet

But no, there's nothing wrong with eating them. Your "higher" view seems to ignore the fact that we; too, are part of the food chain.

And if I can wander out on a limb a bit more on my disagreement: it sounds as if you've morally elevated yourself above others who eat differently. I'd like to suggest that this is an arrogant and presumptuous view. It assumes that your morals, with regards to diet, are superior, correct and without bias.

I'll apologize if this is taken badly - as I suspect it will be - but if I didn't phrase this as such, I'd be disingenuous.

Thanks

Dear K,

We all have our own views, some higher than others, you must surely agree?
And speaking of surely, clearity or certainty is a higher level of conscienceness to me. A conscienceness void of doubt.
And clearly the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, not only for the animals we kill to eat are equally the benefits I feel, see, and know in me.
So how does One find such clearity of reason you might ask in not only One's diet but in All things for All is truly One? If I may say: by simplifying the equation to = or to One. For surely, simply, clearly, and most equally, for your health or the health of All things, you would not kill nor eat yourself.
A higher level view as is a higher level diet, as is a higher level life style, is more simple than thought. In truth it is only those wrongful lower thought that stands in the Way.
Equal is the Highest Way.

=
MJA

@Khethil,

[SIZE="3"]

Khethil;51288 wrote:

I'd like to concede..

Yes, animals shouldn't be made to suffer needlessly

Yes, humans have disrespected other species on this planet

But no, there's nothing wrong with eating them. Your "higher" view seems to ignore the fact that we; too, are part of the food chain.

Let me see if I can squeeze out a little immorality somewhere playing devil's advocate :devilish: (since I've already said I don't see meat eating per se as a moral issue). I see three ways to make it a moral issue, the first of which I personally don't agree with . . . the other two, yes.

1. Some have said doing harm to yourself is immoral. I won't list the arguments why, you've probably heard them. Personally I think immorality is strictly harming others, which would include harming those aspects of the planet we must all share. Since there is some evidence meat causes health problems, then . . . well, you know.

2. We like to pretend that animals are merely "mistreated," but it is actually rather horrible how a great many animals raised for slaughter must live and die. We shelter ourselves from the truth of it, and rationalize it away with self-serving arguments like "how do we know what an animal suffers." But most of us own pets who are mammals, and so we know animals at that level can be depressed, frightened, happy, etc. Even leaving chickens out of it (and they are subjected to some of the worst conditions http://1.scds.org/teachers/Hornig/Chew%20on%20This/Mistreatment%20of%20Animals.pdf), we have good reason to believe mammals suffer.

If there is any doubt about the cruelty many slaughter animals endure . . .

Undercover Investigation Reveals Rampant Animal Cruelty at California Slaughter Plant ? A Major Beef Supplier to America?s School Lunch Program

53 reports too gruesome to watch: Undercover TV - exposing factory farming and the mistreatment of animals

GoVeg.com // Cruelty to Animals: Mechanized Madness

Animal slaughter, abuse and cruelty. Behind the screens

I easily could list dozens more, but it's hard to even read or watch what's going on. Yet refusing to "look" is exactly what most people do. People who would scream bloody murder at finding out about dog fighting or dogs being served for dinner in China, close their eyes and ears to this incredible level of cruelty. Hypocrisy aside, isn't it immoral to support and participate in such cruelty? (Meat eaters could instead, for example, eat only free range animals humanely slaughtered.)

3. Many studies have demonstrated how much eating meat negatively impacts world hunger and damages the environment. If our actions are damaging others and Earth, isn't that immoral?

An excerpt from this article -- (a must read if you've never thought about how many resources are required to raise slaughter animals and clean up after them) The Case Against Meat : Evidence Shows that Our Meat-Based Diet is Bad for the Environment, Aggravates Global Hunger, Brutalizes Animals and Compromises Our Health (by Jim Motavalli) -- discusses just a few of the problems created my the meat industry:

"The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain-with 56 million people-could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. . . .

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds."

Negative environmental impact is huge as well (from the same article):

So, if by eating meat we hurt ourselves, we support the most cruel industry on the planet, we use up grain feeding meat animals that could be used to end world starvation (providing you could get shipments past the war lords), we use up fuels and other resources needed elsewhere, and massively foul our already-ailing environment in the process . . . does eating meat (at least using the meat industry) sink to the level of immorality?[/SIZE]

@LWSleeth,

Hiya LW, How goes?

Yes,

Its a valid point to say that many animals, raised for slaughter, are mistreated; and that such mistreatment is unethical (needless suffering)
It's also a valid point that each too much or the wrong kinds of meat can be unhealthy
That many industries do damage to the environment is also not in dispute

None of these, per say, is in dispute (at least not from my side of the issue). I'd simply like to know in what way does vegetarianism constitute a "higher view" or morally superior ground?

Take these arguments and you can apply them to anything; from the clothes you wear, the construction of the structure you're living in right now to the hear or air conditioning you enjoy, or to the way many crops are manufactured, processed or farmed. All such processes have the potential for damage to other creatures, the environment and/or perpetuating unhealthy conditions. They are not arguments against any 'eating meat', they're arguments against irresponsible ways of producing <whatever>. As such, they're not terribly convincing.

So yea, all I'm saying is I'm unconvinced of the original argument. By way of conciliation I must also point out that I think those who, in protest for the cruelty that is done, stand in boycott against specific practices or companies; strike me as doing something both logical and worthy. But that's not what was asserted here - only that vegetarianism was, itself, "higher"

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;51314 wrote:

Hiya LW, How goes?

Hi Khethil Smile

Khethil;51314 wrote:

Take these arguments and you can apply them to anything; from the clothes you wear, the construction of the structure you're living in right now to the hear or air conditioning you enjoy, or to the way many crops are manufactured, processed or farmed.

All such processes have the potential for damage to other creatures, the environment and/or perpetuating unhealthy conditions. They are not arguments against any 'eating meat', they're arguments against irresponsible ways of producing <whatever>. As such, they're not terribly convincing.

Not quite, I think the inhumanly cruel treatment of these hapless beasts puts this in a special category, one that morality seems exactly about. Without that brutality, I'd go along with you on it being more of an "irresponsibility" issue than a moral issue.

We can ignore the suffering of animals because we treat their plight like a "food" issue, not that of a living being. Everybody does it, we say; it's part of the culture, we tell ourselves; animals are too dumb to notice or care, we rationalize.

I know we are not "intending" cruelty, but we are nonetheless allowing and financing it it for no other reasons than our lust for meat won't allow us the inconvenience of putting a stop to it (as in boycott).

Khethil;51314 wrote:

I'd simply like to know in what way does vegetarianism constitute a "higher view" or morally superior ground? So yea, all I'm saying is I'm unconvinced of the original argument.

Well, I agree with you and others who've posted here that acting "superior" is not going to help, and is inappropriate.

However, the more I think about this, the more it seems to me it really is ethically "higher" to avoid meat in the sense of being a caring, responsible human being over being a person who has to have his meat no matter who suffers or how much it hurts the environment. Hasn't some of our most important moral progress been made through humans becoming more compassionate? (Remember when a fun Sunday afternoon was watching people and beasts be tortured to death at the Coliseum?) And haven't we been finding out how our disregard for the environment threatens all life on Earth?

It seems to me that any way we can be more humane and more responsible is an ethical step up. And, as you imply, that doesn't just include avoiding an industry that is doing so much damage to animals and Earth.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Not quite, I think the inhumanly cruel treatment of these hapless beasts puts this in a special category, one that morality seems exactly about. Without that brutality, I'd go along with you on it being more of an "irresponsibility" issue than a moral issue.

We can ignore the suffering of animals because we treat their plight like a "food" issue, not that of a living being. Everybody does it, we say; it's part of the culture, we tell ourselves; animals are too dumb to notice or care, we rationalize.

I think you're being just as choosy here -- there is no "special category". You are aware that animals are treated inhumanely so you've attached to that, making your stand, without taking into consideration a very many other things. As I've noted earlier in this thread:

Zetherin wrote:

Do these same "vegetarians" not drive cars (harmful emissions for many mammalian creatures), live in houses (destruction of natural habitat), wear clothes (destruction of habitat, in addition to killing of various forms of bacteria, insects), eat grain and vegetables (harvesting kills small rodents and various life-forms)*, or take walks (destruction of insects, insect habitats)?

It is part of our culture, every waking moment breathes destruction in some form. It's a cycle of life. Should we not breathe the air in fear of killing bacteria? Walk outside to enjoy a sunny day because we may kill a few ants? Vegetables are alive too, and I'd wager these vegetarians aren't living in cardboard boxes thoroughly contemplated their next motive. This is not a "Higher" level view, it is just a different view. It's perfectly acceptable, but if one believes they're on higher ground because they aren't consuming meat, there's a problem. What if I consumed meat, but did a multitude of other things for the environment, such as cleanup in parks, etc., scientific research into the reparation of the O-Zone, soil erosion work, etc. etc. Or, what if I did something as simple as being nice, or helped to enlighten people? Could this not be regarded as something mature, responsible? Again, we can't let morality get in the way of reason. Because, of course, those things I mentioned could be responsible, just as not eating meat could be responsible.

LWSleeth wrote:

It seems to me that any way we can be more humane and more responsible is an ethical step up. And, as you imply, that doesn't just include avoiding an industry that is doing so much damage to animals and Earth.

...
However, the more I think about this, the more it seems to me it really is ethically "higher" to avoid meat in the sense of being a caring, responsible human being over being a person who has to have his meat no matter who suffers or how much it hurts the environment

But you must remember that not everyone may share your morality, or agree with the ethical code you decide to abide by. We cannot place ourselves on a supposed "higher moral ground", and shout, "I'm the best!". This is the problem. You can't just simplify humaneness and responsibility to not eating meat. That's absurd. Sure, it may be something that could be responsible, but there are many things such as this you may overlook daily. We're all contributing to what goes on here, and to put bluntly again, "Don't act like your **** doesn't stink!"

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;51324 wrote:

I think you're being just as choosy here -- there is no "special category". You are aware that animals are treated inhumanely so you've attached to that, making your stand, without taking into consideration a very many other things.

I took them into account, and I don't agree. In my own life, and those I value most in this world, compassion is just about the highest value I esteem. If you want to rationalize away billions of terribly suffering creatures as "not your values," be my guest. But personally I think it is cruel.

Zetherin;51324 wrote:

It is part of our culture, every waking moment breathes destruction in some form.

So what? Slavery used to be part of our culture, should we have just said "oh well, that's the way things are"?

Zetherin;51324 wrote:

It's a cycle of life. Should we not breathe the air in fear of killing bacteria? Walk outside to enjoy a sunny day because we may kill a few ants? Vegetables are alive too, and I'd wager these vegetarians aren't living in cardboard boxes thoroughly contemplated their next motive.

This just proves you are being dishonest. I talked about cruelty, not killing. But if you want to build me up as the stupid strawman, go ahead.

Zetherin;51324 wrote:

What if I consumed meat, but did a multitude of other things for the environment, such as cleanup in parks, etc., scientific research into the reparation of the O-Zone, soil erosion work, etc. etc. Or, what if I did something as simple as being nice, or helped to enlighten people? Could this not be regarded as something mature, responsible? Again, we can't let morality get in the way of reason. Because, of course, those things I mentioned could be responsible, just as not eating meat could be responsible.

We have a lot of things to fix, a lot of behaviors to change. Because we have other work to do doesn't justify another evil. But of the many things we should fix, I will always say the suffering we unnecessarily inflict on other beings should be high on the list.

Zetherin;51324 wrote:

But you must remember that not everyone may share your morality, or agree with the ethical code you decide to abide by.

So should we give terrorists, rapists, murderers . . . equal say in how things are to be? Morality isn't about the popular vote, it is about not hurting others. If we waited for agreement we'd still be barbarians.

Zetherin;51324We cannot place ourselves on a supposed "higher moral ground", and shout, "I'm the best!". This is the problem. You can't just simplify humaneness and responsibility to not eating meat. That's absurd. Sure, it [I wrote:

may be[/I] something that could be responsible, but there are many things such as this you may overlook daily. We're all contributing to what goes on here, and to put bluntly again, "Don't act like your **** doesn't stink!"

I already said I don't agree with harassing meat eaters, or acting superior. All my friends eat meat, and it is they who usually bug me, I say nothing and usually think nothing about it.

I primarily said that I think people who don't eat meat because it is violently, heartlessly, shamelessly, needlessly cruel to animals have taken a higher ground than those who couldn't care less about the creatures tortured so they can have a burger.

@Zetherin,

LWSleeth wrote:

I took them into account, and I don't agree. In my own life, and those I value most in this world, compassion is just about the highest value I esteem. If you want to rationalize away billions of terribly suffering creatures as "not your values," be my guest. But personally I think it is cruel.

That's correct: Compassion is just about the highest value you esteem. If you rationalize driving a car, walking down the street, or contribute to one of hundreds of other activities, I could just easily say you're "cruel". Again, you've chosen "Animal cruelty" to focus on, and that's fine (this is where you decide to place your compassion), we each choose which path to place our compassion. The problem is assuming that it's necessarily "better".

LWSleeth wrote:

This just proves you are being dishonest. I talked about cruelty, not killing. But if you want to build me up as the stupid strawman, go ahead.

I am being completely honest, and I apologize if you feel I'm building you up as a strawman.

LWSleeth wrote:

We have a lot of things to fix, a lot of behaviors to change. Because we have other work to do doesn't justify another evil. But of the many things we should fix, I will always say the suffering we unnecessarily inflict on other beings should be high on the list.

So, it's just the suffering you're concerned with? Say we killed the same amount of animals and yet devised a new way to end their lives completely painlessly, would this still be considered an evil act to you?

LWSleeth wrote:

So should we give terrorists, rapists, murderers . . . equal say in how things are to be? Morality isn't about the popular vote, it is about not hurting others. If we waited for agreement we'd still be barbarians.

I'll address your first question: Possibly, it depends. You believe that everyone that commits a crime should be stripped from having 'equal say'? Wouldn't that be defendant on the individual in question?

Morality is not about anything definitive: It's a construct of each individual. My morality could be diametrically opposite of yours. Perhaps your morality is based around "not hurting others", but you must realize not everyone is like you. Who is to judge which morality is superior?

LWSleeth wrote:

I primarily said that I think people who don't eat meat because it is violently, heartlessly, shamelessly, needlessly cruel to animals have taken a higher ground than those who couldn't care less about the creatures tortured so they can have a burger.

And I'm saying - This is not necessarily true, even if we agree on a standard or ethical practice. Just because someone doesn't eat meat does not necessitate they are more humane, civil, or even responsible. What if one was a vegetarian serial murderer? There are so many factors to consider, we cannot just categorize a lump of people that decide on a different diet and say they are on a higher moral ground. That's just absurd.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Excuse me for differing but,

I don't think mankind is smart at all. Have a look at what we've made of this planet, of ourselves. Were so stupid we not only kill other animals and eat them, we torture and kill ourselves and at the same time are truly and equally torturing and killing the planet as well.
If we harm and kill the Earth we harm and kill ourselves.
Smart? We have a long long Way to go.

=
MJA

Whats stupid about killing and eating animals? Animals kill and eat other animals too, we arent doing anything different and no, we are not superior to then and therefore do not have the obligation of acting differently.

Torturing and killing ourselves is indeed stupid, but the reason other animals, in most part, dont do it, is because most of then dont even have a sense of community. And most of those who do torture and kill thenselves too.

The planet has no life, there is just life living on it.

And, finally, plants have life too, as do micro-organisms. Having a neural network doesnt makes you special. According to a documentary I saw recently, wild pigs are breeding like rabbits in america and becoming a huge enviromental and human problem. Shouldnt we shot then just because then we do that eletric impulses will run through their bodies and signal their brains that they have taken damage?

What basically I mean is that, in my eyes, life alone has no value, it can only be given value. As I decided that doing the same "everone else" is doing, that is, fighting for the survival of the species, is the objective of human life on earth, I decided to give value only to humans.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;51351 wrote:

So, it's just the suffering you're concerned with? Say we killed the same amount of animals and yet devised a new way to end their lives completely painlessly, would this still be considered an evil act to you? . . .

. . . . we cannot just categorize a lump of people that decide on a different diet and say they are on a higher moral ground. That's just absurd.

Let's just reduce this to your two points there. Suffering is really the top thing because we actually could do it humanely. We have the intelligence, we have the technical know-how . . . hell, I could think of a way if you gave me the resources. It's the cost that nobody wants. I dare you to go hang out in slaughter houses for a couple of weeks, see how you feel afterwards.

I grew up around people who slaughtered, but it was never like the commercial stuff. God it's horrible. They'd kill a chicken so fast the hen didn't know what hit it . . . until it did, she had a great life.

Regarding the moral thing, I really dislike the whole concept of morality because I think if a person is right in their heart, goodness will follow naturally. So if I must state a fundamental principle, I reduce it to the most simple one I can, which is leave yourself and others to be free of judgement EXCEPT if their activities unnecessarily hurt those we must share this planet with.

But let's take this out of the meat industry for a minute. I know people who waste and consume and pollute like nobody has figured out it's threatening this planet and life for everyone. And I also know people who've joined the growing number who do their best to treat this planet with respect. If you ask me who has the higher ethical ground, there's no doubt who I'd choose.

Well, cruelty aside, the way the meat industry impacts the environment (as it is run now anyway), health care costs, etc., I can't see much difference from other polluters and resource wasters. Should I pretend I don't think we could do it better?

@LWSleeth,

Zetherin wrote:

That's correct: Compassion is just about the highest value you esteem. If you rationalize driving a car, walking down the street, or contribute to one of hundreds of other activities, I could just easily say you're "cruel". Again, you've chosen "Animal cruelty" to focus on, and that's fine (this is where you decide to place your compassion), we each choose which path to place our compassion. The problem is assuming that it's necessarily "better".

I do not think anyone has claimed that, by virtue of simply being a vegetarian, regardless of whatever else someone does, that being a vegetarian makes a person better than any and all non-vegetarians. Instead, the claim is that, with respect to our dietary choices, the vegetarian is making the more appropriate choice than the willful carnivore or omnivore.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I do not think anyone has claimed that, by virtue of simply being a vegetarian, regardless of whatever else someone does, that being a vegetarian makes a person better than any and all non-vegetarians. Instead, the claim is that, with respect to our dietary choices, the vegetarian is making the more appropriate choice than the willful carnivore or omnivore.

And I thought that claim was made when this was typed:

Quote:

I primarily said that I think people who don't eat meat because it is violently, heartlessly, shamelessly, needlessly cruel to animals have taken a higher ground than those who couldn't care less about the creatures tortured so they can have a burger.

...along with other reiterations of the aforementioned quote.

When I hear "have taken a higher moral ground", I think of comparison. A comparison between those that haven't made the decision [to stop eating animals], and those that have. "Higher" generally refers to "better". Therefore when I hear "They've taken a higher moral ground", I think "The person believes their morality is superior, and the choices they make in order to advocate their morality better." What makes the choice appropriate, or better? Again, it's all circumstance and perspective. This is what defines something as appropriate or better. If we were starving in the wilderness, it would be "good" to hunt that boar for food, there would be no inquiry of the beast's life. If we slaughter it needlessly, people bring morality into question and we see a frenzy! Where was that morality a moment ago? It's just all too convenient, DT.

If we place this in the context of a standard, in this case a code of ethics then we could say, "Judging by this code of ethics, we deem this choice more appropriate or 'better' in upholding this particular code of ethics". When no context is presented, and I read as if someone is referring to some "objective truth", this is what frustrates me.

@Zetherin,

That depends on how you take the statement: is it a generalization about their morality, or is it a statement pertaining only to dietary choice? It seems to me that it was the later, not the former, though I can see where the confusion comes from.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That depends on how you take the statement: is it a generalization about their morality, or is it a statement pertaining only to dietary choice? It seems to me that it was the later, not the former, though I can see where the confusion comes from.

How can you interpret the statement: "I believe they're on a higher moral ground" to only pertain to dietary choice? Clearly, we're not just speaking of dietary choice, but rather the effects of dietary choice, and the judgment that follows (what's "good" or "bad" to do concerning these animals). If all we were speaking about was vegetarianism as a diet, and not as a "higher level view", would this thread even exist?

@Zetherin,

Day 7:

@Icon,

Regarding the humaneness of a vegetarian diet, Ms. Ingred Newkirk president and founder of PETA has written a new book Entitled 'One Can Make a Difference" which I highly as in higher level recommend.
It's a wonderful compellation of essays written by people famous and some obscure who have made a difference in the world by following their hearts and sharing their love with the rest of the world. A process of living by sharing their passions and the change it makes in the world.

There is one essay written by Dr.Neal Barnard who founded 'Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" who has made it his life to teach people the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. If your looking for scientific evidence of a veggie diet, you need look no further than him. He's written several books on the subject such as 'Food for Life' which is another guide to a healthier, happier life.

One can make a difference which is my reason for this thread.
For your health is for the betterment of All,
All is truly One,

=
MJA

Philosophy Forum

Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know