RE: Is Eating Meat Philosophically Consistent with Non-violence?
The most violent thing any person does, ever, is when a woman gives birth to a baby. Just the child's existence has more affect on this planet than anything we do with our lives.
The circle of life is what it is. It cannot be changed by simply changing our diet.
How about this thought? Vegans are held up to be the most kind, gentle diet. But, what they do is the eat eggs, the seeds of life, before they ever have a chance to live. And such, are denying them life.
If we all became vegetarian (besides it being impossible with our current technology level) then the cow would just disappear. Its no longer needed in the circle of life, and the species would become extinct.
It is far more appropriate to give thanks for all of your meal that the circle of life has brought you. Be thankful that it exists, so we all can exist. Even the nematodes that ate the fungus to feed the bacteria...
First vegans do not eat eggs, vegans eat no animal products at all. But still you cn hardly compare the act of eating meat to eating seeds or eggs. And it is totally possible for the world to not eat meat. You can literally grow enough food in your yard to feed a family. Sure youd have to learn alot about gardening and the like but it could be done. I feel like the only life I own is my own so I try to aviod killing other things.
90% of people don't have a yard to grow food in.
The industrial mono-crop industry doesn't produce enough vegetation to feed america.
Not all land is arable farm land. Much of america is grass land. Grass can feed cows, not humans.
With permaculture practices you can increase the yield of your soils.
However, it is in its infancy as a process.
However, however, permaculture is often highly dependent on animals. Things like chicken tractors to turn up the soil and add important nutrients.
Permaculture may provide a path to what you desire.
Trying to have as little harmful impact on the world from your actions is noble.
But, being afraid of death is a human thing. Avoiding killing other things often has worse side effects (especially if it is a natural cycle).
Antinatalist, eh? You'd like this video on Arthur Schopenhauer by School of Life.
Maybe. But couldn't one also argue we're beyond evolutionary pressures at this point and in many ways we can direct our own evolution? Could be a naturalistic fallacy to say "This is what's natural and what is natural is good and can not be changed."
En egg has no pain receptors. We'd have to get shared understanding of morality before this would make sense to me. My current moral framework involves not doing harm to others which implies they actually have the capacity to feel harm.
We also work to save many species, whether or not they provide advantages to the evolutionary stability of the ecosystem they exist in (again, seems we're beyond "natural" evolutionary forces).
But yes, I agree with much of what you said (although I'm not an antinatalist) and like the idea of always giving thanks.
No, I mean on a much deeper level.
Like Schroedinger's cat taken to the nth degree.
The effects on the planet are not computable by our current mathematics.
Imagine if Hitler wasn't born. (I know this isn't an accurate example, but it explains to most people) What the world might be like. The huge web of connection, of cause and effect spreading out from that single life.
Now, imagine that time literately changes when you add another piece to the puzzle. The entire framework of life on this planet is changed by one child being born. For each and every child. When each one is born, it multiplies the number of future possibilities. Nothing the person does during the rest of their life is as world changing as that.
I'm not sure I have a framework for evaluating that truth-claim. Many things people do in life (such as ending other lives) have more impact that one new human baby (IMO). But I get the spirit behind what you're saying.
A whole new way of defining Plato's cave.