What is truly okay to eat?

[Ahimsa24/7]

I totally disagree with you whether it is referring to plants or to animals.

Being thankful is something that affects you, most of all. Living in an attitude of gratitude is not something new it is something that makes me a better person to be around. I often say many 'gratitudes' out loud eg in the shower or as I climb into bed - I am grateful to have running hot water, a warm place to live, amazing food to eat, a spouse that I love and who loves me, I am grateful for my family and friends, for my country, the list is really endless...

I grew up in an evangelical family so saying grace before a meal was standard practise, I no longer do that specifically however I try to live in that grateful attitude at all times.

Of course, the plant or the animal will have no appreciation for one's thankfulness, that doesn't takeaway from its value.

IMO

Also thankful for this forum and the variety of people here.

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. None of the gratitudes that you express involve taking another creature's life but attempting absolution by "thanking" them. Therein lies my issue.

 

[Graeme M]

"North American Indigenous cultures deeply honored animals after a kill, offering thanks, prayers, or ceremonies to the animal's spirit for its sacrifice, recognizing the interconnectedness of life and ensuring respect for the natural world, often involving rituals to thank the spirit, return parts of the body, and ensure the animal's journey to the spirit world, though specific practices varied widely by tribe"

This doesn't mean that they always used animal resources sustainably, but it does mean that their ways were much more consistent with the aims of veganism than modern consumers. In fact, I think we can say that even nature itself is far more "vegan" than most modern people. Humans are the outlier, though that's true of most of what we do.

As to sentience, for me pain and suffering matter but I think it's more than that we really need to be concerned by. Like I said, a being has to have explicit interests before I think we owe it a significant moral duty. So, what beings might those be? For sure birds, mammals, and likely some fish. Insects? I don't think so. Oysters and mussels. No, again I don't think so. Plants, definitely not. Once you go down the path of something like sentience for plants and even panpsychism you suddenly find yourself where you can't do anything because of the harm you cause. And let's be honest, using and killing things is what makes the world go round, unfortunately. The best we can do is be fair to those beings we believe have a sufficiently complex inner life for that to be worthwhile.

Of course, most vegans err on the side of caution and place all animals within the sphere of moral concern and that's fine, I just don't think it stands up to rational scrutiny.

 

[Tom L.]

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. the concept of sentience is fluid. and has changed several times over the centuries. So who knows what will happen next century.

It's been only 20 years since it's been proven that fish feel pain. and even today there is much debate on the "quality of their conscious experience. "

Even today there is still a lot of lively debate on the sentience of inverterbrates. There doesn't seem to much controversy about lobsters and octopi but oysters and mussels are still debated.

and not there is research about forests being "superorganisms".
"the entire ecosystem—trees, fungi, microbes, and animals—as a single, interconnected entity, not just a collection of individuals, linked by underground mycorrhizal networks that share resources (water, nutrients, signals) and operate with collective intelligence, similar to a body, where "mother trees" nurture young, and even dead stumps can be kept alive by neighbors, suggesting a highly cooperative system far beyond mere competition."

--Exploring the underground connections between trees | IIASA

(I took the liberty of correcting the typo in boldface) About "superorganisms": Somewhere in Utah, there is a grove of Quaking Aspen. It's a common species in North America, but this particular grove is known to be one genetically-identical organism which must have started from one individual tree some time after the end of the last Ice Age.

@Graeme M I think fish and insects (for example) were thought not to be sentient because their brains lack a specific region or structure (a cerebral cortex?) that is thought (or maybe was thought?) to be the seat of consciousness. But I spent an unusual amount of time observing insects as a child, although I never had a collection of killed specimens. I also had an aquarium. I even kept a few garden snails for a short time. And my observations of their behavior don't allow me to believe that they are not aware- i.e., sentient- on some level.

You are free to believe as you believe, but "thanking" something that you kill and eat is perverse.

I've always thought that was kind of psychotic too.

Wow!
Perverse seems like a rather Strong word to use at least in My case!
As I believe I mentioned I am a Vegan and I give Thanks for the Plants that I am eating! Perhaps you didn’t read my post fully or understand what I said…
I agree Completely that giving Thanks to an Animal for giving up Their life to feed someone Definitely does Not make up for the life of the animal…
This habit of mine came from time spent in a Spiritual Community which is when I first became Vegetarian and then a few years later Vegan…
For myself it is a matter of not taking for Granted the food that sustains me…
The phrase Eating to Live - rather than - Living to Eat is also something that I try to practice…

I hesitate to speak for @Ahimsa24/7 , but I'll share a bit of my personal history: Early on, I had an unusual degree of concern for animals; I don't know where it came from. I found it VERY disturbing when someone claimed to "care" about the animals they killed for food, sport, whatever. It seemed to me that their words really didn't mean much. I could accept that they weren't necessarily sadistic; they just didn't view animals the way I did- but I still wasn't buying that they had even a minimal degree of genuine good will toward their quarry.

 

[Ahimsa24/7]

(I took the liberty of correcting the typo in boldface) About "superorganisms": Somewhere in Utah, there is a grove of Quaking Aspen. It's a common species in North America, but this particular grove is known to be one genetically-identical organism which must have started from one individual tree some time after the end of the last Ice Age.

@Graeme M I think fish and insects (for example) were thought not to be sentient because their brains lack a specific region or structure (a cerebral cortex?) that is thought (or maybe was thought?) to be the seat of consciousness. But I spent an unusual amount of time observing insects as a child, although I never had a collection of killed specimens. I also had an aquarium. I even kept a few garden snails for a short time. And my observations of their behavior don't allow me to believe that they are not aware- i.e., sentient- on some level.

I've always thought that was kind of psychotic too.

I hesitate to speak for @Ahimsa24/7 , but I'll share a bit of my personal history: Early on, I had an unusual degree of concern for animals; I don't know where it came from. I found it VERY disturbing when someone claimed to "care" about the animals they killed for food, sport, whatever. It seemed to me that their words really didn't mean much. I could accept that they weren't necessarily sadistic; they just didn't view animals the way I did- but I still wasn't buying that they had even a minimal degree of genuine good will toward their quarry.

No need to hesitate, you "spoke" for me very well.

 

[1956]

(I took the liberty of correcting the typo in boldface) About "superorganisms": Somewhere in Utah, there is a grove of Quaking Aspen. It's a common species in North America, but this particular grove is known to be one genetically-identical organism which must have started from one individual tree some time after the end of the last Ice Age.

@Graeme M I think fish and insects (for example) were thought not to be sentient because their brains lack a specific region or structure (a cerebral cortex?) that is thought (or maybe was thought?) to be the seat of consciousness. But I spent an unusual amount of time observing insects as a child, although I never had a collection of killed specimens. I also had an aquarium. I even kept a few garden snails for a short time. And my observations of their behavior don't allow me to believe that they are not aware- i.e., sentient- on some level.

I've always thought that was kind of psychotic too.

I hesitate to speak for @Ahimsa24/7 , but I'll share a bit of my personal history: Early on, I had an unusual degree of concern for animals; I don't know where it came from. I found it VERY disturbing when someone claimed to "care" about the animals they killed for food, sport, whatever. It seemed to me that their words really didn't mean much. I could accept that they weren't necessarily sadistic; they just didn't view animals the way I did- but I still wasn't buying that they had even a minimal degree of genuine good will toward their quarry.

Hello @Tom L. Not quite sure why you quoted my post? Just a reminder that I am giving Thanks for the Plants that I eat…
I haven’t eaten an Animal in over 30 years…
Just to clarify - it doesn’t show up here where I quoted your post, but it did show up as me being quoted in your original post somehow… I don’t like to have misunderstandings!

 

[1956]

My apologies for confusing you and the original poster - yes, it was the same colored circle that threw me off. I thought both posts were from the same individual. That's totally on me - I'm sorry.

Apologies accepted @Ahimsa24/7 … I had a feeling that it was an honest mistake…

 

[1956]

I totally disagree with you whether it is referring to plants or to animals.

Being thankful is something that affects you, most of all. Living in an attitude of gratitude is not something new it is something that makes me a better person to be around. I often say many 'gratitudes' out loud eg in the shower or as I climb into bed - I am grateful to have running hot water, a warm place to live, amazing food to eat, a spouse that I love and who loves me, I am grateful for my family and friends, for my country, the list is really endless...

I grew up in an evangelical family so saying grace before a meal was standard practise, I no longer do that specifically however I try to live in that grateful attitude at all times.

Of course, the plant or the animal will have no appreciation for one's thankfulness, that doesn't takeaway from its value.

IMO

Also thankful for this forum and the variety of people here.

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

Hey there @Emma JC
Your message expressed similar sentiments to mine…
Although I was not raised Religious I have always felt deeply Spiritual…
I grew up surrounded by Nature and Animals and the time I spent in a Spiritual Community called The Findhorn Foundation in Scotland helped me to understand How grateful I was and am for what I have experienced in life…
My husband dying of cancer at only 58 and after only being together for 9 years and 9 months was Devastating to say the least!
The feeling of Gratitude that I have and express is a way of feeling Connected to him still! I know How lucky we were to have found each other! It’s usually him who I Thank when something Good happens to me!
Although I don’t know what happens when we die, I Feel that he is still With me and that is what I am Grateful for…

 

[Graeme M]

I think fish and insects (for example) were thought not to be sentient because their brains lack a specific region or structure (a cerebral cortex?) that is thought (or maybe was thought?) to be the seat of consciousness.

I believe that "sentience" is defined as the inner quality of experience - there is something it is like to be a sentient being. I think sentience is pretty common in nature, but being able to perceive the world and act accordingly doesn't necessitate it. We can see artificial intelligence systems responding to external stimuli with quite sophisticated behaviours yet we don't usually ascribe sentience/consciousness to those. I think that insects are like that - they can perceive the world and act accordingly but I don't think they harbour what we'd describe as consciousness. I don't think they have any idea they exist and are doing things, but it's still likely many do feel pain. Oysters and mussels aren't likely even to do that. I expect many other invertebrates aren't "conscious" either, but I understand why people want to extend the benefit of the doubt.

The problem with this thinking is that we aren't able to extend the same moral obligations to animals like worms, insects, mussels and oysters that we do to say cows and dogs. We would never accept driving over zillions of kittens every day but we'll all happily go for a drive in the country. The way I see it, we simply do not have to worry about animals like those at anything like the way we do more complex animals, and I think that's fine. We can't make the world into a harm-free zone nor completely avoid ever using or killing other animals.

Put another way, I think a moral duty to justice for sentient individuals can apply to complex beings like cows and cats and birds, but not far more limited minded, r-selected species, to whom we only owe a duty to the species. Plants, oysters, mussels and even insects are fine to eat. But equally, everything is fine to eat when we have to do that.

 

[Tom L.]

Hello @Tom L. Not quite sure why you quoted my post? Just a reminder that I am giving Thanks for the Plants that I eat…
I haven’t eaten an Animal in over 30 years…
Just to clarify - it doesn’t show up here where I quoted your post, but it did show up as me being quoted in your original post somehow… I don’t like to have misunderstandings!

The typo was in Lou's post: "mussels" (a clamlike critter that is sometimes eaten) was mis-spelled "muscles" (probably by auto-correct). Mostly, I just wanted to discuss the concept of superorganisms in that paragraph a bit. (HAH- The computer I'm typing on just tried to edit/auto-correct what I was typing- I had to re-type it!).

Anyhow- when I quoted your post, I was agreeing with your statement: I agree Completely that giving Thanks to an Animal for giving up Their life to feed someone Definitely does Not make up for the life of the animal…

ETA: @Graeme M I mostly agree with your post just above that we don't have to extend the same degree of consideration to insects, bivalves, etc that we do to mammals and birds. I just don't want to leave insects, etc. with no consideration at all, even though it would be impossible to completely avoid killing quite a few of them just by going for a drive- or even walking... or, for that matter, working in our vegetable garden, raising our own food.

 

[Graeme M]

I just don't want to leave insects, etc. with no consideration at all, even though it would be impossible to completely avoid killing quite a few of them just by going for a drive- or even walking... or, for that matter, working in our vegetable garden, raising our own food.

Absolutely and I think most vegans will still go out of their way to help protect individual insects and the like. I know I do. But it doesn't follow that we have to submit to some onerous duty to them in other ways that would restrict us to a nonsensical degree. It's relatively easy to not support horse racing, buy cosmetics not tested on animals, and eat plants rather than animals. But we don't have to be THAT bothered by insects killed to protect crops, for example, though we still want farmers not to cause global species loss.