4 ms·

I disagree with your prediction about future humanity, but respect your perspective. I guess one way to put it would be to say that I have a bit more of a Tibe

I disagree with your prediction about future humanity, but respect your perspective. I guess one way to put it would be to say that I have a bit more of a Tibetan Buddhist perspective. I've had my hands in a carcass, pulling out organs. I have tried to make sure I made death and quick and painless as I could for chickens. I have not butchered anything bigger than that. I don't do that for all my meat. I think we differ more about how much death and life are intertwined and inseperable, than we differ on how sacred and considerate that relationship should be.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
> I disagree with your prediction about future humanity In what way? Humanity has agreed that human slavery is bad, so why would future humans not apply this same principle to other sentient beings - since the need to exploit and kill other animals becomes ever more redundant. Most of us here in the West eat animals either because of culture or tradition and because we enjoy the taste, not because we need it to survive. Will there be small pockets of humans in the future that still eat animals? Yes, tribal folks living with nature or people who choose to live in areas where there are no other food sources. But I believe most future humans will reject the idea that exploiting and killing animals is necessary for our survival, when there are so many other food sources available. In the future we'll probably have meat substitutes that are healthier and with a smaller carbon and cruelty footprint than animal meat. > Tibetan Buddhist perspective I don't know what this perspective really means. I read some time ago the Dalai Lama was advised to eat animals, because his health depended on it. And maybe other Buddhists and people in Tibet have to eat animals because their survival depends on it. Also my understanding of Buddha's teachings is to end suffering. A core principle of Buddhism is non-violence, kindness and compassion. Killing an animal when it's not necessary is neither of those. I also understand that it's ok for Buddhists to eat animals if they weren't killed specifically for them. But buying animal meat from shops does not qualify that criteria. Eating roadkill does. We can choose between causing suffering or not causing suffering. A tiger for example can't. So when we can avoid the exploitation and killing of animals - why don't we? This ex special forces guy perfectly sums it up. https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100 https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100

uxcolumbo 4y ago

> I disagree with your prediction about future humanity In what way? Humanity has agreed that human slavery is bad, so why would future humans not apply this same principle to other sentient beings - since the need to exploit and kill other animals becomes ever more redundant. Most of us here in the West eat animals either because of culture or tradition and because we enjoy the taste, not because we need it to survive. Will there be small pockets of humans in the future that still eat animals? Yes, tribal folks living with nature or people who choose to live in areas where there are no other food sources. But I believe most future humans will reject the idea that exploiting and killing animals is necessary for our survival, when there are so many other food sources available. In the future we'll probably have meat substitutes that are healthier and with a smaller carbon and cruelty footprint than animal meat. > Tibetan Buddhist perspective I don't know what this perspective really means. I read some time ago the Dalai Lama was advised to eat animals, because his health depended on it. And maybe other Buddhists and people in Tibet have to eat animals because their survival depends on it. Also my understanding of Buddha's teachings is to end suffering. A core principle of Buddhism is non-violence, kindness and compassion. Killing an animal when it's not necessary is neither of those. I also understand that it's ok for Buddhists to eat animals if they weren't killed specifically for them. But buying animal meat from shops does not qualify that criteria. Eating roadkill does. We can choose between causing suffering or not causing suffering. A tiger for example can't. So when we can avoid the exploitation and killing of animals - why don't we? This ex special forces guy perfectly sums it up. https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100 https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100