Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Took my own advice from the Red meat and global warming thread and read Food Revolution by John Robbins (my library system had it). I read his Diet for a New America 20 years ago and it was influential in solidifying my vegetarianism. That is, it added sound environmental reasons beyond my personal feelings on the matter. I had forgotten how sharp John's tongue could be. He holds no punches and tells it like it is. This has got to be one of the most integrally applied books I have ever read without mention of the word integral. He hits on all quadrants and has a very thorough heartfelt analysis of all involved. He paints a grim picture of reality but points to the ways we can change and make a difference. There are lots of facts and footnotes to check sources etc. There is a shout out to Treya Wilber and to Ram Dass who was on his board at Earthsave.org. I will post some excerpts from the book hitting on most if not all of the quadrants. I am sure some of this info will be new to many here. My hope is that it leads others to re-consider what they eat for their and their family's health and for the health of the planet.  <3  e


UR

Percentage of adult daily value for saturated fat in one Double Whopper with cheese: 130%

Percentage of 8 year old child daily value for saturated fat in one Double Whopper with cheese: More than 200%

-

Drop in heart disease risk for every 1% decrease in blood cholesterol: 3-4%

Blood cholesterol levels of vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians: 14% lower

Risk of death from heart disease for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians: Half

Blood cholesterol levels of vegans compared to non-vegetarians: 35%

-

Intake of cholesterol for non-vegetarians: 300-500mgs/day

Intake of cholesterol for lacto-ovo vegetarians: 150-300mgs/day

Intake of cholesterol for vegens: 0

Average cholesterol level in the US: 210

Average cholesterol level of US vegetarians: 161

Average cholesterol level of US vegans: 133

-

Risk of dying during bypass surgery: 4.6-11.9%

Risk of permanent brain damage from bypass surgery: 15-44%

Recipients of bypass surgery for whom it prolongs life: 2%

Risk of death during angioplasty: 0.4-2.8%

Risk of major complications developing during angioplasty: 10%

Studies that have found that angioplasty prolongs life or prevents heart attacks: Zero

-

Most common problem for which people go to doctors in the US: High Blood Pressure

Ideal blood pressure: 110/70 or less (without medication)

Average blood pressure of vegetarians: 112/69

Average blood pressure of non-vegetarians: 121/77

Definition of high blood pressure: The top number (systolic) is consistently over 140, or the bottom number (diastolic) is consistently over 90, while the person is at rest.

Incidence of high blood pressure in meat eaters compared to vegetarians: Nearly triple

Incidence of very high blood pressure in meat eaters compared to vegetarians: 13 times higher

Patients with high blood pressure who achieve substantial improvement by switching to a vegetarian diet: 30-75%

What patients are typically told when prescribed medications for high blood pressure: “You'll probably need to take these for the rest of your life.”

Patients with high blood pressure who are able to completely discontinue use of medications after adopting a low-sodium, low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet: 58%

Incidence of high blood pressure among senior citizens in US: More than 50%

Incidence of high blood pressure among senior citizens in countries eating traditional low-fat plant based diets: Virtually none

-

Death rate from breast cancer in the US 22.4 (per 100,000)

Death rate from breast cancer in the Japan 6.3 (per 100,000)

Death rate from breast cancer in the China 4.6 (per 100,000)

Primary reason for the difference: People in China & Japan eat more fruits and vegetables and less animal products, weigh less, drink less alcohol and get more exercise than people in the US.

Breast cancer rate for women in Italy who eat a lot of animal products compared to women in Italy who don't: 3 times greater

Breast cancer rate for women in Uruguay who eat meat more often compared to women in Uruguay who rarely or never eat meat: 4.2 times greater

Breast cancer rate for affluent Japanese women who eat meat daily compared to poorer Japanese women who rarely or never eat meat: 8.5 times greater

Impact on breast cancer risk for adult women who are 45 pounds overweight: Double

American women who are aware that there are dietary steps they can take to lower their chances of developing breast cancer: 23%

American women with less than a high school education who are aware that there are dietary steps they can take to lower their chances of developing breast cancer: 3%

American women who believe that mammograms prevent breast cancer: 37%

-

Most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide: Lung cancer

Number of lives lost to lung cancer each year in the US: 150,000

Impact of smoking on lung cancer incidence: So overwhelming that even people exposed to second hand smoke are at heightened risk

Impact on lung cancer for people who frequently eat green, orange, and yellow vegetables: 20-60% reduction

The vegetable with the strongest protective effect: Carrot

Impact on lung cancer for people who consume a lot of apples, bananas, and grapes: 20-40% reduction

Rate of lung cancer in British vegetarian men compared to the general British population: 27%

Rate of lung cancer in British vegetarian women compared to the general British population: 37%

Rate of lung cancer in German vegetarian men compared to the general German population: 8%

-

Most common cancer among American men: Prostate cancer

Risk of prostate cancer for men who consume high amounts of dairy products: 70% higher

Risk of prostate cancer for men who consume soy milk daily: 70% reduction

Risk of prostate cancer for men with low blood levels of beta-carotene: 45% increase

Best sources of beta-carotene: Carrots, sweet potatoes, yams

Risk of prostate cancer for men whose diet is abundant with lycopene-rich foods: 45% reduction

Best sources of lycopene: Tomatoes

Amount of beta-carotene and lycopene in meats, dairy products, and eggs: None

Risk of prostate cancer for men whose intake of cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collards, kale, mustard greens, and turnips) is high: 41% reduction.

American men who are aware of a link between animal products and prostate cancer: 2%

-

Number of lives lost to colon cancer each year in the US: 55,000

Risk of colon cancer for women who eat red meat daily as compared to those who eat it less than once a month: 250% greater

Risk of colon cancer for people who eat red meat once a week compared to those who abstain: 38% greater

Risk of colon cancer for people who eat poultry once a week compared to those who abstain: 55% greater

Risk of colon cancer for people who eat poultry four times a week compared to those who abstain: 200-300% greater

Risk of colon cancer for people who eat beans, peas, or lentils at least twice a week compared to people who avoid these foods: 50% lower

Impact on risk for colon cancer when diets are rich in the B-vitamin folic acid: 75% lower

Primary food sources of folic acid: Dark green leafy vegetables, beans, and peas.

Ratio of colon cancer rates for white South Africans compared to black South Africans: 17 to 1
Explanation for this vast discrepancy (according to the American Journal of Gastroenterology): South African blacks are protected from colon cancer by the absence of animal fat and animal protein, and by the resulting differences in bacterial fermentation

Americans who are aware that eating less meat reduces colon cancer risk: 2%

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

“A Person Who Eats Meat”

A person who eats meat 
wants to get his teeth into something 
A person who does not eat meat
wants to get his teeth into something else 
If these thoughts interest you even for a moment 
you are lost.

- Leonard Cohen

~

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

My guess is Leonard tried to change his eating habits and failed and so relativized the value.


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: My guess is Leonard tried to change his eating habits and failed and so relativized the value.

~

My guess is that he was annoyed by holier-than-thou Fundamentalist Vegitarians.  :)

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Nope, he couldn't sustain it (the habit mind won out) and so it looks like it was either the dope or he blamed his relationship with his girlfriend for his egoistic issues.

He started eating meat again because he got to dislike a certain kind of arrogance he had developed about being a vegetarian. The arrogance was shown in his subtle and partly unconscious attempts to convince Marianna, the sweet-faced Norwegian blonde he has been living with for six years, that not eating meat somehow would make her a finer person.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

“He started eating meat again because he got to dislike a certain kind of arrogance he had developed about being a vegetarian.”

Now that's a hilariously appropriate quote coming from you, e.  :)

Perhaps a few more volleys of your trusty Statistics Canon will Awaken some of the benighted carnivorous souls in these parts…based, of course, on the assumption that ignorance is responsible for our moral turpitude.  :P

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Arthur, I was explicit about my intentions in my first post in this thread.

I will post some excerpts from the book hitting on most if not all of the quadrants. I am sure some of this info will be new to many here. My hope is that it leads others to re-consider what they eat for their and their family's health and for the health of the planet.

Don't know how that and a few statistics to raise awareness from a book can be construed as arrogant? As you can plainly see, I am not attacking you or your lifestyle buddy or raising myself above you.

So why post cartoons in response to some arguably pretty alarming stats and facts that expose global systemic problems? What do you or we get out of that? Ridiculing my lifestyle does not erase the veracity of the facts and stats, does not lead to our mutual understanding and felicity, does not ease the suffering of all the helpless beings caught in the meat and dairy industries, does not alleviate any environmental issues, etc., etc. Now I know some of the stats and facts paint a grim picture of “reality” and may be hard to digest and leave one with a feeling of despair, but why kill the messenger?

Maybe this will help you get a sense of what John is all about, lead to our mutual understanding and ease despair. He assembles some I and WE perspectives into a pretty nice story. Hope you have the time to read it.


The Pig Farmer


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: Don't know how that and a few statistics to raise awareness from a book can be construed as arrogant? As you can plainly see, I am not attacking you or your lifestyle buddy or raising myself above you.

~

Actually, it's not something I can “plainly see” - but I have neither time nor interest in adding to what I've already contributed to this thread.  I'll let what I've shared stand on its own merits, such as they are.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

More eye opening IT and ITS facts and stats from the book.


–

 

Where most Americans get their information about foods: Advertising

Amount spent annually by Kellogg's to promote Frosted Flakes: $40 million

Amount spent annually by the dairy industry on the “milk mustache ads”: $190 million

Amount spent annually by McDonalds advertising its products: $800 million

Amount spent annually by the National Cancer Institute promoting fruits and vegetables: $1 million

-

Annual medical costs in the US directly attributable to smoking: $65 billion

Annual medical costs in the US directly attributable to meat consumption: $60-$120 billion

-

Calcium absorption rates (according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

Brussels sprouts 63.8%

Mustard greens 57.8%

Broccoli 52.6%

Turnip greens 51.6%

Kale 50%

Cow's milk 32%

-

Countries with the highest consumption of dairy products: Finland, Sweeden, US & England

Countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis: Finland, Sweeden, US & England

Daily calcium intake for African Americans: More than 1,000mg

Daily calcium intake for black South Africans: 196mg

Hip fracture rate for African Americans compared to black South Africans: 9 times greater

Foods that when eaten produce calcium loss through urinary excretion: Animal protein, salt & coffee

Amount of calcium lost in the urine of woman after eating a hamburger: 28mg

Amount of calcium lost in the urine of woman after drinking a cup of coffee: 2mg

-

Antibiotics allowed in US cows milk: 80

Antibiotics found in soy milk: None

Children with chronic constipation so intractable that it can't be treated successfully by laxatives, who are cured by switching from cow's milk to soy milk: 44%

Average American's estimate when asked what percentage of adults worldwide do not drink milk: 1%

Actual number of adults worldwide who do not drink milk: 65%

-

Leading cause of kidney failure in US & Canadian children: Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

Cases of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome that are caused by E.coli: 85%

Annual Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cases in the Netherlands: 25

Annual Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cases in the US: 7500

Annual Salmonella cases in Sweden: 1 in 10,000 people

Annual Salmonella cases in the US: 1 in 200 people

Chickens infected with Campylobacter in Norway: 10%

Chickens infected with Campylobacter in the US: 70%

-

Antibiotics administered to people in he US annually to treat diseases: 3 million pounds

Antibiotics administered to livestock in the US annually for purposes other than treating disease: 24.6 million pounds

-

Statement made by Gary Weber that was edited out of the Oprah show, but that the cattlemen felt was important and should have remained: “The cattle industry adopted a voluntary ban on ‘recycling' felled cattle as feed”

Reality: The “voluntary” ban was initiated just before the show, and had no impact whatsoever on industry feeding practices; agriculture extension agents and feed salesmen confirmed that the practice of feeding rendered cattle back to cattle and may even have increased after the voluntary ban was declared.

Another statement made by Gary Weber that was edited out of the Oprah show that the cattlemen felt was important and should have remained: “What is fed to cattle…has been cooked at temperatures high enough to sterilize it.”

Reality: The infectious agent Mad Cow disease remains infectious even after exposure for an hour to a temperature of 680 degrees - enough to melt lead - and can withstand antibiotics, boiling water, bleach, formaldehyde, and a variety of solvents, detergents, amd enzymes known to destroy most known bacteria and viruses.

The expected rate of occurrence of CJD (the human variation of Mad Cow disease) has been 1 in a million people. Up until the advent of Mad Cow disease, CJD was literally, “one in a million” disease. Yet in one US study, when people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (whose symptoms can be difficult to distinguish from CJD) were examined after death, 5.5% of the presumed Alzheimer's victims were found actually to have CJD. And in a study at Yale University, when people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease were examined after death it was found that 13% of the presumed Alzheimer's victims actually had CJD. Four million Americans are currently diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

-

Water required to produce 1 pound of US beef, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association: 441 gallons

Water required to produce 1 pound of US beef, according to Dr. Georg Borgstrom, Chairman of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State U: 2,500 gallons

Water required to produce 1 pound of California foods, according to Soil and Water Specialists, U of Cal Agricultural Extension, working with livestock advisers:

1 lb of lettuce : 23 gallons

1 lb of tomatoes: 23 gallons

1 lb of potatoes: 24 gallons

1 lb of wheat: 25 gallons

1 lb of carrots: 33 gallons

1 lb of apples: 49 gallons

1 lb of chicken: 815 gallons

1 lb of pork: 1630 gallons

1 lb of beef: 5214 gallons

[ You can not shower for a week and not flush the toilet for 4 uses and when you eat a ¼ lb hamburger, you use from 625-1303 gallons of water! Are the droughts in the South and west manmade?]

“Nearly half the water consumed in the country is used for livestock, mostly cattle. “Audobon, 1999

-

Gallons of oil spilled by the Exxon-Valzez: 12 million

Gallons of putrefying hog urine and feces spilled into the New River in N. Carolina on June 21, 1995, when a “lagoon” holding 8 acres of hog excrement burst: 25 million gallons

Fish killed as an immediate result: 10-14 million

Fish whose breeding area was decimated by this disaster: Half of all the mid-East Coast fish species

Acres of coastal wetlands closed to shell fishing as a result: 364,000

Amount of waste produced by N. Carolina's 7 million factory-raised hogs (stored on open cesspools) compared to the amount produced by the state's 6.5 million people: 4 to 1

Relative concentration of pathogens in hog waste compared to human sewage: 10 to 100 times greater

-

Number of poultry operations (according to the General Accounting Office) that are of sufficient size to be required to obtain a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act: About 2000

Number (according to the General Accounting Office) that have actually done so: 39

Number, of the 22 largest animal factories in Missouri required to have valid operating discharge permits that actually have them: 2

-

Number one milk-producing area in the US: Cals Central Valley

Amount of waste produced by the 1,600 dairies in Cal's Central Valley: More than the entire human population of Texas

Total number of water quality inspectors in Cal's entire Central Valley: 4

Cities that rely on Cal's Central Valley as an important source of drinking water: LA, San Diego and most inbetween

Number of Californians whose drinking water is threatened by contamination from dairy manure: 20 million (65% of the states population)

Pathogen, stemming from dairy manure, that infected Milwaukee's drinking water in 1993, sickening 400,000 people and leading to the deaths of more than 100 people: Cryptosporidium

Pathogen that LA metropolitan water district officials say is a constant threat to contaminate LA drinking water from Central Valley dirty waste: Cryptosporidium

-

Amount paid by New Mexico Governor Bruce King in 1994 to graze his cattle on 17,372 acres of trust land: 65 cents/acre

Amount paid by New Mexico's 1994 candidate for land commissioner Stirling Spencer to graze his cattle on 20,000 acres of trust land: 59 cents/acre

New Mexico trust land that is open to livestock grazing: 99%

Amount New Mexico's livestock ranchers do not pay in property tax, sales tax, or other taxes due to special deductions and exemptions given to the cattle industry: Billions of dollars annually

Number of states with higher taxes on the poor than New Mexico: 3

Number of states with a greater percentage of women living in poverty: 0

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: “So why post cartoons in response to some arguably pretty alarming stats and facts that expose global systemic problems?”

I run into this kind of thing with army culture a lot. Among enlisted guys there's a culture of pretending to be stupider than you are, and a fear of looking too smart. If you show any academic intelligence then there's an almost automatic reaction that you think your better than others or judge them.  Soldiers are really sensitive to this.
The thing is that there are a lot of really smart guys in the army, so it creates a weird flakiness of behavior.

As e's pointed out, the objective facts show that with the current way that meat is gotten, it is unsustainable and unethical in a normal sense, let alone an Integral one. Integrally, to not eat meat is obviously better and higher tiered than to not, so this argument seems to be based on a cover up of guilt, or artificial self-justification. That guy who tried to be a vegetarian sounds like I do when I want to lie to myself and talk myself into doing something I shouldn't.  This produces a stereotypical flakiness between behavior and speech;  noted in the army bit.

We make decisions emotionally, and then later rationalize them. When this happens, the signs are clear.

Eating meat, in and of itself, shouldn't rouse emotion too much, but then eating anything, including other people, shouldn't.  But, if the suffering of sentient beings isn't enough, there are so many other reasons to become a vegetarian.  Being a vegetarian is better, it just doesn't make you better.

BTW, even the army has 4 vegetarian MRE's (meals ready to eat), for the field.  So are a bunch of killers more ethical than Integralies?

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Integrally, to not eat meat is obviously better and higher tiered than to not, so this argument seems to be based on a cover up of guilt, or artificial self-justification.

yep


Being a vegetarian is better, it just doesn't make you better.

Bingo! So we can talk about this (or anything else for that matter) like we are comparing memes. I have no personal stake in whether Arthur is or is not a vegetarian. I am not arguing that I am better than he. And so he does not need to react as if I am personally attacking him. He can if he chooses… but why? Just look at the data and see if it makes sense and relevance to your life and take it from there. What's the big deal?


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: And so he does not need to react as if I am personally attacking him. He can if he chooses… but why? Just look at the data and see if it makes sense and relevance to your life and take it from there. What's the big deal?

~

No big deal - just letting you know you have a piece of spinach stuck in your teeth, so save you from potential embarassment.  Nevermind, you've clearly got The Truth - and you're not afraid to use it.  Carry on.  :)

Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

No big deal - just letting you know you have a piece of spinach stuck in your teeth, so save you from potential embarassment. 

Thanks Arthur I appreciate the intent but those things don't embarrass me much.

Nevermind, you've clearly got The Truth - and you're not afraid to use it. 

Arthur, please!! Do you purposefully try to not understand someone? Look at the recent blurb you posted about sustainable agriculture. All we need to do is look at the data to see if it is truly “sustainable”? That is, would it require less land or more land to feed animals this way to “sustain” current appetites world wide. Is free range really sustainable with current grazable land or would we have to deforest more of the Amazon etc. (Your wife Liz studied this, can she chime in? How many acres are required to produce 1 lb of beef from feed vs free range?) Also, this does not address the water requirements (see the stats posted here). Also, free range livestock are a threat to other “wild” species. For instance, some ranchers clear their lands of predators by pouring gasoline into dens and lighting them on fire. So this is not my or your Truth. Just gather the data and let the chips fall where they may.


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Hey e, I don't necessarily disagree with particular things you say or conclusions you come to, but I do find your approach to be highly unproductive.   I've done what I can to explain why.  If I'm the only person who ever gives you such feedback, then maybe I'm completely wrong about it.  If you hear similar things from others, you might want to consider the possibility that there's something important there for you to learn.  I'm not attached to the outcome on that either way.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e wrote: As you can plainly see, I am not attacking you or your lifestyle buddy or raising myself above you.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Arthur and say that I can't plainly see it either. As far as I can tell, you're saying vegetarianism is more integral, so people who eat meat are somehow less integral, or at least are indulging in less-integral behavior.  Is that about right?

If so, then this is precisely the arrogance that Arthur was referring to.  I mean, I think we'd pretty much all agree that, collectively, people need to eat a lot less meat than we currently do. But I think it's a bit of a leap in logic to say that we should ideally all be vegetarians. I mean, purely hypothetically, if all of a sudden eating meat (or any animal products, as the thread title would suggest) were somehow abolished, what would become of all the cows and chickens? Would they all become wild animals? They would certainly no longer have any “purpose” in life. Where would they all go? Even if we somehow gradually transitioned into global veganism, there would still be the problem of controlling the population of all those animals we no longer eat.

OK, this is maybe an absurd example (full of lots of holes), but my point is that it seems to me that a more “integral” approach would seek the proper balance in our diets, which could very well include meat and other animal products. Sure, in the meantime, it's certainly noble to make a sacrifice and become a vegan in order to pull both your own weight and the next guy's in trying to approach that balance that we need in the world. But saying (or implying) that we should all be vegans in order to be more integral is just an attempt to force your own personal choice on others.

I like to think (although I may well be fooling myself, I suppose) that it's at least equally useful to set an example as a person who eats very little meat, rather than no meat at all, since that's an example more people may be willing to follow. And then to also promote organic, locally raised, sustainable farming whenever I get the chance, but without forcing that on anyone either, or making claims that I'm better – or behave better or however you want to spin it – because I'm this or I'm that, or I eat this way or that way.

Anyway, that, I think, is all Arthur is trying to say, i.e that you might want to step back and look at what you're saying and see if maybe you aren't taking too extreme of a position that excludes more than it includes. Veganism is just one perspective. Why not try to integrate other perspectives, as well?

Metta,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I'm afraid I have to agree with Arthur and say that I can't plainly see it either. As far as I can tell, you're saying vegetarianism is more integral, so people who eat meat are somehow less integral, or at least are indulging in less-integral behavior.  Is that about right?

No Grey, I am sharing excerpts from an integrally applied book on food. The author happens to be a vegan. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Anyway, that, I think, is all Arthur is trying to say, i.e that you might want to step back and look at what you're saying and see if maybe you aren't taking too extreme of a position that excludes more than it includes.

Excellent advise Grey, let's all take a step back!! Let Arthur and I switch places and you come back into the conversation. Here let's say Arthur started this thread with this initial post.

-

Social Revolution - RAM  - Integral Therapist

Took my own advice and read Social Revolution by RAM (my library system had it). I read his Group Therapy for a New America 20 years ago and it was influential in solidifying me becoming a groupie. That is, it added sound environmental reasons beyond my personal feelings on the matter. I had forgotten how sharp RAM's tongue could be. He holds no punches and tells it like it is. This has got to be one of the most integrally applied books I have ever read without mention of the word integral. He hits on all quadrants and has a very thorough heartfelt analysis of all involved. He paints a grim picture of reality but points to the ways we can change and make a difference. There are lots of facts and footnotes to check sources etc. There is a shout out to Treya Wilber and to Ram Dass who was on his board at peoplesave.org. I will post some excerpts from the book hitting on most if not all of the quadrants. I am sure some of this info will be new to many here. My hope is that it leads others to re-consider what therapy they enact for their and their family's health and for the health of the planet. 

Group Hug, Arthur

Then Arthur posts some facts from the book highlighting the focus in different quadrants.

Now, I ignore the content of the post 100% and begin a character assassination accusing Arthur of thinking he is superior for going to group therapy. I post snarky comments of others and cartoons ridiculing his groupie lifestyle.

Besides the obvious difference that John Robbins is advocating you not do something (not eat meat) and RAM is advocating you do something (go to group therapy). What is the difference? Would you come to my defense and say Arthur is arrogant and not being integral for advocating a strictly groupie lifestyle? If not, why not? And if you see the absurdity in this, would you then recommend me apologize to Arthur for the unwarranted ridicule of his groupie lifestyle?

I want to say thank you Grey for at least acknowledging the content of this post. But let's flesh this out first before we get to that, OK?


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Hi, e –

Your comparison here in itself reveals the problem.

Rewriting your first post here while plugging in Arthur and RAM / group therapy instead of what you wrote about John Robbins and veganism – for me it highlights why this kind of discussion turns me off.

Arthur may be enthusiastic about RAM and transformative therapies, but he has never suggested that group therapy is for everyone or that RAM's method is the only healthy approach to therapy. He acknowledges that it is a way – perhaps one among many “better” ways – but not the way.

What you write here comes off as “veganism is the way to eat to have a healthier planet.” It would quite different if I were hearing it as “this is a way.” But that is not  the message I am receiving as I read what you write on the topic.

My 2 cents,

Mary the Omnivorous

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: Here let's say Arthur started this thread with this initial post. […] Then Arthur posts some facts from the book highlighting the focus in different quadrants. […] Now, I ignore the content of the post 100% and begin a character assassination accusing Arthur of thinking he is superior for going to group therapy. I post snarky comments of others and cartoons ridiculing his groupie lifestyle.

If this were an accurate analogy, then you'd be right. The problem is that Arthur's next post was a way of challenging the conclusion you draw from the data, i.e that we should all be vegans in order to correct the situation and (later more explicitly) that being vegetarian is more integral; it wasn't a character assassination of you for being vegetarian.

Nobody is (necessarily) disputing or ignoring the content (the data), but simply saying that there may be other (more appropriate, some would say) ways of responding to it. For you, one way is to be a vegetarian, and that's great. For others, there will be other ways. The Cohen quote Arthur posted is saying that dwelling on whether a person eats meat or not is not the way to go, in Cohen's (and probably Arthur's and certainly my) opinion.

You then claiming that Cohen just didn't have what it takes to do the right thing so he had to try and justify himself then sent things down the wrong path. By saying that Cohen “failed”, you imply that being vegetarian is better than not being vegetarian, which is at least heading in the general direction of the “holier-than-thou Fundamentalist Vegetarian” stance that Cohen and Arthur were arguing against. That, combined with posting reams of data as if we non-vegetarians just don't have the facts, is what annoyed Arthur and me.

Anyway, the whole situation was probably not handled in the best way by anyone involved. So can we move on to some other aspect of the debate now and stop debating whether vegetarianism is more integral or not? I think we'll all agree that eating responsibly is “more integral”, but that doesn't necessarily mean being vegan (or vegetarian).

So if we assume that a mass conversion to vegetarianism isn't a viable, practicable solution, what might be? Sustainable farming? Buying local? Promoting significantly less meat consumption (with some sort of government support)? Something else?

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Continue posting the excerpts, please. I'm finding it useful reading. Illegitimi non carborundum.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Thanks Dave, I like to think people mean well.

Sorry though, the book is back at the library. If you found the facts
interesting, you will love the book. Which was my hope from the get go.


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

E has been accused of being “arrogant” and “lost” and of taking a “holier-than-thou” attitude for presenting a view and backing it up with evidence—why not just come up with counter arguments and leave out the ad hominens (which could also be said to be coming from a holier-than-thou attitude)? What's particularly troubling to me is the attack on presenting evidence to back up his case, as if presenting evidence is somehow wrong because it might imply that someone isn't aware of it. Ken has said recently, in this video, that “Green believes that the right not to get offended trumps the right to free speech,” and I think we are heading in that direction when we discourage people from making an unpopular case and presenting evidence for it. E has presented a reasonable opinion and backed it up with evidence—if we disagree it is our job to present an opposing view and also back it up evidence, rather than trying to silence him or leveling ad-hominen attacks.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey: “I'm afraid I have to agree with Arthur and say that I can't plainly see it either. As far as I can tell, you're saying vegetarianism is more integral, so people who eat meat are somehow less integral, or at least are indulging in less-integral behavior.  Is that about right?”

I don't know about e, but I'll say, yes that's about right. If you eat meat, knowing what you know, then you are living a life that is inherently less integral than someone who doesn't. This is an objective rendering of the facts involved, and if someone is hurt by them, then they should either accept that fact or change their behavior.
This ain't like driving and having to use gas, or having to consume, etc… there is nothing inhibiting doing one thing over another.  It's not even like smoking, because quiting smoking at least involves a physical withdraw, and it doesn't affect anyone but you.
There are no excuses.
Integral is a paradigm in which someone things are deemed better and more integral than other things, not just thing things you don't already do. All of you understand this, so why are you crying about it?

Most of the people around this site have no problem deciding what is and what is not “more” integral, and have no problem criticizing the behavior of public figures with that yard stick.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that vegetarianism is always “more integral” than eating meat. And I don't think it's a question of being hurt or in denial on the issue.

This is one of those many subjects that integrally-minded folk have differences of opinion about, obviously. The thread that e linked to in his first post here (Red Meat and Global Warming) includes posts that show some of the AQAL considerations when it comes to responsible eating. 

Eating responsibly and sustainably is something that intregrally-minded peeps do agree on. How to go about that is still a work in progress, methinks. As is integralism itself …

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Even if all cows and chickens are free ranged and organically, vegetarian fed, you still get almost all the issues that you get under the current system, minus the torture of sentient beings. Read the stuff that e posted. What environmental destruction do you subvert having cows eat far greater quantities of grass vs. corn in the last few weeks of their life.  All cows are raised on grass; they are only fattened up on corn at the very end to get better market value. I'm a Texan and grew up with a herd in my back yard. That is better and much more integral, but it is also setting up a system in which only a small minority of people with money are able to benefit from the new distribution system.
Meat is cheap only because of the current system, and the vast majority of the world would be forced into vegetarianism if all animals were raised and slaughtered without hormones, genetic altering, steriods, corn, etc…

Aren't we supposed to live as examples to others?

There seems to be a complete lack of either empathy or even thought of the 6 billion other people on the planet.

No one here would deny that fair trade coffee, which is the only way that coffee farmers than survive and feed their families - as the market price for coffee is below the cost to grow it - is more integral, or higher tiered, and that to no buy it if you can is better, right? Anyone disagree with that? We wouldn't even discuss that, but that is easier. So what we are talking about isn't what is integrally ethical, but what people within this belief structure don't feel like doing. 

What you buy therefore, affects the lives of the poor. 

Let me ask you a question: Can you or anyone else here kill?  There was a big deal about blood diamonds, because buying something lead directly to death and destruction.  This is no different.  Thousands of people have been displaced, killed, and lost their livelyhoods, so you can eat at McDonalds.

I'll tell you something, I can kill, and I'm probably one of the few people here that could, but I could and would never kill for no reason. An appetizer, is to me, is no reason.

From the post you linked Mary:

“I've been aware of - and disturbed by - the high environmental cost of meat for a long time.  Unfortunately I appear to have a metabolic need to eat meat and plenty of it (one of the traits I share in common with the Dalai Lama; others include being male and breathing oxygen). 

spiral out,
Arthur”

I'm a 200 lb. male that can run 2 miles (3.2 km) in 14 minutes, at the age of 32.  I can also ruck 60 lbs. on my back over about 14 km of rough terrain; as a vegetarian. This of course has to do with me being a reserve soldier in a special ops. airborne unit, which we can also discuss the merits of if you'd like. I'm perfectly willing to admit to making choices that might not be so high tiered. I'm not sensitive.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

That's all fine and good, Rick, but I'm still not seeing why the answer is necessarily “no meat” and not “much less meat”.

If we were to all of a sudden not eat any meat, then all those cows and chickens would still need a place to live and would probably continue multiplying and taking up even more space. Not eating any meat doesn't mean no cows harming the environment and taking precious land away from crops. It just means that cows would live longer and better. That helps cows, but doesn't particularly help anyone else as far as I can see.

This is just an absurd hypothetical, of course. And like I said, being vegetarian is a noble sacrifice some can and do make in an attempt to balance things out. But isn't promoting responsible eating at least as noble? And it seems to me that it's more likely more people will start eating responsibly than that enough people will become vegetarian to solve the world's problems.

~G

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

adastra: “I've been aware of - and disturbed by - the high environmental cost of meat for a long time.  Unfortunately I appear to have a metabolic need to eat meat and plenty of it…


holden: I'm a 200 lb. male that can run 2 miles (3.2 km) in 14 minutes, at the age of 32.  I can also ruck 60 lbs. on my back over about 14 km of rough terrain; as a vegetarian. This of course has to do with me being a reserve soldier in a special ops. airborne unit, which we can also discuss the merits of if you'd like.

~

Are you saying that because you - big strong soldier-boy - can subsist on vegetarian food, that you know I can as well?  If so, that's arrogant, dogmatic, and does not match my personal experience.

I've spent years being a vegetarian, and it didn't work out very well for me.  Would you like to transcend and include that, or argue that what I say of my personal experience is untrue?

For the record, I'm strongly in favor of eliminating “externalities” and switching to true-cost marketing - in which case a lot of things, meat very much included, would be much more expensive, which would be a good thing in my opinon.  I buy as much organic, local, freerange meat as I can, despite the fact that I can't really afford to do so.  I buy fair trade items as much as I can, which also doesn't help my bottom line. 

When I moved to Vancouver in 1992 I stopped driving a car completely, in favor of 100% walking and public transit; ecological concerns were a huge part of that.  By now I've completely lost the skill of driving and I've been living for over a year in a city with a much more inadequate public-transit system.  This is hugely inconvenient.  Yet I don't want to start driving again (if I do) unless it's a zero-emission vehicle.

I strongly believe, based on an enormous amount of scientific study and statistics - which I trust everyone in this forum is sufficiently aware of to draw their own conclusions about - that there is way too much carbon already in the atmosphere, and we have to severely reduce our carbon output approximately Right Fucking Now to even have a chance of averting impending catastrophe.  Yet I would not go from that to say: if you're integral, you'll realize that you have to stop driving a fossil-fuel-burning car completely RIGHT NOW.  How can you in good conscience keep burning gas?  Don't you realize you're killing people in other parts of the world by driving?  Impoverishing and imperiling all the children who will have to live in this world?  If you were spiritually advanced, you'd stop driving your car.  You'd stop flying on planes EVER AGAIN.

But that's just the kind of extreme position I see represented here in regards to vegetarianism, being called integral and spiritual.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Holden, it sounds like you're using “integral” to mean “superior to” or “the best.”  Is that really what you think it means?

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I mean “integral” as in higher tiered. Higher tiered means more condusive to the whole, and I would assume that more encompassing of the whole is better.  We could get into a semantic game, but there's no need here. Would it be higher tiered to own slaves or to not own slaves?
One is obviously higher, and one is better. No one would deny that and no one would get their feelings hurt about that, but no one here owns slaves. If you don't like the idea or an act being better than another, then Integral theory should piss you off.

In an ultimate sense everything is relative, but in a relative sense the Integral paradigm is very clear about these things, and Ken has set up an Integral set of ethics to deal with these things.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Holden, I hear you on this, and I also think we have to be careful about how we may pronounce things as being “integral” as a way of “proving” that the thing we're deeming integral is better than the alleged non-integral thing.  “Integral” vs. “non-integral/less integral” can start to become like the distinction between the “virtuous” and the “sinners.”

Hierarchy alone is not enough to qualify our thinking or our preferences as “integral,” since hierarchy exists is part of most of the first-tier (all except green, really).  I'm not against hierarchy, but I object to hierarchical stances being asserted and defended as “integral,” when in reality they may come from much lower levels of the spiral (i.e., amber).  So for example, in that type of dynamic, I can assert that my personal beliefs (which may be based on partial evidence) are clearly superior and therefore integral, and justify my “better than” attitude by asserting that integral is hierarchical.  And if you don't like it, you must be green and therefore non-integral.  Whereas in reality, it could be that I'm just a narcissistic whose center of gravity is red, amber, orange, etc.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is true of you (I don't even know you), but I'm saying that a red flag goes up for me when I hear “integral” being used to endorse hierarchical thinking which may or may not actually come from a second-tier position.  And BTW, I don't have a strong position about the vegetarian issue, but I just think we need to be careful how we make our arguments for or against it.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Interesting dilemma this isn't it?

Tely said: I don't have a strong position about the vegetarian issue, but I just think we need to be careful how we make our arguments for or against it.

Yes, It seems e did have a strong argument for vegetarianism in this case. And he backed it up using very strong evidence, as a couple of people have pointed out. That ticks the 'careful' boxes in my world. The evidence makes all of us uncomfortable, but that's our issue and the beauty of it is for us - we are free to make our own informed choices on the matter of how to live that funkadelic little blesse'd life we've been dished out. I don't see the parallel here between an argument that raises emotive and sensitivity in folk, and a dictatorship that's telling people how to live.

As Integral is about 'integralising' and as such is a moving evolving chain of being,  shedding things that no longer serve us fundamentally  - lets take smoking as a little example, – you can of course transcend and include smoking, but if you continue doing it enough, it will then still probably kill you. The same goes for relationships and how we relate to others and understand ourselves, moving from things that cause regression and stunt grow, to things and ways that serve the whole person better, so for me - e's argument characterises a mere expansion of that - and what works for individuals will be what they decide of the slippery scale of things. His argument of course surrounds the death and killing of animals, degradation of the environment & the potential cost of human health (among other things), and they are facts none of us can escape, no matter what way we decide to inform our lifestyle choices.  As this isn't a religion (but I'le take the opportunity to praise krishna himself while I am here!:)), I see no sinners, so can't understand what the fuss is. Lets just imagine for a minute that it 'is' more integral not to eat meat, would that be the end of the world?
In some respects, I wonder if how we uphold our current identities using the term 'integral' is more important than the plain facts of a person presenting an emotive argument and backing it up with evidence….

We need to be able to still discuss these things.


Lisa

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Come on, Rick, “owning slaves” and “cannibalism”? Surely you can come up with less polemical analogies than that.

~G

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

David: What's particularly troubling to me is the attack on presenting evidence to back up his case, as if presenting evidence is somehow wrong because it might imply that someone isn't aware of it.

It's not presenting data that was annoying to me. It was presenting reams of data without really considering the primary audience here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of us here knew most of the facts e listed already, or enough of the facts that more facts just become redundant. In my opinion, it would have been more effective if e had presented just a few of the more salient points to support the AQAL-ness of the book and to encourage those who are interested to check it out in more detail on their own.

David: Ken has said […] “Green believes that the right not to get offended trumps the right to free speech,” and I think we are heading in that direction when we discourage people from making an unpopular case and presenting evidence for it. E has presented a reasonable opinion and backed it up with evidence—if we disagree it is our job to present an opposing view and also back it up evidence, rather than trying to silence him or leveling ad-hominen attacks.

It seems to me there's a contradiction or double-standard in here, David. Why is it OK for e and holden to offend non-vegetarians, but not for others to offend vegetarians? And to be honest, I didn't really see anything wrong with Arthur's Cohen quote. He wasn't saying that e was lost, necessarily. It was just a way of pointing out that focusing on whether someone eats meat or not is maybe not the way to go. Obviously, I can see why e would be offended by it, and maybe Arthur could have presented his case more effectively, but it's just an opinion, in the same way that saying vegetaranism is better is an opinion (certainly not an objective fact as Rick claims). From there, e went further down the slippery slope of exchanging offenses by claiming that Cohen was no longer vegetarian simply because he “failed”, thereby implying that all non-vegetarians are either failures or slackers.

So like I said, both sides of the debate have contributed to the deterioration of this discussion.

And actually, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of how the process should go. It shouldn't be a matter of presenting “opposing” opinions at all. It should be a matter of considering the perspective presented and then integrating that perspective with our own to come up with a more integral view. e presented all the facts and drew the conclusion, for him, that being vegetarian is better. Arthur was then attempting to add the perspective that vegetarianism may not be the best (or at least not the only) way of responding to e's data. The quote doesn't say that vegetarians are lost, just that focusing on vegetarianism as being somehow better may be misguided.

No one is saying that vegetarianism is bad or less integral. We're just being critical of the view that vegetarianism is somehow more integral than other forms of responsible eating.

~G

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Hi

Grey: That's all fine and good, Rick, but I'm still not seeing why the answer is necessarily “no meat” and not “much less meat”.

One of my favourite metaphors when working with people and organisations during change processes is that of ‘Islands of change'. It is very difficult and therefore less likely to be successful if you are trying to get from A to B where the distance between the two is large (lots of meat to no meat). An alternative strategy then is to create little islands or stepping stones between A and B to create movement and change which is more likely to stick and take more people with you.

I was vegetarian for a while. I'm married to a man who was brought up on meat and potatoes and had very little experience of vegetables other than carrots and cabbage. I have three boys who ‘hate' vegetables although the eldest has moderated his stance over the years. So rather than try to insist we eat no meat, we now have an agreement that 2 evening meals a week will be meat free. And the meat we eat is free range, organic. Slowly slowly.

Grey: It shouldn't be a matter of presenting “opposing” opinions at all. It should be a matter of considering the perspective presented and then integrating that perspective with our own to come up with a more integral view.

I think this is a really important point, otherwise we're each just barricading ourselves in our own castle.

I have read much of the data e presented in other places, starting with Anthony Robbins many years ago and each time it makes me pause and shift something. But equally I also consider the make up of our digestive tract which is suited to the diet of an omnivore and my own experience that my health is better when I include some meat. Etc. Every truth is partial, just one facet of the diamond that is life.

Lisa: I wonder if how we uphold our current identities using the term 'integral' is more important than the plain facts of a person presenting an emotive argument and backing it up with evidence….

I think this (underlined) is worth exploring - another thread maybe?

Juliee

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey: “That's all fine and good, Rick, but I'm still not seeing why the answer is necessarily “no meat” and not “much less meat”.”

Sure, of course you're right. Everything has to start somewhere. I ate less meat before I stopped. For about a year, before the choice, I would actually hide the meat, like fajitas in tortillas, the way we hide the reality of meat from ourselves in packaging. The facts are that vegetarianism will never be global overnight. You couldn't legislate it if you wanted to.
To consider such things enters into the realm of debating over fantasy, hypotheticals.
That's the thing. If people just started to eat less meat, there would be extreme benifits all around.
I'll be honest. When I'm in Japan, I'll sometimes eat sushi, because there is nothing else to eat as a vegetarian! There are no vegetarians in that society, other than monks.
But in the states, there's no reason to do such things. We always have to consider the reality of the things we want to do. 
If I order something, for example, and there's a little meat on it somewhere when I thought it came without meat, I'll eat it. They're just going to throw it away anyway. I'm not saying that we should toss out our ability to be pragmatic. My own wife eats meat!  She doesn't eat much, but I can't stop her from doing what she wants to do.


Grey: “Come on, Rick, “owning slaves” and “cannibalism”? Surely you can come up with less polemical analogies than that.”

There was a coffee analogy in there too… :^)
This is a matter of culture, not objective facts. At one time owning a slave was considered a personal choice if you could afford one, at other times it was only a matter of cost.
We now stigmatize this, as we stigmatize smoking, yet we only secretly stigmatize over eating and obesity.
Our information systems and their content are determined by our culture at the moment, and many things are hidden in the modern corporate, capitalist system. You're given the ability to buy and carry around bottled water, but aren't told that Americans use 60 million of those bottles a day and toss them out. There's nothing unethical about drinking water itself, so you can see how things explode at fractal rates in our society.
The same thing can be said about the meat you buy at the market or restaurant.  This ability to remain ignorant, or blind to what one does is the most serious threat to us today.
We can now have wars and not feel any effects of it in our personal lives!
The destruction of our oceans alone, is reason enough, but the reasons are many and none is small.

The issue here is the total lack of sacrifice in our daily lives to directly contribute to making the world a better place. Most of the people here live in liberal areas, and not South Texas like me, where being a vegetarian implies getting fucked with on occasion, but there's plenty of stuff to buy at the market now.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Rick (aka Sometimes Sushi Eater) –  ;-)

It's true that most of us walk around only dimly aware of what's on the other side of our purchasing choices … Clothing is probably the best example. Some, perhaps a lot, of what we wear is made by people who work in poor, even dangerous, conditions. If we're willing to seek out and pay higher prices for cruelty-free clothing – wonderful – but not everyone has the time or money for that. Slavery is allegedly illegal, but the materials that make up our computers and cell phones are often mined by “de facto” slaves in Africa. And unless we always buy organic produce and never eat in restaurants, we can never be sure that our fruits and vegetables are not picked by overworked and terribly underpaid –and harrassed and abused – migrants.

When your air is filled with pollution, it's hard not to breathe it.

Raising awareness and doing what we can when we can – I love Julie's mention of the “islands of change” – is probably our best current option.

That would also mean recognizing that while vegetarianism is the best choice for many, maybe even the majority, of people, it is not an option for everyone. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Years ago I was a vegetarian, but today I am a newly diagnosed diabetic (not really a surprise; it runs in my family) who is still learning about and sussing out the best way for me to eat – but thus far it looks like including lean, concentrated sources of protein, aka meat, is a better option for the kind of condition I'm in. Eating too much carbohydrate and too little protein makes my blood sugar go up, and I can also not rely totally on soy or dairy or gluten/seitan products for this protein.

There are so many considerations when it comes to food choices. I'm flashing now on the often-touted wisdom of eating lots of dark green veggies – they are excellent sources of vitamins, minerals, and fiber for most folks. Most, but not all. Some people who are on anticoagulant meds actually need to limit their intake of greens because it can cause bleeding problems …

And speaking of green: Isn't this where “good green” comes in? The sensitivity to the wide range of people in the world, some of whom have dietary needs that may be different than our own? Green is the stepping off point into the second tier, after all; certainly this sensitivity is something that we are to carry forward. 

I could kill to eat, although I certainly prefer paying others to do so…  Years ago we had a pet snake (um, the first and the last we'll ever have) whose diet consisted of live mice.  Live, that is, until the snake started having trouble killing them – we think he banged his head against the terrarium too many times going after the mouse, something that would never happen in the wild. At any rate, we started having to kill the mouse first before giving it to Raoul. With some practice it got really easy to do – one good slam against a wall, not too soft, not too hard … Early on I remember a couple of bad dreams about poisonous mice coming to get me, but that passed. Cattle would be a lot more challenging than mice, but if I had to I would learn how to kill (as painlessly as possible) so I could have meat.

Mary

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Mary said: What you write here comes off as “veganism is the way to eat to have a healthier planet.”

Mary, the book is about veganism. I can't change or mitigate that fact for you, nor your allergic reaction to it (if you are having one).

Can you please point out where I have said it is the way?

Grey said: Anyway, the whole situation was probably not handled in the best way by anyone involved. So can we move on to some other aspect of the debate now and stop debating whether vegetarianism is more integral or not?

Grey the book is about veganism. I said it was an integral applied lens on veganism. I did not say you have to be vegan to be integral. Do you get that? If Arthur would have talked to me simply in his own words and addressed that misuderstanding directly, none of this would have started. Now on the other hand I really don't see how anyone expects to be at 3rd tier without at least being a lacto-ovo vegetarian. ;-)

So if we assume that a mass conversion to vegetarianism isn't a viable, practicable solution, what might be? Sustainable farming? Buying local? Promoting significantly less meat consumption (with some sort of government support)? Something else?

Any effort with an eye to our collective problems is a step in the right direction and is to be supported and applauded. What John is promoting is a way to go as far as any one person can with their personal choices reaping personal health benefits along the way. If enough of us do this or get close to this or at least move in that direction, it cannot but help to have an effect on others. Although from the ruckus in this thread, I now have my doubts! :-)

En masse, government regulation seems to be the only way. Here in the US, to stop subsidizing the meat industry thereby letting the price of meat reflect the true cost (environmental, et al) would be the best way to go IMHO. The price of meat would rise and people would eat less of it. Interestingly, I saw a blurb on some TV show that had a government economist on who was responsible for starting the subsidization programs for the meat, dairy and farming industries back in the 50's. He felt the US rise as an economic power was due to the ability of keeping food cost low for the middle class. This led to the rise of industrial factory farming and… well… you can see the health benefits on the US population of cheap meat and dairy products from McDonalds.

So it is interesting that we feel entitled to eat cheap hamburgers. The rest of the world eats a far better balanced diet. I think Thailand has the lowest cancer rates per capita and they eat a modicum of meat in their food dishes. When someone in a position of power recognizes that correlation and begins to look less favorably on the meat and dairy industries, then things may change for the better for all involved in more ways than one. Kind of like the way most look on the tobacco industry. Let people smoke but tax it to reflect the true cost to society and educate people to the deleterious effects. I thought I saw some city out west was going to ban fast food restaurants or something like that recently.

–

Grey said: If we were to all of a sudden not eat any meat, then all those cows and chickens would still need a place to live and would probably continue multiplying and taking up even more space. Not eating any meat doesn't mean no cows harming the environment and taking precious land away from crops. It just means that cows would live longer and better. That helps cows, but doesn't particularly help anyone else as far as I can see.

No it means the people that raise those animals for money would not do that anymore. Their population would fall as demand for their flesh subsided. The land used for food for their raising could be used for other purposes or turned back into natural habitats for all those species that are on the brink of extinction from the loss of their habitat in the first place.

It's not presenting data that was annoying to me. It was presenting reams of data without really considering the primary audience here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of us here knew most of the facts e listed already, or enough of the facts that more facts just become redundant.

I have been a vegetarian for over 20 years and I did not know all of that data! I figured others were like me so I shared it. You did not have to waste your time reading it Grey.

In my opinion, it would have been more effective if e had presented just a few of the more salient points to support the AQAL-ness of the book and to encourage those who are interested to check it out in more detail on their own.

You know I wanted to do that but when I looked at the data, I thought it was all too important to omit. Again, you did not have to read it Grey. Did that data cost any of us valuable server space? How much do you want me to send you thru paypal for wasting your time?

From there, e went further down the slippery slope of exchanging offenses by claiming that Cohen was no longer vegetarian simply because he “failed”, thereby implying that all non-vegetarians are either failures or slackers.

Grey, Arthur posted a poem out of the blue to what I thought was a very innocuous post (all he had to do was straight up ask , “e, are you implying…?”). I had no idea what he implied and so I guessed at what the author of the poem wrote. He did not like my guess and started posting cartoons. Then I found I was correct in my guess by doing a web search. Funny how that works out huh? And you sure do read a lot into what people write. How do you know I implied that? I merely addressed the post. I was not implying it as a rule for humanity. You are reading a lot more into this whole thing that was not ever intended. BTW who was I offending by claiming Cohen was a failure at his vegetarianism. Are you related to Cohen? Or did you once try and so you identified with Cohen and so you thought I was attacking you? Funny how the mind works.

PS: Pelle, thanks for starting the Red Meat and Global warming thread. I probably would not have reviewed John Robbins latest work if you did not start that thread.

And Jane, thanks for your example of going vegan. I switched shortly after you posted that and have lost about 10 lbs in 2 months (almost at my fighting weight) and am sure I have lowered my cholesterol. I was borderline high the last time I had it checked. Now I am not 100% vegan, if we go out with friends for pizza or breakfast, I will have some cheese or eggs etc., my personal daily food choices are now vegan.

PPS Folks, I have been a vegetarian for over 20 years.  I learned a bunch of new info and was just sharing a perspective. As hard as it may be to believe for some of you here, I was not trying to force feed a perspective down your throat or trying to raise myself up by standing on your necks. Really!!

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

This current discussion isn't happening in a vacuum, e.  Back on the related Red Meat and Global Warming thread, you said some really offensive, condescending things to several people.  That's part of the context for people when they read this thread.   The way you present and argue your perspective is coming across to at least some people as arrogant, condescending, fundamentalist etc., but you don't seem able or willing to see that.  So be it.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I was wondering why someone who cannot be vegetarian would yammer on and on in a vegetarian thread. You are posting for retributions sake! In that case, I don't mind that you throw insults or ridicule me with cartoons. Get it all out buddy!! Maybe this will help too, if I knowing or unknowingly, real or imagined, harmed you, your family, your friends, your nation, your god, your belief structure, or you dinner in this or any other lifetime in any restaurant or realm, please accept my humblest apologies. Here, sit down, let me buy you a bucket of chicken wings. You can throw the bones at me until you feel better, OK? Let me know when you are over it so we can move on.

PS pass this Q on to RAM. How long should someone hold onto ill will for any real or imagined harm caused to them or their loved ones and how should one go about releasing that ill will? See if he approves of the chicken wing strategy.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

It's nice to see everyone talking together. Really!

Grey: It's not presenting data that was annoying to me. It was presenting reams of data without really considering the primary audience here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of us here knew most of the facts e listed already, or enough of the facts that more facts just become redundant.

Even if the vast majority of people knew all those statistics by heart there would still be a minority who didn't, so it still might be helpful for them. I don't think honest information is frequently any harm to anyone. But this information was unsettling for some people—I think that was what caused the reaction, but that's no reason to suppress it. If it's so unsettling, maybe that's a good reason it should be posted. That way people can really face the consequences of their actions and help bring their actions in line with their core beliefs as much as possible.

Grey: It seems to me there's a contradiction or double-standard in here, David. Why is it OK for e and holden to offend non-vegetarians, but not for others to offend vegetarians?

I don't think there's any double standard, and I don't believe that e or Holden said anything that was offensive by integral standards. By Green standards, yes—“How dare you suggest that there's something less than perfect about me and my eating habits! Don't you know that all truths are relative and that your truth could never be more true than my truth, which I alone can decide?”

We need to draw a careful distinction here. Rick and e made reasonable arguments backed up with sound evidence for the sake of the good, the true, and the beautiful. If someone has a different idea about the good, the true, and the beautiful, they may also state that idea, even if someone finds it offensive, and back it up with evidence. But that's not really what happened. It happened to a certain extent; people provided some other arguments, but in addition to that they leveled some ad-hominen attacks and employed some other techniques that are designed to silence people. That is offensive in an integral worldspace, while what e and Rick said would not be. Presenting an evidence-based argument (or an argument that could be backed up by evidence) for the sake of the good, the true, and the beautiful is not offensive in an integral worldspace even if it annoys someone's ego, but character attacks and silencing techniques are offensive by integral standards.

Grey: And to be honest, I didn't really see anything wrong with Arthur's Cohen quote. He wasn't saying that e was lost, necessarily.

I can't agree with this. It was an indirect snarky comment. Arthur was saying through Leonard Cohen that e was “lost.” Much better than leveling an indirect ad hominen like that is engaging the person and trying to explain why you think the person is “lost,” though it might not be skillful to use that word. If we don't have the time for that, then spare the person of the snarky comment, however indirect.

Grey: It's just an opinion, in the same way that saying vegetarianism is better is an opinion (certainly not an objective fact as Rick claims). From there, e went further down the slippery slope of exchanging offenses by claiming that Cohen was no longer vegetarian simply because he “failed”, thereby implying that all non-vegetarians are either failures or slackers.

Calling someone “lost” or “arrogant” or “holier than thou” are not transformative, intellectual arguments but ad-hominen attacks. I think there were some intellectual points in there as well that were intended to persuade—let's stick to those; let's keep it in the realm of ideas and stay away from the ad-hominen comments. The whole discussion goes downhill and gets far less interesting once people resort to the personal attacks.

Grey: And actually, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of how the process should go. It shouldn't be a matter of presenting “opposing” opinions at all. It should be a matter of considering the perspective presented and then integrating that perspective with our own to come up with a more integral view.

If we can go so far and do what you are saying, that's great. But my point was let's make sure we do the basics first: allowing unpopular, evidence-based views (or views capable of being backed up with evidence), even if they're offensive to some people, and keeping the discussion in the realm of ideas and out of the realm of personal comments and attacks. By all means, let's find common ground and go from there if we can. I think that's a skillful way to go.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Mary: Years ago I was a vegetarian, but today I am a newly diagnosed diabetic (not really a surprise; it runs in my family) who is still learning about and sussing out the best way for me to eat - but thus far it looks like including lean, concentrated sources of protein, aka meat, is a better option for the kind of condition I'm in. Eating too much carbohydrate and too little protein makes my blood sugar go up, and I can also not rely totally on soy or dairy or gluten/seitan products for this protein.

I think this is one very good reason why we shouldn't insist that everyone become a vegetarian. Not everyone will be able to become a vegetarian healthfully, and it's better in my book to kill some cows, chickens, and fish then let a human being live unhealthfully. Meat can play a role in healing or treating illnesses. This is well-recognized in Ayurveda, Tibetan, and Chinese medicine, which aren't strict about vegetarianism, however much they encourage it for some at times.

Some people are dealing with genetic predispositions that are basically out of their control. To force them to eat food that would make them unhealthy or to accuse them of being less ethical for eating them would be cruel. However, it is probably true that some of the people claiming this genetic predisposition don't really have it and that some of them could transition at least part way to a vegetarian diet if they wanted to. At the end of the day, we have to recognize that the Evolutionary Intelligence is in them as much as it is in us (though it might be at a lower or higher stage in “them”) and that they probably have a pretty good idea about what is good for them.
 
At the same time, our cultural context colors our thoughts an awful lot: if everyone is eating meat and no one is bringing the downside of it to our attention we are much more likely to think it is good for us. The more informed a person is, the better the evolutionary intelligence will be able to operate, though I really believe that we should trust our intuition about what is good for us over conventional wisdom, or unconventional wisdom for that matter.

That said, I think there are some positive effects of vegetarianism, and vegetarianism perhaps sometimes gets a bad rap by Western medicine. A scientist I have a lot of respect for, Paul Pitchford, says this in his great book Healing With Whole Foods: “When a low-fat diet based on complex carbohydrates such as unrefined grains, vegetables, and legumes is followed for several weeks, approximately 80% of diabetics can stop taking insulin and diabetic pills altogether, and the remaining 20% can reduce their intake.” (Page 331, and he gives citations.) That said, though his book promotes vegetarianism and veganism, he goes on to list several specific meats used in the treatment of diabetes (the list of meats used is smaller for what he calls “excess-type diabetes”). I'm not offering that as advice to you, just to show that there are different opinions about vegetarianism and healing and such.

Mary: I could kill to eat, although I certainly prefer paying others to do so.

It was fun reading your snake and mice story, Mary. Do you remember Treya Wilber's scheme for deciding what she could eat? She thought if she could kill it, she could eat it, but if she couldn't eat it, she couldn't eat it. So could she kill a shrimp? Yes, so she can eat shrimp. A chicken? A little more difficult, but yes she could kill a chicken, so she could eat it. A cow? Apparently she had a hard time killing a cow, so she couldn't eat cows. It's an interesting way to look at it.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I think it’s important to distinguish between vegetarian and vegan, and you’ve kind of thrown these terms together, David.

I wasn’t going to bring this up, because there are more important things being discussed. But vegetarians who eat conventional milk products and eggs are not really “vegetarian.” They’re just promoting the torture of animals instead of their outright death. And, in fact, it’s interesting that the products of female animals, milk and aggs, are deemed by vegetarians not to be offensive. Dairy cows are imprisoned, and chickens aren’t even allowed to sleep, so that they can produce eggs 24 hours/day.

So it really does matter, if you’re eating animal products, where they’re coming from. Free-range, sustainably-harvested food is the way to go, if you can afford it. If not, you’re better off vegan.

Me, I’m stuck with the expensive stuff.

Liz

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Good point Liz, I buy only soy milk, and a premium for free-range/organic eggs, but there's nothing I can do about the milk or eggs in bread.  I tried going vegan for about a week. I was hungry for about a week.
Again, we should do what we can. I did a lot of damage to my body when I was younger, because I was 13 when I became a vegetarian and had never met another one or knew how to eat.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Yeah, one factoid from John's book (sorry Arthur & Grey) was crucial in me trying to get off eggs (we also bought free range, etc.). For all the female hens that lay eggs, what do you think they do with the male chicks that are useless as layers or broilers? Warning *** stop here if you are upset by gruesome details****. They throw them alive into a grinder and feed them back to the chickens. I can't remember the number but yearly it is between a million and a billion here in the US alone . What a mad world we live in! I looked at the label on the pumpernickel bread we buy from this Polish bakery, it has no eggs but does have milk. My wife switched to using bananas instead of eggs for her baked goods.


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Arthur: This current discussion isn't happening in a vacuum, e.  Back on the related Red Meat and Global Warming thread, you said some really offensive, condescending things to several people.

It's really not fair to go back three months and say, “You were a offensive then, too!” Is that how you would like to be treated? We could go back a month or two and find snarky comments you made as well. People are growing and evolving very quickly here, so I don't think it's fair to dig back like that. Also, it's tantamount to an ad-hominen attack when we make very generalized accusations that a person can't respond to. “You've been offensive an awful lot around here!” That's just an ad-hominen attack. At the very least bring up something specific in that 49-post, three-month-old thread that he could respond to, but I would say better to focus on what is happening now and realize people are trying very hard to come off as evolved as they can. Very generalized accusations like that tend to be power plays and scapegoating.

Arthur: The way you present and argue your perspective is coming across to at least some people as arrogant, condescending, fundamentalist etc., but you don't seem able or willing to see that.

You've thrown the accusation “arrogant” around so much … Have you heard Ken say that integral will always look arrogant to Green? I mention that because many times you have thrown out the charge of “arrogant” at someone simply for arguing that one thing is more integral than another or suggesting that maybe they know something that some other people don't, and that's a recipe for stagnation. It could create a culture where people hesitate to say that one thing is more integral or more evolved than another or where people hesitate to speak their minds or show that they know more than other people about something, or bring out evidence that shows that someone is saying something that isn't true. If we can't say, for example, that one thing is more integral than another then we simply cannot have an integral discussion. Living in an integral worldspace requires that each of us simply witness a lot of feeling-offended reactions within us without acting on them or trying to suppress whatever it was that offended us. But the energy in those feelings can be transmuted into clairity and evolutionary arguments (sans the personal attacks).


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

David: You've thrown the accusation “arrogant” around so much … Have you heard Ken say that integral will always look arrogant to Green?

~

Sure.  I've also heard that turquoise can look green to teal, David.  :)

You quote Sean Hargens as saying,  “A lot of the people that like the integral model are not integral. There's a lot of people who have not stabilized second tier awareness in the self-identity line who love the integral model, who are proponents of the integral model.”

You may be under the impression that I claim to have stable second-tier awareness in the self-identity line (or values, or interpersonal, or emotional, or…) - I make no such claim (as I have noted numerous times in the last few years).  I do claim to have some degree of second-tier awareness in the cognitive line, otherwise I wouldn't care about this stuff at all. 
Beyond that?  I'm wherever I am, and work on developing further by diverse means.

Your feedback is duly noted.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Liz: I think it's important to distinguish between vegetarian and vegan.

Yes, I think so, too. That's a good point. Let's make a list of all the different kinds of vegetarianism.

1. Pescatarian (also spelled pescetarian)

2. Flexitarian/Semi-vegetarian

3. Vegetarian (Lacto-ovo- vegetarian)

Lacto-vegetarian is used to describe a vegetarian who does not eat eggs, but does eat dairy products.

Ovo-vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat or dairy products but do eat eggs.

4. Vegan

Vegans do not eat meat of any kind and also do not eat eggs, dairy products, or processed foods containing these or other animal-derived ingredients such as gelatin. Many vegans also refrain from eating foods that are made using animal products that may not contain animal products in the finished process, such as sugar and some wines. There is some debate as to whether certain foods, such as honey, fit into a vegan diet.

5. Raw vegan/Raw food diet

A raw vegan diet consists of unprocessed vegan foods that have not been heated above 115 degrees Fahrenheit (46 degrees Celsius). “Raw foodists” believe that foods cooked above this temperature have lost a significant amount of their nutritional value and are harmful to the body.

6. Macrobiotic

The macrobiotic diet, revered by some for its healthy and healing qualities, includes unprocessed vegan foods, such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and allows the occasional consumption of fish. Sugar and refined oils are avoided. Perhaps the most unique qualifier of the macrobiotic diet is its emphasis on the consumption of Asian vegetables, such as daikon, and sea vegetables, such as seaweed. 

And then there are beefatarians. They eat vegetables and beef.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Hi Arthur—

You quote Sean Hargens as saying …

I edited that out.


Sure.  I've also heard that turquoise can look green to teal, David.  :)

I think that's true. Turquoise can also look Amber and Magenta to Teal. Green can look Red to Amber. Green looks wimpy to Orange, and Amber probably, and Red. Indigo can look Teal to Turquoise. Indigo can look Amber and Magenta to Teal. Teal can look Orange to Green. Turquoise can look Amber to Green.

I admire the way you respond in these situations. It is humbling. And that means it is evolutionary, of course.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Dave: “I think that's true. Turquoise can also look Amber and Magenta to Teal. Green can look Red to Amber. Green looks wimpy to Orange, and Amber probably, and Red. Indigo can look Teal to Turquoise. Indigo can look Amber and Magenta to Teal. Teal can look Orange to Green. Turquoise can look Amber to Green.”

Holy shit! All I know is that yellow and blue make green!

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I love how this thread has grooved into goodness through some heavy waves of understanding and disagreement. Fantastico maximo! Alas, we are getting somewhere.

Lisa

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Arthur and I are off to the conference this morning. I shouldn't even be on here! But I wanted to say goodbye for a few days, as I'm not sure how much time he or I will be spending online.

Love to all of you. Namaste,

Liz

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

wheeeeeee!  Off to the conference shortly. 

All of this is great for my long and winding road of trance-formation and a-weakining.  :)   Holding it lightly…

After all the invigorating discussion, it's time to reveal the Ultimate Integral Diet - the AQAL breakfast of champions! 



love2all,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Thought the data could use another perspective… just to show that it's not all as clear cut as it might appear (from Worldchanging.com).

=========

Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming?

by Jay Walljasper

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

From the article:

“But what about the argument that meat-eating is a major cause of global warming due to massive emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from livestock operations? John Wicks answers immediately and forcefully, “That's absolutely correct about feedlots and absolutely wrong about grass-fed livestock. Sustainably-raised grass-fed beef is a natural system and the methane and other greenhouse gases are mitigated by the carbon sequestration in the soil. We see this as a way to phase out feedlots.” Collins adds that nitrous oxides are in huge part the product of chemical fertilizers, which don't make any sense in a farming system based on restoring the soil and halting global warming.”

OK so he is saying we can ignore the methane because they have helped reduce carbon? Methane from cows is more problematic then auto emissions!

Here are a few obvious LR issues (if you read John's book) this “solution” ignores. It does not address the water usage issue. Look at the stats on how much water it takes to grow a pound of beef. Also, this theory and model assumes the demand for beef will remain static. China and other 3rd world countries are becoming affluent and the demand for beef will probably double or more! In this global economy, they will look to other nations to fill that need. How will the world create more beef? Via deforestation. So will Brazil have to deforest more of the Amazon in order to free range feed cattle from cradle to belly? You betcha. This is a sustainable idea?! Did you know that 10,000 species of plants and animals are decimated for every acre of deforested rainforest? So this appears “sustainable” for humans and cattle only ignoring the extinction of species (so much for bio-diversity) and more manmade droughts worldwide.

“If the solution to global warming involves large herds of hoofed animals moving through landscape in ways that take carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil, we can do that.”

So you can do that only via deforestation (kinda ironic that you will have to deforest rainforests, the greatest carbon sinks, in order to seed grasslands. The release in carbon from deforestation is huge btw) and if we have an unlimited water source and if demand in industrialized nations does not increase and if the world's population does not grow. Sound sustainable to you? Do you find it ironic that this “sustainability” is coming from cattle and dairy farmers? Forgive me if I remain skeptical. Read the comments to the article for more info if you feel I am arguing like an arrogant fundamentalist.

Thanks for at least trying to address the content of the thread Grey!


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: Thanks for at least trying to address the content of the thread Grey!

No comment… :(

~G

P.S. So how about kangaroos? (”Eat kangaroos to 'save the planet'”)

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Kanga-funkin-roos!! LOL This is what Obama must feel like looking at McCain attack ads!!

Why not ride them and sleep in their pouch too… to save oil and heating gas? :-)

You're funny Grey!!

love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: This is what Obama must feel like looking at McCain attack ads!!

Huh?  Either you're comparing yourself to Obama and me to McCain or I'm not getting the point of this whole post of yours.


~G

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

On e's comments to grey:

This is one of the great problems with some of the social sciences like economics, which informs and creates the neoliberal rationality of ecology when dealing with sustainability theory.  These people almost always fit reality into their platonic, linear systems and theories, simply because they have no other way of understanding them systematically. This is just like a drunk looking under a street lamp for his keys “because the light's better there.”

Ecological systems are in constant flux and change dramatically, with or without our input. We really have little understanding of how many droughts would have happened or species killed due to our input or without us.

Orange science still rules the day for most people and the environment, even while most ecologists have moved on.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I haven't kept up with this thread - and I have neither time nor, to be honest, much interest in doing so - but as it happens I just got a mass-email from Saul Williams that included something highly relevant, which I will drop into this thread for your y'alls edification and/or delight.

I will also reiterate that: I love animals and feel they deserve to be treated compassionately; I  have a physiological need to eat meat, and when forced by circumstances to eat less of it, I'm  less healthy; a lot more people need to eat a lot less meat, especially as it is currently produced; and I'm looking forward to mass-production of meat grown in vats powered by non-carbon-based energy sources, so that I can dine on tissue cultures rather than animals.  I've looked into these issues and thought/felt into them a lot, and will continue to do so; I have held and do hold a number of (sometimes contradictory) perspectives on these issues and my approach to this stuff continues to evolve - as I trust is the case with others who have participated in this thread.  I believe that those embodying “integral” perspectives or “spiritual” values can validly disagree on these issues - in other words I do not believe there is any one right “integral” or “spiritual” answer to these issues, though there are positions which I believe are deeper, or more true, or more inclusive.

That said, here's “Niggy Tardust”/Saul Williams' rather strong pro-vegan statement - it'll have to do for now, until he tells us what he really thinks:

While sitting on a plane, on my way back from Lollapalooza, reading Thanking The Monkey by Karen Dawn, it struck me that this was the second awesomely inspiring and informative book I was reading this summer without sharing my thanks by spreading the word. I am sometimes hesitant about making a big deal about my vegan diet, as I have considered it a personal choice worth little discussion. Yet more and more, I have found myself attempting to encourage people who ask me where I find my inspiration, or what issues do I find important, or how can we curb warfare and violence to consider what we ingest. A story was recently recounted to me of a popular TV chef who chose to raise little piglets on his show to insure that they were fed organic food and not injected with chemicals (as is the practice on most factory farms), all for the sake of fattening them up for their slaughter and another primetime recipe. Yet, the time that this chef spent with these pigs taught him a valuable lesson (more valuable for the pigs, no doubt). What he learned was how intelligent pigs are. In fact, in recent times, it is common knowledge for most that pigs are arguably more intelligent than “mans best friend” and companion, the dog. For our chef, this meant switching gears and realizing that he could not consciously kill this intelligent animal, that it would constitute a murder as brutal as slicing your fluffy pets neck and watching it writhe and bleed to death, or sticking an electric prod up its ass and electrocuting it, if the fur or skin is of value…

It may seem like I have just taken a turn to the graphically extreme, I wouldn't want to make you “lose your lunch”, but these are the common practices perpetuated by the factory farm industry on millions of animals a day, in the name of your breakfast lunch and dinner. And, no, I'm not simply talking about pigs, but also cows, chickens, turkey, horses (that's right horses. Everyday), and fish. Everyday, our species participates in the mass genocide of other species without care or concern or even questioning whether the violence that we ingest and condone plays any role in our apathetic support of the war machine we have become. How is it that we as human beings can represent both the highest and most developed and lowest and least concerned forms of intelligence of any living species? Are we simply glued to age-old barbaric traditions that cloud our senses and render us inhumane in our dependence on comfort foods and practices? Is our dependence on foreign oil the only thing we need to curb? What about not so foreign species?

Some might argue that artists are a race or species apart from the common person. Yet we all identify with the teachings of Gandhi, the genius of Einstein, the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, Picasso, Rembrandt and the talent and compassion of living artists like Alice Walker, Will Smith, The Mars Volta, Dead Prez, Prince and countless others. Some of us choose to emulate their styles, their fashion, their career choices, but why not their diets? If our brightest most celebrated stars all have this one thing in common why are we so slow in connecting the dots for ourselves? Perhaps the biggest issue at hand is not what our cars run on, but essentially what do we run on? The fact is that factory farms are the number one users of crude oil, not cars. That's basically what it takes to kill approximately one million chickens per hour (just in the US). More than half of our water supply goes to feed animals being fattened for slaughter. The methane gases that contribute to global warming are produced majorly by cow farts in factory farms, not to mention the amount of fossil fuels needed to create just one pound of beef.

Yep. You doing the math? Basically if we shifted our compassion towards animals, the domino effect would heal the planet. We'd no longer be cutting down rain forests to create more space for cows to graze, we'd stop depleting the ocean of the necessary (keyword: necessary) food chains that our eco system depends on, diseases including many cancers, heart disease, obesity, and others which find their root in the food/toxins we ingest would slowly disappear as would our taste for violence.

Which brings me to the other book I read this summer that inspired me to reevaluate every aspect of what I've been taught through the news and media, especially concerning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That book is The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

So what are you reading?

I know what you should be listening to,

Niggy.

~~~

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Ecological systems are in constant flux and change dramatically, with or without our input. We really have little understanding of how many droughts would have happened or species killed due to our input or without us.

OK I did not imply drought like rain from the sky but rivers drying up. The Colorado river is drying at it's delta. At first they thought it was the demands placed from large cities like LA that were causing this. Then they looked at flows and began to see where the river was falling before it even came to be used by large cities and they found that the water was being diverted to farms and ranches for food for cattle and for cattle directly along the way from the Rockies to the ocean. They calculated the usages and showed the flows decreased because of this.

With that said, there was a real good show on Nova about climate change recently and these climatologists showed how the droughts in Ethiopia about 20 years ago were indeed due to climate change i.e. green house gas and pollution (particulates in the air). They showed the droughts were man made. Of course they showed this with computer modeling based on climate and pollution data, etc, as there is no way to build a lab to test their hypothesis.

They are estimating that the Ganges and the Yangtze will run dry half the year after the Himalaya glaciers melt. This will happen in this century!  This is a direct result of man's influence on the environment. These are some of the largest rivers in the world in the most populated countries i.e. a lot of people depend on them!!!

Bon appetite!

love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

It wasn't a critique of what you wrote e, I was saying that one cannot, with any credibility, make accurate, long-term predictions into the future of such dynamic systems. So the article about cows that Grey posted, which left out a great deal of information to fit into a neat theory, was being critiqued.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Well, on that note, I'll be bowing out of this discussion as it's lost all interest for me. Well done, men.

In light of the recent update to the Pod's vision and guidelines (the ”Integral Pod Transformative Practice”), though, I thought I'd point out that “Highest Self” does not equate with “smartest self” or “best-debater self” or “more-integral-than-you self” or whatever. This Pod should be about growing together, learning from each other, and supporting each other in our ongoing transformation, not about trying to come out on top of the latest debate.

So next time we're faced with a topic like this one, why don't we try to focus on what's good about the various perspectives presented (development through the stages is all about expansion in perspectives after all), rather than trying mostly to poke holes in and reject any views that contradict our own, alright? I like a healthy debate as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't place this one real high on the health scale. And we've all played a part in that, I'm sure.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey said:
This Pod should be about growing together, learning from each other, and supporting each other in our ongoing transformation, not about trying to come out on top of the latest debate.

I hail that comment. And in order to do that, we need to stay with the discussion surely? Otherwise how do we ever move on, up and learn to get it right with each other? (to Y'all who are thinking about taking a holiday from this interesting and important thread).  Could it be possible that this is the most important time to stay with it?

Lisa
(in pondering mode & feeling like Gandhi's sidekick:))

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

In light of the recent update to the Pod's vision and guidelines (the ”Integral Pod Transformative Practice”), though, I thought I'd point out that “Highest Self” does not equate with “smartest self” or “best-debater self.”

I think this is certainly true much of the time, but it seems to me that it leans a little toward the feminine value sphere. Maybe you meant to say “does not necessarily equate with 'smartest self'”? Sometimes it is necessary or evolutionary to come from “smartest self,” for the we-space to look into what is “true” or “most true.” “Smartest self” also needs to get some exercise once and awhile. Of course, we make a mistake when we do that at the wrong time. But if we say that “highest self” does not equate with “smartest self” or “best-debater self” we end up with the situation Rick described in the army where people play dumb. This also happens in feminine-heavy worldspaces: people continually play dumb for the sake of communion. But that inhibits a particular kind of verticality. The right balance is what we need. I understand that you want to push it more toward supportive, Grey, and I think that is fine, but I just want to make sure we don't throw the dishes out with the dishwater.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

David, I doubt that a lack of masculine energy will ever be a problem for the Pod. I'm just pushing for more balance, which we very much need.

Also, I purposely wrote “Highest Self” in caps and “smartest self” (and all the others) in lower case, so of course the former will “include” the latter, but it will never “equate” with it. Yes, intellect is important, but what I've mostly seen in this thread is a plssing contest to see who can get the most facts right or otherwise be declared “the winner”. What we want here is smarts with compassion, more integration of perspectives and less competition to come out on top.

So yes (to Lisa's point, which is well taken despite what I'm about to say), as long as the discussion continues in this vein, I'll not be participating any longer. If I see some shift towards a greater inclusiveness of perspectives, then I may indeed come back to the thread.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey: “So next time we're faced with a topic like this one, why don't we try to focus on what's good about the various perspectives presented (development through the stages is all about expansion in perspectives after all), rather than trying mostly to poke holes in and reject any views that contradict our own, alright? I like a healthy debate as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't place this one real high on the health scale. And we've all played a part in that, I'm sure.”

You'll have to forgive me, as a current academic, I'm used to putting out ideas and having others pick them apart. That is how we arrive and more sound science and understanding. It isn't done out of spite, but out of empathy, because we all do it and want each other to be successful.  Better to be critiqued by friends in a closed environment then after you put your ideas out there to a wider audience, no?

Huh, first Zen halls, then academia. No wonder I'm even considered insensitive in the Army!

I don't want to come off as either patronizing or disrespectfull, because I respect everyone here. I've always had trouble with this balance. Something I need to continue working on.

Besides, I wasn't critiquing you as a person Grey, but the ideas in an article that you posted.

rick

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Rick: as a current academic, I'm used to putting out ideas and having others pick them apart. That is how we arrive and more sound science and understanding. […]  Better to be critiqued by friends in a closed environment then after you put your ideas out there to a wider audience, no?

Sure, but try to remember that here we aren't in an academic setting, so while peer review may, indeed, be a (small?) part of the process here at times, there are many more reasons that people participate in the community. Not to mention the fact that I'm not sure the traditional academic peer review process is all that integral, but that's a topic for a whole thread of its own.

We should all also keep in mind that this isn't really a “closed environment” since Pod discussion can be (and is) read by non-members, too. So we should try to set a good Integral example for that audience, too.

Rick: I wasn't critiquing you as a person Grey, but the ideas in an article that you posted.

I realize that, but I didn't post the article for it to be critiqued. I posted it simply to offer another perspective to be integrated: the fact that kangaroos don't emit methane as a part of their digestive process. Which is the same reason that I posted the article about the cows, simply to offer the perspective that promoting pasture land could serve to capture CO2. So in neither case did I think either of the articles had “the” answer to the world's problems, just possibly a valid perspective to be included in a more integral solution.

Instead, you and e poked holes in the articles and essentially rejected them in their entirety. That's the kind of thing I'm walking away from in this thread, not any personal attacks (although I'm still none too crazy about that McCain analogy of e's…).

Anyway, I am glad to see that you realize you have areas you need to work on. :)

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey: Instead, you and e poked holes in the articles and essentially rejected them in their entirety.

You looking for yes men? You presented a perspective which did not jibe with my understanding. How can I “embrace” it? The perspective was partial. It only focused on global warming and ignored other pertinent issues. What is the harm in raising the other issues to see if the perspective holds up under scrutiny?

That's the kind of thing I'm walking away from in this thread, not any personal attacks (although I'm still none too crazy about that McCain analogy of e's…).

I meant the absurdity of it. You know, McCain's ads are comparing Obama to Paris Hilton.

Obama would look at them and go, “WTF, is this all you got”?

Were you serious Grey?! I'm sorry buddy, I thought you were kidding around about the kangaroos! In that case, the methane issue would be mitigated but I don't see the water or land issue being mitigated. You would need to see how many acres they need for food and to live. I guess you could put them in stalls like they do with veal calves. But that sure would suck for them. Probably have a lot of hard selling to do. I am not sure you could convince Americans en masse to eat cuddly looking kangaroos. I am pretty sure the Chinese would eat them, they eat anything. I doubt most Indians would eat them.         

Rick : It wasn't a critique of what you wrote e, I was saying that one cannot, with any credibility, make accurate, long-term predictions into the future of such dynamic systems.

Oh I see Rick, it was not about ME (maybe Arthur's participation here in this thread has rubbed off on me :-) ). Yeah I get what you are saying. Even in that Nova program, climatologists were just getting their models to account for what happened and not what was going to happen. But the important thing they have right is they are looking from the right perspective i.e. global. For us, once we get the global “facts” then it is up to each to let those “facts” have import in our lives. Can this help to transition to 3rd tier? Where a Global (non-anthropomorphic) awareness becomes the “personal” basis of action? The Global is seen not to be somewhere “out there” but “in here”. That is, the Global is allowed to run roughshod over our personal desires (to use an old Texas vernacular).


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: You presented a perspective which did not jibe with my understanding. How can I “embrace” it? The perspective was partial.

Of course it was partial. Yours, too, is only partial, which is why I presented a couple of other perspectives for discussion and consideration. And isn't the point of a transformative practice to learn to embrace ever-increasing levels of perspective?  If something doesn't jibe with your current understanding, why not try to see why that is, rather than rejecting the other perspective simply because it doesn't fit your current worldview?

Make an effort to embrace it. Don't just assume it must be worthless. If you don't see the value in a perspective, engage the person presenting it by asking them for more details or more of their thoughts. Make sure you understand what the person is trying to say before you just assume that your understanding is superior.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey I am not a mind reader. You did not post ANYTHING of what YOU THOUGHT. You posted someone else's perspective. I read it, I digested it and replied back addressing the gist of the argument the well meaning cattle ranchers posited. (Still nothing of substance from you Grey.)

Here is what I said in response to the cattle carbon theory.

OK so he is saying we can ignore the methane because they have helped reduce carbon? Methane from cows is more problematic then auto emissions!

No direct response from you. Instead you post solution #2 about Kangaroos. From that article, here is what they said about methane from the very get go.

“The methane gas produced by sheep and cows through belching and flatulence is more potent than carbon dioxide in the damage it can cause to the environment.”

So connect the dots. The cattle guys say the carbon mitigates the methane. According to the kangaroo expert that is hogwash.

Also from this article on methane and farming etc.

“Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in the list of greenhouse gases. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it's 21 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 (a fact that can be attributed to the larger size of CH4 molecules). The six million tons of methane that North American cows burp annually are equivalent to 36 million tons of carbon dioxide.”

So, how do you suggest I embrace the cattle carbon theory and integrate it without losing IQ points? The point I was making about being partial was that this solution is a boutique solution, not a global solution. It addresses what a small eco-conscious cattle rancher with enough land can do to make himself feel good and not feel helpless. But the solution is partial in its scope. It does not address the land or water use issues and in a way acerbates them by giving a false sense of accomplishment as it will use more than less land to free range feed cattle to fulfill growing worldwide demand. We have a limited amount of forests to deforest you know! The rancher is not taking the view from 10,000 feet but from the ranch and so is not addressing and integrating the other issues involved.


love

e

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

e: So, how do you suggest I embrace the cattle carbon theory and integrate it without losing IQ points?

~

I don't think anyone here needs to lose IQ points; however, an increase in emotional and social intelligence on the part of some participants would certainly be helpful.

If you're out to win an argument, you've already lost integral perspective. 

At the recent Biennial conference, a few of the participants on the  global warming and sustainability panel  encouraged people to do a perspectival exercise of really embodying certain extreme viewpoints, including: global warming is not happening.  Some audience members were really triggered by that, and let them know it in the Q&A part in no uncertain terms.  I also find that a disturbing, but also very thought-provoking and useful exercise.  The idea, as I understand it, is that if you are attached to any polarized perspective, then you can't operate with the freedom and flexibility you need to embody a truly integral appoach to - in this case - climate change.  So you try on - fully, deeply go into - as many perspectives as you can, especially those you react strongly against.

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

OK, one more for the road…

Happy pondering!

~G

=====

Everybody Eats: The Unifying Power of Food

WorldChanging Team
August 13, 2008 2:18 PM

By Sharon Hoyer

There probably isn’t a single issue of sustainability and health that consistently strikes as passionate a chord as the production, distribution and preparation of food. It makes sense—what we take into our bodies is a very tangible part of our constitution; if we truly are what we eat, than what we choose to eat sends a powerful message about our relationship with the world.

Perhaps this is why the food movement so successfully unites people from all hues of the political spectrum. Case in point: the cover of last month’s American Conservative was a treatise on how food movements like Locavorism and Slow Food exemplify conservative values.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey: Odd that the topic should have divided an Integral bunch like us, eh?

~

Strangely, I don't feel divided at all - I see various degrees of value in all of the perspectives that have been shared here, and hold them all with both joyful equanimity and discerning wisdom.  (How's that for a 'more-integral-than-thou' comment?  hehehe)  Now, off to bask in the glow of my own AQAL halo…

lqoi [laughing quietly on the inside],
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Yeah, I don't feel particularly divided, either, not as a community as whole at least. I'm not sure we're entirely united in this thread, though. That's mostly what I was trying to say.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

and because this thread is the oddest conversation about lifestyle choices and food intake I have ever encountered (even with Raw food fundies)

I would like to know why David started the masc/fem theme?  Just because things were already polemic?

I think this is certainly true much of the time, but it seems to me that it leans a little toward the feminine value sphere.

It just struck me as odd and unecessary.  Why bring gender laden vocabulary into this conversation?  Conversations about masculine and feminine style of communication are charged even when discussing the specifics of that topic let alone lobbing it into something completely unrelated 


(kinda like this)

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Gina, when people around here say “masculine” they are generally referring to agency, and when they say “feminine” they are generally referring to communion. Try not to think of it as “gender-laden vocabulary.”

We're talking about more than styles of communication as well; we're talking about value spheres, interests, direction, etc. If you still wonder why, try re-reading the posts.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Hey David,

I am really clear about what masc/fem qualities are referred to, thanks.  Why not use agency and communion?

and I don't have to re-read the post to understand what you were saying and it still doesn't keep me from wanting to ask the question.

Not questioning content, moreover, context.

Thanks

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

I'm not sure they're entirely interchangeable. I think we need both; I'm not sure it's right to head in the direction of genderless language. I think there is value in gender-inclusive language, but second-wave feminism went too far with it, I believe.

While men can, of course, engage in communion as well as women in most fields and women can engage in agency as well as men in most fields, I think it's still much more likely to find men who live for agency and women who live for communion. This is why agency at times is a men's-rights issue; hence, the “gender-laden vocabulary.”  :) I don't think many women, for example, have ever felt there wasn't enough agency in the pod while some men have felt that way at times.

As you point out in your other thread, postmodernism tends to be heavy on communion (I think it's a bit of a mistake to characterize postmodernism entirely that way, however; what about Green activism?), and this is the culture we are all coming out of. Integral will integrate a bit more agency than we are used to or think is socially acceptable. But often agency has been found to be unacceptable. Sometimes that has been correct—when it wasn't integral agency or masculinity but modern or premodern)—but sometimes it has simply been because people are just used to the postmodern balance, which is very heavy in communion.


David

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Grey also tends to use masc./fem, Gina; I think that was another reason I chose that word.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

As if this discussion wasn't already enough of a multilayered mess, let me throw in my two cents' worth about this masculine/feminine issue.  It doesn't seem to me that the styles of discourse here are really about masculine/feminine or agency/communion.  To me, it seems more of a matter of a yes-based way of approaching the discussion vs. a no-based way.  Certainly one could say that “yes” correlates with communion, but I'm not sure that “no” really correlates with agency (at least not mature agency).

Another way of looking at this could be that “yes” is “and,” and “no” is “or.”  My understanding of integral is that it's a yes-based framework.  One could argue, of course, that integral theory includes hierarchy, but when the concept of hierarchy is used to rationalize a no-based approach to a topic, I don't think that's integral/2nd-tier thinking/relating – I think that's unhealthy red or orange.

I'm not saying that I think 2nd tier doesn't include “no” – just that it doesn't define itself through “no.”  And it may hold certain truths as being more “true,” but even in its use of “no,” it's inclusive, rather than self-righteous, in its positionality.

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Those are some really great meta-distinctions Tely. As integral practitioners we ought (oughtn't we?) to be able to hold the yes-based framework in and with the “debater self” the “smartest self” ect. When participating in a debate which obvious has a great deal of who and how we see ourselves tied up with it (which I think an issue like food intake indeed has) we  still  probably ought to be reaching to include the others perspective to surrender to it (with ones discriminating wisdom intact) to allow the potential of our “stupidest self” to shine through, as we may have been committing a great blunder of ignorance in the past and through this surrender we see anew.

This actually is an issue I have personally been struggling a little with. I have been a vegetarian now for more years than not, and growing into the integral walk (plus talk) has me re-evaluate my position (my vegetarianism has put me in numerous awkward positions - at one point being a vegetarian fisherman (a lacto-oval thus, i did not eat fish ~ certainly strange). I probably will remain a vegetarian but do appreciate wider embraces of perspectives on this issue.  Just wanted to chime in as I felt resonation with Tely's observation (and despite the hurt feelings by some still found the dialectic intriguing).

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Honestly, I would really like to see no more references to “hurt feelings.” The issue of whether or not people are behaving in an appropriate way on this thread is far more important than that phrase implies, and I don't think anyone has actually claimed that their own feelings have been “hurt.” Let's get away from projecting what is in others' interiors.

Liz

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Liz, when someone presents information which is later criticized on certain points, and the person says they don't want to participate, because the information they provided was criticized in a way that is common to this site, i.e., happens to everyone, everyday, then that person is acting in bad faith because they got their feelings hurt.
Here is an example of someone personally attacking someone else:

Hawkeye posts something about Eckart Tolle, to which I ask for clarification, and to which Balder replies:

“Well, if Hank, the Bible Answer Man, endorses this refutation of Tolle, it must be true!”

That is obviously directed at the man himself and not just to ideas presented by the third party. Even I thought that was cold shit.
So our measure of inappropriate behavior now is whether someone complains, justified or not? We've even gotten passed this uber P.C. crisis in the corporate world. I thought we'd be above that.

Here Grey was just whinning, and said he didn't want to be a part of the discussion anymore. My reaction was, “ok, have a good day.”  There are many discussions here that I don't at all feel a need to participate in, perhaps they should conform to me.
Another example:

“e: So, how do you suggest I embrace the cattle carbon theory and integrate it without losing IQ points?

~

I don't think anyone here needs to lose IQ points; however, an increase in emotional and social intelligence on the part of some participants would certainly be helpful.

If you're out to win an argument, you've already lost integral perspective.  ”

This is a redirecting away from the argument and making it about us, specifically himself being the rational, mature, empathetic subject, while e and myself are painted as people who seriously need to work on our people skills. That is a classic manipulation and pursuation technique. So much so that it has a name from the classic, “Mohawk Valley Formula.” Google it.
So we can play these games or discuss the pros and cons of eating or not eating meat.

Then there's Arthur, who instead of just saying, “I'm a diabetic and have had too hard a time managing my disease and being a vegetarian, so you should not forget about that,”
goes on about how eating meat and not eating meat doesn't really matter, it's all the same, with a macho man bravado and letting us know that the Dalai Lama eats meat, etc… Only later does he pull the “diabetic flag” out to draw empathy towards him and to the ideas presented. This is redirecting an argument to an image, feeling and person, away from the actual ideas.

Ok, you're diabetic and can't be a vegetarian, understood, accepted, respected and moved passed. No argument needed, but one wanted.

Don't forget I do propaganda analysis for a living, so it's become very obvious to me. The techiques are so human that we usually aren't aware that we are doing it, but that's what's happening. 

I'll even analyze that last sentence. I added an official level of authority to my opinion, which is very important to our culture. Expert analysis is necessary to Americans, and essential to pursuading us. I don't have to be aware that I'm doing it, but that's what I'm doing. It's usually a mistake to believe what people say about what they say, especially their motivations. Let us all be honest here.

I understand the “principle of the matter” argument, but this doesn't fit. Nobody has been attacked here.

And Liz, of all people, you shouldn't call people out for behaving insensitively towards others. You've been the most aggressive poster around for years. It's because of you that I spell check my posts now. oR iz et mie rite to spel bad?

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

Your interpretations of my communications are fascinating, Rick, though it's possible they say more about you than me. 

Just to set the record straight: I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a diabetic.  God/dess willing, I will never suffer from that disease, though I have to stay on my toes to avoid that outcome - and then my calves get all cramped up, which kinda sucks.

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Food Revolution - John Robbins - Integral Vegan

OK, I'll make this real easy for everyone. Crap like this has got to stop or the Pod is going to die.

Integral discussion should be all about perspective-taking, so two-sided debates like the one some of you seem to be looking for should really have virtually no place on the Pod. This all started because Arthur was, I think, trying to make precisely that point with his Cohen quote.

Of course, veganism and vegetarianism are great. No one is disputing that. But eating responsibly isn't such a bad thing either, and since you're never going to convert the whole world to veganism, we're going to need a solution to the world's problems that embraces both vegans and omnivores. So let's get our integral brains working together to ponder that a bit and stop wasting time trying to win a debate about whether it's better to eat meat or not to eat meat.

The same could be said of virtually any attempt at framing a discussion in the form of a two-sided debate. And I would like to think that most of the Pod's members understand that. Indeed, I know several members (myself included) are getting sick and tired of seeing debate after debate like this and so have stopped participating or have cut way back on their participation.

I don't know exactly how we're going to institute this yet (policy-wise), but let me be very clear:

If anyone repeatedly fails to embrace perspective-taking and instead insists on turning discussions into pissing contests, you will be removed from the Pod.

Intellectual, multi-perspective discussion is great. Two-sided debate in which one particular view is expected to come out “on top” is (almost?) never something we want to see on the Pod.

So yes, in a way, e, I do want “yes men”. Like Tely said, I want to see a lot more “yes” and a lot less “no”. Not no “no” at all, but we should all be making an effort to say as much “yes” as we can first before getting into any “no”. In fact, if you can't say “yes” first in response to someone, then you might want to consider not posting anything at all.

As Wilber said, “Nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time.” So make sure you make an effort to see where any given perspective is right first, and acknowledge it, before even considering discussing what's wrong. Indeed, it may not even be necessary to mention what's wrong if you just focus on what's right.

So on that note, I'll be locking this thread so that we can all get a fresh start in other threads. And if you want to comment on what I've said here, feel free to contact me privately or start a thread about it on the Announcements and Feedback board.

Metta,

Grey (most definitely with his Pod cultivator hat on)