However, I am compelled to write this series of article/s simply as means of imploring my stance/s of neutrality on plant based or vegetarianism way of living. Hopefully, readers can reach to the same conclusion peacefully: Leave everyone alone. That’s it. close this browser window. Get on with your own lives.
Oh wait, many people still want “more” explanation. They won’t rest until they “fight the good fight”. Very well. We’ll see, by the end of this article (just one of the few coming up) ¬ if all this fighting this moral fight over “food” is even remotely ~ productive.
“Us” against “you” / statistical persuasion.
Watch the above “debate”. Two vegans against one. The successful outcome of all “debates” is a matter of quantification. The resulting evidences or “data samples” inbetween that of winners (survivors) and the losers (pending for “change”). Irrespective, any virtue-signalling, belief we oft yearn as “Strategy” – largely revolves around Re-coordinations. That is ~ from disordered subjectivities (Chaos) – into concise and more concise-“er” – objectivities (Order).
The “losers” are simply left to redeem themselves for change or to await coercive, Orderly ~ submission. Either way, this appeals towards one linearity. The very alluring faith to re-coordination. As once again ~ Ordered – by the Surviving paradigm/s. This both entices and expects quantification through surface reactions. Such surface reaction intended the most effect is ~ psychology.
Hence, to their’s eyes (the winning veganists) – their thought pattern seems morally fixated as : “It’s not “us” or “our’s” fault to blame for any persisting frictions between contrasting conviction/s. “
“…but it’s the individuals’ “me” or “you” – who seemingly remains as the remaining “problem”.
Changing one conviction is not enough. Changing another person’s life and another and another however seems more compelling and satisfying that way. Because it’s more statistically persuasive. Paternalism; quantified.
Hence, who’s next for debate? If it’s not “us”, then it’s “you” ~ who is deemed to be the next problem.
A vision for dystopia. With “greater-good” intent.
So….care to be that volunteer or scapegoat?
Veganism is now a political ‘ism’. We already have a city fully politicised by veganism. I am indeed moved. Morally speaking.
We’re nearing 7.75 billion. Yes, nearing figure eight – billion citizens. Suppose now we’ve approached a breaking point. Climate Change hysteria and all. Suppose we now take drastic measures. “Re”-built, “Re” coordinate an entire city, country or perhaps continent ~ towards virtuous intent we shall label (conceptually for now) as “Cruelty Free Charter”.
Let’s contemplate legislating everyone in divisive “class” morality disputes. Imagine each individual’s access and rights to living are bound by these new law/s. Confounded and Structured by simply – their way and belief of eating.
But what if “good” intent is met with impractical needs of reality? This is where sadly – rainbow feel good colours ~ meet shades of grey.
Few concerns out of this Charter or legislation as food for thoughts:
- If a vegetarian wishes to invest in a property he/she shall not invest in a home or property if their building aren’t sanctified or “blessed“. Unless approved by vegetarian builder-society, or approved within this “Cruelty-Free”-Charter. Chopping wood is arguably “destructive” and “disruptive” to the environment. What happens then I wonder ~ to UNESCO heritage sites or significant place of historic significance; constructed out of such “natural” derived materials? Should that be counted as blasphemy?
- If meat eaters wishes to file an insurance repair claim he/she is likely denied. Especially if events within any claim of damage involve factual harming of animals. I wonder if accidental roadkills beyond one’s control, reaction “timing capacity” and or “intent” ~ count as a final sin nonetheless?.
- (bonus curiosity!) If automation is humanity’s final invention of all things agriculture, logistics and infrastructure production management ~ I wonder whose “morality” consciousness should we feed such mechanisms / AI / algorithms first hand? Should it cater only towards plant-based / or omnivorous consumers? Should it able to upgrade its own firmware? Should it able to freely make its own decision/s?
…Readers are free to add to the list.
However, the worst I fear is yet to come. Sanctioned ambiguity over who judges and values “life” more than “another”.
“Who” or What that “another” ~ is remains yet to be clarified. Should we idolize “another” being onto the precious cargo / platform? We seem emotionally helpless and subscribed ~ at keeping everything “alive”. For as long as possible.
However, “Death” ~ is a touchy subject. Each and everytime we hear some”one” “dies”. Our instinct reaches for that pitchfork (not one but as many possible) as quantified means of “redemption”. Such screams off the keyboard-totting, SJW pitchforks indeed compels us all that “Death” of one ~ is reason enough permissibly for an emotive army of permission(s) as arms against anyone countering their collectivist narrative.
This is the point where I implore lateral enquiring. Who or what shall be deemed more “valuable” to replace than our own individual ~ live/s? Who or what is worth more “dying” for? Who shall be that decision maker? Collectivism or Individualism?
Let us once again reconcile our blue print or that Cruelty Free Charter for “peace” into “action”. Suppose we build (via automation) “Homes” for placing both flora and fauna on a protective pedestal. Call it the Noah’s Ark. A shelter for all beings. All creatures big and small. From cattles to the ants. From giant crocodiles to hyenas and vultures.
Include everyone here. Us humans, too.
Again, virtuous nobility indeed. I am in”deed” sold. Yet somehow ~ I also feel guilty and remorseful at the same time to have been granted “life” in the first place.
Because my identity is already (involuntarily) am such another perpetrator to the ecosystem.
What or how does the Realist Nature has to say of all this? Nature has no recognitions of “guilt” nor “perpetrators” once we place ourselves in this “dome”. This Noah’s Ark. The grass the cow eats were in just as much pain as the prey being overwhelmed by the lion.
Hence, enter Ecological Martyrdom. Everything – involves “Death” for the sustenance for something else.
Yet the moral allures of saving every-single-thing; remains an undying gospel amongst the “green” moral virtuosity.
Morality VS Reality & the meaning of “Predator”.
“Morality” is often an influence (or affluence) one looks up to. Universal appraisal/s related to Vegetarianism. Purity, nobility and preservation. Yes, these are VERY ideal outcomes. Everything is assumably malleable as accordingly inspite of his or her own “free” will.
“Reality” on the other hand – has no interpretation of “wills”.
Consider the word “Predator“. Deconstruct it. Explore every one of its connected definitions. See how closely it relates to “Time”?
See if nature possess any “Morality”, or recognises binary or conscious expressions of “Compassion“. Forces of geology and astronomy. Natural disasters, meteor strikes, solar flares, earthquakes, tectonic plates movements, volcanoes, thunderstorms. Cycles between day or night. Moments of cellular oxidations, growth, decline and decomposition.
Is it nature’s “morality” at fault therefore – being the sole cause of our deaths in the above ensuing events? No. “It” (Nature) just speaks on its own accord. But if “bad” cholesterol seems heightened amongst long lived elderly ~ the green moral virtuosity seems strucked to say little else but ~ “there are exceptions…”
Voluntarily or involuntarily, Vegetarianism – assumes control of all “senses”.
Picture a grass sitting happily. That is, “growing”. Assuming it NEEDS to be left as is to thus “succeed” in growing. What happens then if it’s involuntarily chewed out by the cows? Should we blame the cow then – for being the perpetrators for the death of the grass (victim)?
Alas, vegetarianism defends this as “there are exceptions”. Or that sentient beings have more superior, or more delicate, or more precious ~ “feelings”.
What about plants “who” (note; I can’t use “that” or “which” because they supposedly are “living beings”) are by their inherent nature – carnivorous and extremely deadly to organic beings? Aren’t they sentient too? Can we speak on behalf of their’s “morality” therefore as to why they are such and such – dangerous to mammals?
Can we thus say to these plants – “not to eat this and that?” All we’d get is a blank stare.
What if we are facing a lion? A Great White Shark? Or a Vulture?
I am yet to have faced a rebuttal, if survival is at stake. I’d imagine it’d be the more wiser – for us to run for our own lives. Otherwise, I have to thus embrace one day knowing how to kill. To defend myself.
….And the best question for last is,
What or how can we explain why there are ex-vegans?
If it were me – “who cares”. Or simply “I don’t know”. I don’t speak for each of them. I do not own their lives or conscious senses.
Yet condescendingly, The green moral virtuosity – still adamantly believe – they still own what is rightful, on behalf of all organic differences….threatening fellow human beings included.
<sighs> My mind boggles. “Four legged good, two legged bad”. “All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.”.