Comments Pandu has made

He's still more politician than environmentalist.

I've been a fan of Gore for about 15 years, and I'm elated to see him win this extremely prestigious award.
However, it's hard to fathom how anyone who eats meat could deserve a prize for peace.  Is there anything peaceful about slaughtering animals?

Did the Nobel crew not get the memo about the huge impact of meat-eating on climate change?

What Gore should do now is to set a positive example for a responsible diet by stopping his nasty habit of eating meat.  I can understand his energy use -- he has a big mission.  But I wonder if he considers the climate issue important enough to change his eating habits.

"Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues." - Sri Krishna
http://vedabase.net/bg/3/21/enOn Al Gore and the IPCC jointly win peace prize posted 2 years, 1 month ago 56 Responses

Dick Cheney

A few years ago, when people thought cars were the big vice harming the environment, Dick Cheney said energy conservation was a personal virtue.

Now that the public is finally hearing that eating meat is the big vice, Grist says being a vegetarian is a personal virtue.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

obviously...

Whoops!  Obviously I meant to say "We only need to treat animals nicely, not eliminate them."  How embarassing.

Anyway as far as I'm concerned the best thing is the animals and the plants get to hear daily

hare krishna hare krishna
krishna krishna hare hare
hare rama hare rama
rama rama hare hare

Even the grass becomes liberated.

Anyone can become a vegetarian practically by chanting Hare Krishna, easily! I am sure of that.  Easy reference is http://vedabase.net to see Srila Prabhupada's books.  Simply chant this Hare Krishna mantra and it melts your heart with love of God so much that you cannot think of hurting animals.  Or if someone really wants to kill animals then they are doomed without this chanting of "Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare."  But even the meat eaters can give that up anutomatically when they taste the love of God who is Sri Krishna by chanting His names of Hare Krishna.On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses

It's not the subject...

It's Grist's position on the issue.

It's not simply a matter of global warming.  It's the fact that the entire impact of agriculture could be reduced to a small fraction of its current effect simply by stopping the cruel practice of raising animals for slaughter.  

Take water consumption, for example.  If my family (2 adults, 4 kids) were to eat the meat-based diet that I was raised on, the agricultural practices required to produce that would consume about one million gallons more water each year compared to our present lacto-vegetarian diets.  One vegetarian meal compared to a meat meal saves as much water as a low-flow showerhead saves in an entire year.  In spite of this, we almost never hear anything about avoiding meat to conserve water.  

Or consider land use.  Vegatarians require about 10% of the agricultural land that meat eaters need.  Vegans are closer to 5%.  Wouldn't it be nice if the world could convert 90% of its land to other uses, maybe even letting much of it go wild?

In addition to global warming, consider how much agriculture contributes to pollution, deforestation, desertification, and the loss of biodiversity.  Quit subsidizing cattle feed and grazing lands, etc., and the cost of meat would rise dramatically, making consumption drop remarkably.  The Big Mac would cost maybe $20, and with the more popular veggie wrap costing $1; and so much environmental abuse would be averted.

(I just re-read a paper I wrote in 1993 for my environmental politics class in college describing this in more detail.  The professor, Lester Milbrath, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-5 ...
gave an A, and said it would've been an A+ if I mentioned that meat eating is a dominator society and that changing it would require a paradigm shift.)  

When will people learn?On The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism ... posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

speaking up against killing

Mihan,

You support animal killing.  

I speak for the sake of animals who cannot defend themselves.

And you say I'm attacking?

No, I'm defending.

Don't pervert the issue.

---
Hi Canis.  Nice to hear from you.

Every second in the USA more than 300 animals are unnecessarily killed for food.  Ten billion a year.  There is no moderate position on this.On Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 2 months ago 38 Responses

They'll eat you in Hell.

The only good thing about Umbra's response is that she should not be answering the question.  Damned meat eater, fake environmentalist.

When animals are killed in a slaughterhouse, six people connected with the killing are responsible for the murder. The person who gives permission for the killing, the person who kills, the person who helps, the person who purchases the meat, the person who cooks the flesh and the person who eats it, all become entangled in the killing.

http://vedabase.net/sb/4/25/8//

If you wouldn't want someone to cut your throat for a meal, don't do it to someone else.  Is that so hard to understand?On Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 2 months ago 38 Responses

a little water

"only one square [of toilet paper] per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."

A little water works much better than all that paper.  
On When it's the Bush administration talking about Hanford posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

mass

Regarding the 284 grams to 10 fl.oz., I think it's mislabeled.  It should not be fluid ounces.  It would be odd to label a compressed, liquified gas can like this with a mass and a volume.  Obviously someone reading the can could see how big the can is, so the volume of liquid in there would be hardly relevant.

I normally just shake the keyboard upside down.  If I'm really ambitious, I'll put the vaccum to it, or maybe put the hose to the blower and really move some air.On Why we should ban compressed chemical dusters posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

cows

I find it too offensive to continue reading an article past the point where the author begins referring to cows a "beef."  

Such insensitivity regarding animal life is sickening and obscene.On Feeding the world sustainably posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

brothers, sisters, and close families

Interestingly, second and third children don't add to parents' happiness at all.

Sometimes additional children are wanted so that the first will have brothers and or sisters.  Materially, they often happen simply as a consequence of the relationship between the husband and wife.  Not all married couples feel that contraception is appropriate.

Evaluating children as if life was like picking favorites off a buffet table seems rather perverted to me.

I really appreciate Jason's above comment.  It would be an evolutionary shooting in the foot for people who care about the environment to have very few kids to make up for the many kids being born to those who don't care about their ecological impact.  It would appear in the short term that ignoring environmental responsibilities is a good strategy for reproductive success and therefore an indication of evolutionary "intelligence."  Fortunately the world is more complex than that.

On the other hand, it may be harder for parents to teach values such as environmenal responsibility when both parents are at work outside the home all day, and the kids are raised by day care and school employees.On Countering the pro-natal propaganda wave posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

finer points, softer edges

Caniscandida,

But we in the Christian tradition also recognize that God is passionately in love with material nature

I grew up going to church each week, and was taught that "God so loved us that He became man" in the form of Jesus.  The Vedic conception is that material nature is different than the living entities, who are spiritual and marginally situated between the superior and inferior energies of the Lord.  so His goal in His dealings with us is to eventually turn our attention away from material nature to the Personality of Godhead Himself.  Thus in the Vedic conception, there is no contradiction whatsoever between God's love for us and His nonattachment to material nature.

Brahma Samhita 5.6-7 speaks of this very nicely:

The Lord of Gokula (Krishna) is the transcendental Supreme Godhead, the own Self of eternal ecstasies. He is the superior of all superiors and is busily engaged in the enjoyments of the transcendental realm and has no association with His mundane potency.

BS 5.7: Krishna never consorts with His illusory energy. Still her connection is not entirely cut off from the Absolute Truth...
http://brahmasamhita.com/5/en

The Vedic tradition recognizes Jesus as a "shaktyavesa avatar," an empowered representative of God, not as the Personality of Godhead Himself.  There was also a contemporary of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu (500 years ago) named Vasudeva Datta, who prayed to Him as follows:  

"My dear Lord, let me suffer perpetually in a hellish condition, accepting all the sinful reactions of all living entities. Please finish their diseased material life." http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/163/en
  Mahaprabhu replied, "Because of your honest desire, all living entities within the universe will be delivered, for Krishna does not have to do anything to deliver all the living entities of the universe." http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/171/en

That God would personally suffer would be intolerable suffering for His pure devotees, whom He would never allow to suffer, as described in Caitanya Bhagavat [http://www.acbspn.com/books/cb/cb_adi16.htm], when His pure devotee Haridas Thakur was beaten in 22 marketplaces:  

By the grace of Lord Krishna, Haridas felt little pain in his body. Just like Prahlada in the Srimad Bhagavatam who was tortured by demons, Haridas never suffered at all. Not only was Haridas freed from his pain, whoever remembers this story of Srila Haridas will also be saved from the miseries of life. Throughout his ordeal, Haridas's one emotion was pity for the sentries. "O Lord Krishna, please be merciful upon these poor souls so they may not be punished because of me."

The story continues its relevance:

Oh Haridas," they pleaded. "Because of you we shall certainly be punished. When the Qazi sees that despite our beating you are still alive, he shall certainly kill us instead."

"If my survival brings such terrible misfortune to you," replied Haridas, "then I shall definitely give up my body. Just see how I die."

Srila Das Thakur immediately fell into trance. A pure devotee of the Supreme Lord possesses all mystic power so without any hesitation, Srila Hari das fell lifeless, without a trace of breath."

As the story continues, Haridas' body was brought to the Nawab to show him as dead, and was then thrown into the Ganga.  After some time, Haridas' consciousness returned to his body, and his life of devotional service resumed as before.  Many Hindus believe that Jesus' life continued after the cross in the same way, and that eventually Jesus left his body as an old man in Kashmir.

http://www.tombofjesus.com

Wiscidea,

It's nice to see we're softening up a bit.  Maybe we could both use to take the edge off a little.On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

clarification

Wiscidea,

By expressing my inability to see value in life without a spiritual reality, I am referring to the fact that death chases life very quickly.  Whatever your enjoyment or appreciation of life may be, death would finish it forever.  A lifetime of unique experience gone as your consciousness is extinguished.  Soon enough all life meets its end, and then what is the value and to whom?

The principle of bhakti yoga, on the other hand is that devotional service is performed for the pleasure of Krishna, God, produces eternal benefit for the eternal soul.  Simply by thinking of material natue as Krishna's property, environmental work becomes devotional service.  

In Bhagavad-gita 12.10, Krishna says, "If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage."  That is precisely my situation at present, unable to practice the regulations of devotional service, and so I work for Krishna, doing what I can to preserve and assist His natural world.  It's odd that His aloof relationship with material nature also gives people the freedom to disbelieve in Sri Krishna, while also giving more ways to serve Him.On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

being poor is not a sin

Puddlejumper,

After getting my environmental degree I struggled to support my family in poverty for a few years, unable to find a suitable job.  My wife's father gave us a vehicle, a 1977 Suburban with a 454 engine (formerly used for hauling a big boat).  It got 10.5 miles per gallon, and could top 140 mph.  After we repaired body damage, it looked like a giant yellow and black spotted ox.  I had the whole back end covered with Earth First! stickers.  Once when visiting the Toronto Hare Krishna temple, I returned to the truck to find a note on the window accusing me of hipocracy.  However, I've always believed that the poor have a right to do what they must to survive.On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

go forth and sin no more?

But, as I see it, there's no superior power that's going to say "right, that's your sin, you've confessed, now consider yourself saved". By confessing, are we committing ourselves to doing something?

Funny, the idea of this thread digging up counter-religious feelings related to sin and forgiveness had not even crossed my mind.  

I have no plans stop speeding soon, unless I get another ticket!
On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

As a matter of fact,

If I did not feel like I had at least one real friend here, I would not be here today.On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

but

The feeling good (at least for me) comes from the perception that one is doing something helpful according to one's ability.  So the problem isn't the feel-good-ness of it, but rather the misperceptions concerning what is more significant compared to what is less.  Even the less significant actions a person may take can help a person to feel that they can make a positive difference, and this feeling fuels the drive to do even more.  

So, while we should try to understand the relative value of the various ways we can make our impact less negative or more positive, we should not discourage anyone from doing any helpful thing.

Also, changing other people's behavior is important because it multiplies the effect that one person can have.  It's done by helping people to change their values by sharing information, philosophy, etc.  Good interpersonal relationships seem to help a lot.On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

8 - )

Pathos,

One thing I wonder is whether the presumed environmental benefit of the reduction in fertility would outweigh the harm of a diet that is very high in resource consumption.  I would be in favor of people eating much less meat, especially beef, even if it meant some additional children.  It's a question of magnitude, but I would be surprised if the effect on fertility be very large, and I have no doubt that diet makes a big difference on our impact.

But to answer your question, reduced fertility is a bad thing in the perception of people who are trying to have children.

Regardless, I would hail the reduction in fertility of beef eating men as good news for the environment.  Whether the effect or the news of it results in fewer people being born in families that eat a lot of beef, or a reduction in individual beef eating to preserve male fertility, this is a reason to smile.
On Growth promoters in beef may damage sperm posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

people reduced to numbers

Here (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html) is some census data for the USA.  Looking at this (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ch1.xls) chart of "Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present," we can see an effect which appears to correlate positively with the progress of so-called 'empowerment' of women in the USA.  

The data begins in 1960 and ends in 2006.  They show a 15.6% increase in the number of children, and an 11.1% REDUCTION in the number of children living with two parents.  (Am I required to find numbers to show that single parent families are less stable than two parent families?)  In this time, of the children living with one parent the percentage of children in mother-only housholds fluctuated between 83 and 93%.

Considering these data along with the obvious so-called 'empowerment' of women during the time period, one has to wonder if women do not care as much about their children as previously thought, since the percentage of women not living with her children has more than doubled between 1960 (4.3%) to 2006 (9.9%).  Or, one can look at the rise the percentage of children living in mother-only households (nearly tripled from 8.0% in 1960 to 23.4% in 2006) and see that in these cases a mother's job has become much more difficult.  She may be the sole means of income for the family, and she will have to do all the parenting.  Perhaps she remarries (someone she met at the office?), making her children adjust to a foreign father figure.  Perhaps the most amazing number is the increase in the percentage of children living only with a mother who was never married.  That percentage actually rose from 4.33% in 1960 to 43.37 percent in 2006.  I wonder how many of those children were planned, or were the result of contraceptive failure.

Regardless, these data point to a reduction in family stability.  "Traditionally, many researchers defined family stability in terms of factors related to family structure (for example, single parenthood)." (http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/informati ...)  The emergence of different kinds of patchwork families has given rise to the need for evaluations of the specific qualities that make a family stable, but it is hard to substitute for nature's arrangament.  When the family is less stable, more attention has to be focused on the hard struggle for existence, with less remaining for investing in quality of life.  Thus it can be said that the so-called 'empowerment' of women leads to more women separated from their children (or more precisely more children separated from their mothers) and more women raising children without the children's fathers.  Both of these are difficult situations that have been fueled by so-called women's empowerment.    

When introducing so-called 'progressive' contraception policies to economically less developed countries, one should anticipate cultural resistance (widespread belief in gender roles such as have been vociferously rejected in many of the above comments) and significant disruption of the traditional family structure.  

One might also consider the ethics and wisdom of meddling with foreign cultures and especially their sexuality, reproduction, family values, and family structure.  It may well turn out as successful as bringing democracy to Iraq.
On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

I don't know

how much more I want to invest in this thread.  I generally think it's good to introduce alternative views into a discussion, and that is what I tried to do here.  I thought it would add a little spice but, I didn't expect it to turn so sour.

I haven't read anything here since Friday, so I can't comment on the new stuff.  I have been thinking about this over the weekend, though.  I did take a look Friday evening, but as soon I saw the way the discussion was still going, I decided not to waste more of my time arguing.

In the matter of my revealing some personal details that I consider relevant, I still think that was appropriate.  It's easy to sometimes forget when talking about population, that it's not simply numbers.  They are people, real people, as in human beings essentially like ourselves, every one of them.  And for that reason, I think it's entirely appropriate for some human stories to be included in the discussion.  If someone thinks that telling some of my story is to sacrifice my dignity, well, I think it's a small price considering the subject matter and how many lifes are at stake.  

I did use one explicit word, and people here have called attention to it many times.  Ironically, it refers to precisely the act that is central to this population discussion, although I didn't use it in that context.  I know I probably should not have used the word in anger, but I was quite upset at the belittling of my life experience.  Most people do not make decisions based on statistics, but on their own lives.  I don't expect that to change soon.

I frequent this messaging space because of my commitment to an environmental ethic, but I feel that I have an unusual perspective, which is that one eye sees the world through a Western scientific construct, and the other sees it through an Eastern spiritual one.  They're virtual opposites, but part of the same world.  The spiritual side simply does not accept the same limitations as the scientific one.  It sees the Personality of Godhead as the controller of everything and portrays the world like a long dream with matter made out of consciousness itself.  It calls for a different way of interacting with the world.

I don't expect public policy to be made according to my views, but most people have some sort of a belief in God, and this has a huge impact on policy.  I can understand how irrational the religious people must seem to the atheistic class.  We occasionally hear of right-wing terrorists bombing abortion clinics, and obviously that doesn't help.  But I see us as supposedly working for the same goal - learn to use the Earth's resources more efficiently for a better future.  I think it's a shame that some people want the discussion limited limited to one-sided political solutions.  

The main point I wanted to make is simply that the use of contraceptives can increase the number of unwanted pregnancies.  People use contraceptives thinking they can have sex without pregnancy, but it often fails (or rather, pregnancy succeeds according to nature).  Virtually every pregnancy that results from contraceptive failure begins as an unwanted one.  As they say, it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.  It may also be unwise.
On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

response to ongoing interrogation

Wiscidea,

I do not know why you are intent on attributing to me estremist positions that I do not advocate.

I keep my wife faithful to me by being faithful to her and making sure she knows how important and appreciated she is in our family.  I manage my children's behavior by teaching them good values, along with a moderate rewards and punishments as appropriate.  In this way, both my wife and dauthters are protected from bad association.  Does this method of control meet your approval?

How can your text be so important regarding some matters, but then just a suggestion regarding something like elders protecting women from themselves? How do you decide which portions of the text are core values of your religion and which can be ignored?

It helps to read the text.  In the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita, Arunua presents his best arguments based on mundane vision, and in the second chapter, Krishna defeats Arjuna's materialistic view by explaining the difference between the living entities (spiritual) and the bodies (material).  The most important points are emphasized in obvious ways in the text (i.e. repetition, comparatives and superlatives, etc.).  

And how can this information be incorporated into a discussion regarding whether there is a problem and how to solve it if you cannot back up your suggestions with at least a few numbers?

Are you going to hold everyone accountable to your criteria of backing every statement with a statistic or measurement, or just me?  Is my own life experience so worthless to you that when I publicly admit for the first time my painful experiences regarding contraceptives and birth control that you dismiss it as nothing unless I can give you fucking statistics to prove that it is a problem worth considering?

Do YOU believe a lack of religion or spirtuality leads to overpopulation?

I believe that there is a qualitative difference between intentionally having babies and having babies when actively trying not to.  This is an issue related to promoting contraception.  I do beleive that a lack of religion or spirituality leads to more unwanted children.  Whether it leads to overpopulation is a question that cannot be easily answered in a small space like this because of the complexity of the interaction of variables in reproduction side as well as the death side, and also in the matter of resource consumption.  

Do YOU believe birth control leads to more unwanted pregnancies than not using birth control?

Yes, I do.  I believe it leads to a lot more sex, with each instance having a relatively small but significant chance of preganancy.  Practically by definition, nearly all these pregnancies would be unwanted.  It also leads to more cases of entrapment, where (typically) the woman purposely fails to use the contraceptive propely (such as regularly 'forgetting' to take birth control pills and not disclosing that fact).  A girlfriend did that to me when I was getting ready to go off to college and she did not want me to go.  I've had enough bad experience with contraceptives that you probably won't get very far trying to convince me that it will save the world or whatever.

Do YOU believe elders should protect women -- who are apparently as clueless as children --  from degrading themselves?

It's pretty obvious that you're trying to apply your idea of tyrannical mysogyny to me, but it's really not realistic.  I protect my wife not by telling her what she can and cannot do, but by supporting her feminine nature.  She loves  being an at-home mom.  She homeschools the kids, spins wool and mohair (I take care of the farm animals for her), weaves and knits, sews, etc.  She loves all this.  I am a little envious of her freedom (as I commute two hours each day and sit in a cubicle for 8 hours), but I don't mind because I love her.  I don't know of any other effective way to protect women, apart from giving them a safe environment in which to be a woman.  

Do you think womanhood is honored more when women work in offices and factories, compared to giving birth and raising children?  On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

unwanted progeny

["According to Arjuna, factors such as birth control (illicit sex) lead to more unwanted children due to the degradation of women."]

"Can you direct me to any statistics showing that when birth control is introduced into a culture, the rate of population growth INCREASES?"

Wiscidea,

You're asking me to give a statistic for something I didn't say.  I was speaking of unwanted children, which is another factor that I believe is important to consider related to attempting birth control.  People using birth control are trying to prevent having a child as a consequence of the sex.  Birth control methods are somewhat effective but result in many unwanted pregnancies.  Of course since this is a matter of human sexuality which is quite complex and variable across different cultures, it is not realistic to expect a statement about it to be true in all cases.  However, as I related through my personal anecdote above, the effectiveness of contraception can be quite disappointing, even for folks educated in its use.  Abortion is not a nice backup plan.  

I was attempting to point out the relationship between what Arjuna had said to Krishna, and what I've experienced in my life.  No doubt if I had more respect for the young ladies I was involved with (though each was a very significant girlfriend to me at the time, it was in no way proper to have a sexual relationship with them) there would have been no pregnancy.  If people understand the benefits of celibacy, they can teach it to the kids.  I wish I learned it before I had the chance to be such a fool.On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

This issue

is so problematic that I don't even know where to begin.

For fun, and since I've only got a few minutes now, I'll quote Arjuna speaking to Krishna in the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita:

"When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Kṛṣṇa, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, comes unwanted progeny."

According to Arjuna, factors such as birth control (illicit sex) lead to more unwanted children due to the degradation of women.  Srila Prabhupada's purport to this verse will surely touch some nerves:

"Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varṇāśrama religion's principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varṇāśrama system. On the failure of such varṇāśrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence."

The so-called "empowerment" of women has likely produced more single mothers than has war.  On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

baby vegans?

Mary,

I love your response on the issue of vegan children.  (Mine have been lacto-vegetarian since birth.)  But that last link struck me as odd, albeit cute.  Infants and babies should be drinking mother's milk.  Is that vegan?On Dare this mom to change her life posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

kids

"Few things are less environmentally friendly than kids."

It's hard to believe adults are better.  It's probably close.

I was an environmentalist before having kids, but I eventually became discouraged by public apathy.  Having kids meant that, regardless of my perception of public interest, I had to do my best to present them with a nice planet to call home.

...
I dare you to significantly reduce or eliminate meat from your family's diet, if it's not already accomplished.  
On Dare this mom to change her life posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

another kind of fuel burning

Whether it's cap and trade, or a tax, the vegetarian movement could get a boost.  

Here's a relevant statistic: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.  (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html?s=hns ...)

The cost of a tax could be passed on to consumers, which would hopefully help people choose vegetarian foods more often.  Or, people could commit to vegetarian diets and sell their "right" to the extra pollution to the walking graveyards.  

I like the tax option much better.  I would feel pretty guilty selling my excess pollution, and I would probably benefit more by a carbon tax.  On Some signs point to yes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

concluding

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that "you heard god" is a better explanation than all the other well-documented reasons why people hear voices in their heads.

Easterbunny,

My point is not to convince anyone that my impression of the experience was the best understanding.  I brought up that experience as an example how a practice that you would not consider scientific or rational was validated for me.  I think discussion is good, but I really don't need you to certify my worldview.  

I also don't know why you keep referring to hearing voices, unless it's simply to be condescending.  For me the experience encompassed all of my senses.  If you can see a person standing in front of you, you don't think the person's speaking as 'voices in your head.'  But then I guess you are nothing but a voice in my head too, since I haven't even seen you and have no proof that I'm not imagining all of this.

Caniscandida,

You are quite right that the potential for abuse exists.  I've learned to keep a distance from authority in ISKCON because I have seen so much corruption in the leadership and so much blind following.  The cult-like form that ISKCON has taken has been very disturbing to me, and if I did not have that experience I briefly mentioned above, then I would probably have nothing to do with the organization at all.  

This is not the place to describe the problems in detail, but experience has told me that anyone who would want the to weild the authority of the guru role should probably be considered guilty until proven innocent.  My faith is that a sincere and honest person using careful intelligence can understand what is true, what is helpful, what is wrong, and what is dangerous.  So I'm just trying to go for the former and avoid the latter, and that's working for me, though not without challenges.

I don't know if you noticed that the Bhagavad-gita site has a level up where several other books are hosted.  (http://vedabase.net/en/)  There are some real gems in there.  

I'm inclined to have this be my last comment under this blog entry.  It's diverged too much from the intended subject.   On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

books in religion

caniscandida,

I apologize for not making the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment on the Bible clearer.  I've forgotten too much about the book to casually get in to the subject.

In regard to translations, I regularly look for alternative translations for pivotal Sanskrit words, and I regularly consult Sanskrit dictionaries to try to temper whatever bias the translators may have and to try to understand the views of those exposed to other translations.  

One of the methods for acquiring knowledge that I mentioned yesterday is tradition.  The Sanskrit word is parampara, which is also translated as 'disciplic succession.'  The meanings of words are passed through disciplic succession, and preserving correct meanings of scriptural verses is the chief goal of of an instructional (shiksha) disciplic succession.  

The test of whether the translations and commentaries on ancient texts are accurate can be judged by the result.  In my first week of studying Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 11 years ago, a transcendental window opened for me while I was immersed in the book, and I was able see and have a dialogue with Krishna for what must've been a couple of hours here.  He personally tutored me in Bhagavad-gita as stunning awe was washed away by waves of love of God.  That is how I got my faith in Bhagavad-gita As It Is and why I'm inclined to trust the translation and purports.  
On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

Proof.

As I was looking into the study of methods of acquiring knowledge, I found this:
http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbh ...
(special font required at that link)

In mathematical logic, Godel's theorem proves the importance of (revealed knowledge). His theorem states that within any system some parameters always remain unexplained, so a system cannot be understood completely by the known parameters. Knowledge of certain parameters outside the system is required and the only means to this knowledge is by word, because all other means of knowledge lie within the system, the material world. Similarly, to understand transcendence we require knowledge outside our experience. The means to this knowledge is by transcendental word, or (revealed knowledge).

I was curious about that, so I looked into it a little and found this helpful page at the top of my Google search:

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ...

"these irrational beliefs"

Easterbunny,

(What an odd way to start a comment.)

How can you so certain that we can understand things as they are by rational thought?  Such a belief makes an unproven assumption about the ultimate nature of reality, which is that it is material.  If it is not material, then how can rational thought (which is like computations based on our knowledge of the material world) reveal it?

Vedic scholars have analyzed the means for acquiring knowledge include hearing various arguments, comparison, presumption, non-existence, inclusion, tradition, gesture, direct perception, inference, and revealed knowledge.  They combined these with their understanding of the people's inherent defects that inhibit the acquisition of real knowledge, and concluded that revealed knowledge is the only way to understand the absolute truth.  In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna states that "Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth," and that, "...only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am..."  Again He repeated, "One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service."

Rational thinking, if it is truly useful in these matters, should be able to arrive at the absolute truth regardless of what that truth may be.  Instead it seems to lead ultimately to the same unproven assumption upon which rational thinking is based.On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

sheep, grass, and grain

Well, our sheep want grass when it's growing, but if I were to walk into the pasture with a bowl of mixed grain (mostly corn), they'd stop grazing and fight over the grain.  

I normally only give grain to help them on very cold nights, or to pregnant ewes, or as a treat.  

The trouble with grain is when people think they can stick an animal in a pen with nothing else. On Smackdown! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 12 Responses

biting insects

Apart from ethical considerations of killing bugs, which are understandably not a big concern for most people, it is safer to let a mosquito finish her blood-sucking, compared to interrupting the process by whatever means.  When the mosquito bites, she injects a little anticoagulant saliva into the bite-hole.  As I understand it, this saliva triggers the allergic bump and itch, and may also carry pathogens, and much of it gets sucked back into the mosquito when she finishes her drink.

If I am the only person in a place with mosquitoes, I may let them bite or I may not, depending on how I feel.  If they start a bite, I let them finish and then happily watch them fly their fat, red bodies away.  It's a very content feeling.

If there are others around, I usually let myself get bitten so that others don't have to.

I do not extend the same sort of compassion to insects such as deer flies that bite to drink blood as ordinary food.  Their biting is considered aggressive, and can be quite painful.  There are huge flies that like to bite our cow, and I do not tolerate that at all.  I either squash them or stun them and feed them to our guineas.

With house flies, we have a net and do a catch-and-release.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

mosquitoes

SMLowry,

I learned to love mosquitoes during an immersion course in Everglades ecology.  It was winter, but I was bit by at least a few thousand mosquitoes that week.  Our three instructors had the same philosophy, to let them bite.

Speaking about the value of nature, those mosquitoes taught me one of the most valuable lessons of my life so far.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

Turn it off.

Are we running out of things to talk about?On Damn I hate that show posted 2 years, 9 months ago 25 Responses

Sunflower

gets the prize for looking on the bright side.On Can greed get us out? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

growing weary

"Um... that's news to all the lesbian couples and single mothers out there for whom "dad" is a sperm donor. The sperm donor is not a "father."

Mihan,
   I should not respond to this red herring; but donating sperm does not make a man a father?  So, tell me, what makes a father?  If a man has sex with and impregnates a woman but takes no part in raising the child, is he the father?  A judge will say he is, as will a doctor.  

   Do you mean that the copulation and impregnation followed by birth makes a father?  Or is it the raising of a child by a man?

   I was talking about a biological reality, not a social arrangement.  Bringing up lesbians and sperm donors has nothing to do with it.  Get back to me when single women are having children by parthenogenesis.

   Also, I considered framing the issue in terms of replacement rate, but that is also not the subject.  Replacement rate only takes into account numbers of people.  The topic I was discussing was each person's impact on the environment.  

------

Biodiversivist,

  I'm ready to settle for disagreement on this.  After graduating from college, I was inclined to live as a hermit in the woods and took major steps in that direction.  After much additional contemplation, I deciced that service to the world was a more noble path, and that I could do this best in the humble role of a father.  

  I do my best to live lightly on the earth.  I'm not perfect, but I think I do enough under the circumstances.  

No, we are simply discussing the fact that the more children you spawn the bigger the environmental footprint will be. Bad, and good are largely relative constructs. Abortion is bad to some, good to others, killing and eating a pig is good to an indigenous hunter, bad to vegans, and that list could go on to infinity. Reality does not, in reality, split cleanly into good and bad.

I thought we agreed that a big environmental footprint was bad.  The disagreement was that I believe I can more than offset my negative impact by adding the power of the pen to my own personal "sacrifices."  We could debate the numbers without end.  But in principle, would you agree that, for instance, Al Gore does not have to personally plant trees (or whatever like that) to offset his CO2 because his educational campaign has more than accomplished this?  
On That's it for me and industrial meat posted 2 years, 9 months ago 46 Responses

the birds and the bees

Biodiversist,

When a man and a woman love each other...

What I'm trying to say is that human babies come from sexual reproduction, which as far as I know, still requires a mother and a father.  For a man to double his ecological footprint by having children, he has to have two kids because it's done in cooperation with a woman.  

When couple has a child, each parent has the child.  Did each parent double their ecological footprint?  They did not.  

...

You have introduced a new variable in the footprint contests, a kind of offset based on estimated reductions resulting from educating others--real hard to quantify. You can't just count converts. Most proselytizers tend to reinforce existing opinions, not change them. If that were not true, we would all have been converted to a single religion long ago.

If I try to convince you that killing animals is wrong, that sort of moral statement might pursuade someone if he is already thinking along similar lines.  If I say that eating meat is a step up the food chain compared to eating plants, and that diet has about an order of magnitude more impact; a person might respond, "Oh, I didn't know that," and the new knowledge might change their behavior to some degree.  I'm sure you've noticed that I'm also fine with taking a stand based on morals if that seems like it will help.  Is there something wrong with that?

Perhaps the disagreement is over the fact that I do not believe people are inherently bad.  It seems like you're saying that even people who try to be good cannot offset the harm of their being alive, but I doubt you really believe that.  I'm saying that well-raised kids can help the world, and that people who care about issues can make a difference.  If I can set a good example and teach my kids to care enough to try to good in the world, and they take this to heart, then I would say that indeed it is better than not having kids.  If I did not believe that I had some good to offer the world, I would not want to live.  Maybe that is a cause of bias on my part.  If I can't help others, then it follows that they can't help me; and if that's the case, then what's the point of being here?On That's it for me and industrial meat posted 2 years, 9 months ago 46 Responses

kids

"Having a child essentially doubles your footprint (a 100/% increase)."

biodiversivist,

Two points:

1. If you're going to consider it like that, then having TWO kids doubles your footprint.  Really, it's so much more complex than that.

2. The complexities are important.  Children are not simply numbers or ecological footprints.  Some do good things for the world; some not so good.  Some can influence good to be bad or bad to be good.

  There's no way to accurately do the math for this, but I think it's not unreasonable to figure that these efforts have accumulated to the point of offsetting my total ecological footprint, especially as I continue to promote vegetarian-style eating.

  My children are still pretty young (10, 6, 4, and <1).  We can have no real certainty of what they will do as adults, but for now they seem very much inclined to remain vegetarians.  If they do, then I expect they will continue to have the same sort of impact on people.  Our interactions with others can make a big difference on the world.  If people didn't believe that, they wouldn't be in gristmill.

  On That's it for me and industrial meat posted 2 years, 9 months ago 46 Responses

moral responsibilities

Kira,

"Who are we to make other sentient creatures suffer and die painful deaths, so we can gain our sustenance. . ." Do away with war, and we'll talk.

How does a society that fills its bellies every day with the flesh and blood of slaughtered animals do away with war?  Is it not obvious that eating meat makes people more inclined to war?  

"I once read that no traditional society on earth is vegetarian"

I don't know what you consider a 'traditional society.  Do the Hindus count?  The Vedas promoted a vegetarian society, but some allowance of meat-eating was made for ksatriya class (military and police types) because it supports their fighting nature.  The Puranas (histories in the Vedas) describe in many places about how kings would sometimes hunt to practice killing; and that even though this helps them perform their duty, they still must be punished under the laws of nature because the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) is required of all of the social orders.  (Obviously, Hindu culture suffered immensely under British rule, and no longer adheres to its Vedic tradition.)

An example is Narada Muni telling King Barhisman (Bhagavat-purana 4.25.8), "These animals are waiting for you, remembering your butchery. When you have departed this world, they will slice you up with iron horns, for you have enraged them."

A king's duties required that he kill animals, and yet the principle of nonharming of innocent animals was so strong in this society that it was taught that one had to suffer time in hell for it.  

For those who think animals suffer by being slaughtered, do you advocate getting rid of all predators? Don't wild animals suffer too? Not all, if any, are killed quickly and painlessly. Why are we the only bad guys?

It is not humans job to control all of nature.  Wild, carnivorous animals are required by their bodily nature to kill and eat other animals.  If humans want to justify our conduct by saying that animals do it, then we should understand them as no better than animals.  

On the contrary, that which separates us from animals is our ability to understand higher principles such as the difference between vice and virtue.  If, instead, we simply immitate animals or base our morality on their actions, then what is the use of our big brains?

Why are we the only bad guys?

There is a Vedic story narrated in Caitanya Caritamrita that answers this:

Narada said: "I am asking only one thing from you in charity. I beg you that from this day on you will kill animals completely and not leave them half dead."

The hunter replied: "My dear sir, what are you asking of me? What is wrong with the animals' lying there half-killed? Will you please explain this to me?"

Narada replied: "If you leave the animals half-dead, you are purposefully giving them pain. Therefore you will have to suffer in retaliation. You are a hunter, you kill animals. That is a slight offense on your part. But when you consciously give them unnecessary pain by leaving them half-dead, you incur very great sins. All the animals that you have killed and given unnecessary pain will kill you one after the other in your next life and in life after life." [CC 2.24.247-251]

In commenting on this story, Hridayananda Das Goswami writes, "Narada here undeniably introduces another Vedic moral principle: the gravity of a sin is relative, and is measured in relation to the status and consciousness of the sinner."

Here is another highly relevant quote from the Bhagavat-purana:

SB 5.26.17: By the arrangement of the Supreme Lord, low-grade living beings like bugs and mosquitoes suck the blood of human beings and other animals. Such insignificant creatures are unaware that their bites are painful to the human being. However, first-class human beings -- brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas -- are developed in consciousness, and therefore they know how painful it is to be killed. A human being endowed with knowledge certainly commits sin if he kills or torments insignificant creatures, who have no discrimination. The Supreme Lord punishes such a man by putting him into the hell known as Andhakūpa, where he is attacked by all the birds and beasts, reptiles, mosquitoes, lice, worms, flies, and any other creatures he tormented during his life. They attack him from all sides, robbing him of the pleasure of sleep. Unable to rest, he constantly wanders about in the darkness. Thus in Andhakūpa his suffering is just like that of a creature in the lower species.

So the answer is that to the extent that we are able to understand the principles of virtue, we are responsible to act accordingly.
On Why the vegetarian critique of meat-eating should make meat-eaters squirm posted 2 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

political competition

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution allows for more than two parties but does not establish a system where more than two viable parties can compete and have the most favored one win in most cases.

That problem could be corrected by a ranking system whereby a voter could register relative preference for each of the candidates.  A counter-intuitive system, but still better than the present one, would be casting a vote against the person most disliked.  

The trouble is that there are a lot of states would lose influence by changing the system.  Even if a change would help the country as a whole, individual states that would lose influence would almost certainly be against it.  So we appear to be stuck with the present system.On Friggin' Nader posted 2 years, 9 months ago 26 Responses

If it was true?

 Nucbuddy,

It wouldn't make any difference, because true or not, it's offensive, and people do not function well in offensive environments.

Suppose I have a higher IQ than you.  Does it mean that I will be better than you are at any intellectual sort of job?  It does not.  Each of our individual interests has a big role in that.  Based on a person's interests, they may do well at many jobs that would require more intelligence from someone less committed to the job.  If we're going to talk about stereotypes, one that I have is that women tend to take their jobs more seriously than men and invest more of themselves in their work.  A more committed person could easily make up for a little less brains if that's needed.

In any case, society is not about putting people in jobs based only on performance.  Everybody has social and emotional needs, and it does not help to make one segment of society feel inferior to another, or to make an individual feel inadequate.  People pursue careers that make them feel good.  For me, that feeling comes from helping the environmental situation while still providing for my family.  For someone else, it may be about earning a high salary or something else.  

If you consider the effect your remarks would have if they were taken seriously, I hope you would realize the harm.  Women are not going to quit their jobs because of what you say, and shame on you if they do.  Whether it's true or false, accusing women of being less competent than men hurts society and individuals.  I suggest that you spend some time thinking about why that could be.

 On There's nothing healthy about the American Dietary Association's addiction to corporate cash. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 60 Responses

calculations, etc

Biodiversivist,

I did the same sorts of calculations about 15 years ago, after which I became a vegetarian.  My calculations produced conclusions that are consistent with what I read about the report.  (I haven't read the actual report yet, but I hope to soon.)

One thing is that I did not, and do not, limit my concern to CO2.  
.............

Mihan,
 "...a chicken that lived and died dozens of miles from my house is more Food than"...

Did the chicken just die, or was it killed on purpose?  Would you consider the hormones generated by the chicken's pre-slaughter terror to be Food?

If I had not developed a disgust for meat, I might be inclined to eat things like fresh roadkill, but I would not eat anything that was slaughtered.

Also, I find a small farmer's killing livestock to be as bad as the factory farms, for different reasons.  I could not imagine betraying our animals' trust, taking care of them for years only to kill them when it seems economically benefical for me.  Animals without much human contact don't have that relationship with people, but it's obvious that the animals I take care of trust me.
..............

Concerning the idea that livestock animals would not exist in a vegan society, the question is academic and the assumption wrong.  Animals have value to humans beyond their meat.  Otherwise, why would I, a vegetarian, take the trouble to keep a cow, sheep, goats, guineas, a dog, and cats.  Each of them serves a purpose on our small farm, and none of them are intended to be killed.On Why the vegetarian critique of meat-eating should make meat-eaters squirm posted 2 years, 10 months ago 103 Responses

Your Highness

d41295,

Do you really think your demands warrant attention?

Who do you think you are?  Could you maybe consider that you're talking to humans who have better things to do than entertain trolls?  

If you want to debate, you have to at least show some respect for your opponents.  Otherwise, why should anyone respect you?On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 10 months ago 30 Responses

lawnmowers?

Is burning gasoline in a lawnmower preferable to burning wood?

My head spins.  On Umbra on burning yard waste posted 2 years, 10 months ago 12 Responses

land use

No need to preserve a lot of farmland as such.  Get rid of the subsidies so that the price of meat reflects its actual costs, and the subsequent dietary shift would make about 90% of the current farmland unnecessary.  Preserve some and let the rest grow into a forest or whatever.On Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look posted 2 years, 10 months ago 42 Responses

a philosophy of nature

In Sanskrit the word 'pradhana' indicates primal, undifferentiated material nature that has not been modified by time.  With time's influence, three kinds of qualities, called sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance) appear and interact with each other.  From this mixing appears all the diversity of the world.  

In other words, everything is all made of the same stuff, but it acts in different ways.  For lunch we may eat soup, but we do not eat the spoon or bowl.  These differences are real in the sense that they are true for the duration of their existence.

Naturally, different environments tend to have different effects on us.  For instance, the view from a mountain top can easily broaden the minds of those who have climed them, one effect of an increase in sattva.  Physically, this can be felt as the mind reaches across the horizon and up into space.  

The city environment is principally dominated by the material mode of passion (rajas).  It's the rat-race.  Of course, goodness and ignorance are also present, but the overall influence of cities is to amplify the urges of the senses.  Nature is there, but not generally in a very satisfying or uplifting way.

Nature also manifests the material mode of ignorance (tamas) in places where people indulge in intoxication, nasty foods, violence, and such things.

Euell Gibbons may be able make a meal of what grows between the cracks in a city sidewalk (to prove a point), but those of us who feel the persistent call of a more natural nature cannot make a home there.On An urban denizen beseeches nature writers to focus on cities for a change posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses

What is trash?

It might help if 'trash' was broken down into categories.  Obviously there is a difference between burning empty cereal boxes and plastic milk jugs.  It may well be that both are bad, but it might help if the people who are going to burn anyway could at least remove the most nasty combustibles.

In other words, for those will burn trash, what can they do to reduce the pollution?
On Umbra on burning trash posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Mihan,

Obviously this is a loaded question, but I'll answer it anyway.

The reason is that even one meal of meat per month is a luxury that comes at an individually significant environmental cost, including unnecessarily taking the life of another animal.  On any given day, modern society is such that a person can choose meals entirely based on personal taste.  The abundance of vegetarian foods makes meat eating unnecessary, and the huge impact of agriculture in modern society makes vegetarianism necessary.

However, I cannot bike to work.  I cannot walk there; and I cannot bus there.  I don't live in a development where I can find people to carpool.  Driving alone is the only realistic option for getting from my home to my environmental law enforcement job, and so I drive the most efficient car I can afford.  

It's a matter of working within one's reasonable options.  That's all.  And, quite frankly, if you eat meat only once a month, I would not have a beef with you (oh what a pun!) calling yourself an environmentalist.  Indeed if everyone became such an environmentalist, I would be delighted.

........

As an aside, I happened across this "Veganism is Not Extreme" yesterday evening:

http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2006/12/04/veganism_is_not...

There is also some interesting discussion in the comments.On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

farming is good

Jason,

I work in a cubicle, looking at a computer most of the time.  If I could support my family by farming, I would do that instead.  Fresh air, excercise, and the soft earth under my feet -- that's a good life.  This -- sitting in this cell, two plants visible, under fluorescent light -- is artificial life.  

When I was in college, about 15 years ago, I had to make a decision.  Go for personal happiness and abandon the modern lifestyle, or personal sacrifice and work within the system.  And here I am.

There are some benefits to our modern society, and I take advantage of some of them; but as someone who works both in an office and on a farm, I would choose the farm.  The grass is way greener at home.On Maybe, maybe not posted 2 years, 11 months ago 51 Responses

farm grain bags

I typically separate the layers and then dispose of them accordingly.  The layer with the plastic goes in the trash, and the others get composted or burned.  On Umbra on wrapping creatively posted 2 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

amusing

yes, it was.  If you go into our attic and lift any floor board, you would likely find droppings about two inches deep and probably a few skeletons - rats, mice, snake, bats, etc.  The house is literally built like a barn, and there are numerous access points.  Right now I would guess there are about 20 mice and 5 rats in the house.  I'm not sure if I would be locking them in or out!  

I will try to think of a better option than releasing them in the woods.  I used to simply take mice to the other side of the creek that passes through our backyard, but gave that up when I watched a mouse jump into the rushing, icy cold water, swim across in about 1 second, and run straight back to the house.

I'll be checking back in case anyone has more ideas.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

excuse me...

"...a claustrophobic circle jerk about animal rights..."

That was very rude.  Was it necessary?On Solar Revolution author kicks up a stir posted 2 years, 11 months ago 9 Responses

relocating animals

Wiscidea,

I appreciate hearing your views on this (and anyone else should feel free to offer theirs).  

I probably should say that rats move into the walls of our house (which is more than 100 years old) every winter, where they do things like eat holes in walls, chew wires, and really make a nasty mess.  Mice too, with their droppings in every hidden place.  I've woken up in the night several times to the sound of rats loudly chewing on the other side of the wall near my head, or my wife pounding on the wall to get them to go away.  Once we awoke to the sound of a rat dragging a dry cocont shell down the wooden staircase.  It's a little much, IMHO.

Outside, it's quite rural, and we have a NWF certified backyard wildlife habitat on just under 5 acres.  I have no problem with mice or rats in the barn.  Sometimes I drop a handful of the sheep's grain on the floor for them.  However, the shed is ony about 10 meters away from the house, and there seems to be several rats still living there.  

I think it's reasonable to do something to limit the rats coming into the house each winter.  Most people poison them, I presume.  To me, rats behavior does not justify poison.

Perhaps there are ideas that haven't occurred to me.  Any suggestions?  On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

peace

Atreyar,
     So you're using 'regret' to refer to something unpleasant that you feel you should do because of some other reason.  Like, "I regret that I cannot attend your party because I have jury duty that day."  That's a valid definition.

     When used in conjunction with remorse, I think it points to the usage I was emphasizing.  From wikipedia, "Remorse is an emotion experienced by one who feels they have committed an action contrary to their moral code. It is characterised by feelings of regret, self-hatred and a desire to make the wrong thing right."

    As I was saying, if I know I am going to regret something in a remorseful way, then it means I should not do it because it contradicts my ethical values.  

   However, I'm not going to fight over definitions.  I think we both understand what each other means.
On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

"problematic charisma"

I thought passage from that article was interesting:

"...that human populations are allowed to grow until they destroy the ecosystems they depend on.  Research is overwhelming and unequivocal: when humans are present in high densities, they alter the landscape so severely that plants disappear, some never to recover, setting off a chain reaction that echoes through the system, resulting in drastic reductions in biodiversity..."

Oh, wait.  It said deer.  On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

atreyger

I'm sorry, but "what about plant rights?" is one cliche that I've heard way too many times.

When it's preceeded by "First," it doesn't inspire me to find out what comes second.

"Those organizations (Ducks and Trout Unlimited) did a hell of a lot more to conserve streams and wetlands than the majority of other organizations."

I know they've done a lot to protect wetlands, promote healthy stream ecology, reduce factory farming, etc.  I appreciate that.  However, there is a categorical difference between a person whose conscience compels him to protect an ecosystem from harm, and one who protects the same so that he can hopefully kill the animals who live there.  

In college, I was taught that the first group were environmentalists and the second were conservationists.  On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

nonsense

"You eat plants!"

When will this idiotic 'argument' die?  

It's only value is in telling me that the rest of the comment is not worth the time to read.
On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

from mock vegetarians to mock turkey

It's nice to see that Grist has been more favorible to vegetarians.  A few years ago it I felt honored if Grist made a joke about us.  But now we're getting recipes!  It's real progress.

We buy a Tofurkey every year, but I don't eat much of it because it just feels like too much protein for me.  I don't think of it as a meat substitute because I don't think of meat as food.  Maybe I buy it because there's nothing like a 'mock turkey' to mock the holiday.  On Two non-turkey recipes for the Thanksgiving feast posted 3 years ago 19 Responses

Canis,

I almost missed that last message from you, above, and there's some interesting stuff in there.  

"Biblical texts are NOT the "word of God,"... who pops up now and again in biblical texts is NOT the real God; that character is only a literary invention of those human writers."

I would have to agree with you on this, in general.  I recently finished a book called Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence (http://tinyurl.com/y2km9z) [which is somewhat of a su...) says when writing Brahma in Hebrew, it's Abraham.  Also, it seems beyond coincidence that Abraham's wife's name is Sara, while Brahma's wife's name is Sarasvati.)

You also wrote, "I get the impression that the Vedic tradition unfairly privileges cows..."  Often in the occurrence of spiritual events, such as God appearing on Earth, there are both external and internal reasons (gross and subtle, obvious and confidential) for things.  For instance, it's commonly said that God appears to kill powerful demons (e.g. Narasimhadev, Varaha, Parasuram, etc.).  It's an external reason, as God can kill anyone through the ordinary process without appearing personally.  Among the internal reasons are to fulfill the desires of His devotees, which is His pleasure.

So we protect the cows because she is our mother because she gives us milk.  That's the external reason.  The real reason is simply that Krishna likes protecting cows.  That is why He is also known as Govinda (He gives pleasure to the cows) and Gopala (He protects the cows).  If God likes cows, we don't need a better reason.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow#Krishna)

H...

govindaOn Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

stubborn?

Jason,

So are you saying that milk is inherently unhealthy and cannot be prepared in a healthy way?  That seems just plain stubborn.

Here is another article addressing the subject:
http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/cow-milk.html
It speaks of how milk affects different body types and how milk preparation is important to its influence on the body.

And in any case, drinking milk isn't just about personal health for me. It's also a conscious acceptance of the cow's gift and the relationship that we have.  It helps make life good.

Isn't life about relationships?  This is the wholistic approach.  It's why I don't condemn my father for eating veal when we go out to dinner.  It's why I don't hate people for their selfishness.  

To throw out the milk along with the meat is exactly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  It's like stopping a sick man's disease by killing him.  If someone has a problem with dairy, one option is to shun it.  But why not just learn how to cook?

Here's a quote for fun:

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.20 - After reaching the shore of the ocean of milk, the demigods worshiped the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, the master of the whole universe, the supreme God of all gods, who provides for everyone and diminishes everyone's suffering. With great attention, they worshiped Lord Vishnu, who lies on the ocean of milk, by reciting the Vedic mantras known as the Purusha-sukta.On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

sometimes I wonder

if it's justified to use naughty or aggressive words to try to save lives.  Sometimes I feel that way, and I think it is justified.  However, it tends to be a rather poor method of pursuasion, serving mostly to anger people and move them in the wrong direction.

I do like how when someone else tries it, it makes me look moderate.On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses

Ox life

The oxen are trained with voice commands, not beaten; and they act as eager to pull the plow as a powerlifter is with his sport.

The alternative is to be a veal dinner "for some schmuck."On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses

God's image

"The idea that we are made in God's image implies we are a finished product."

The essential meaning of being made in God's image is that God is spiritual and so are we.  It means that we are not these material bodies.  It's not about having the same physical features.

Spiritually, "finished" is a meaningless word in the context of eternity.

(Unfortunately I don't have time now to read more of this essay, but tomorrow maybe...)On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

smug

I'd rather that fish were not killed to grow my vegetables.  I prefer my fish alive.  On Worldwatch releases a hopeful plan for saving the world's fish. posted 3 years ago 9 Responses

Dominion?

"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong." - Sri Isopanishad, verse 1
On Bill Moyers discusses the spread of environmental concern among evangelicals posted 3 years ago 22 Responses

Dominion?

"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong." - Sri Isopanishad, verse 1
On A Grist special series posted 3 years ago 22 Responses

walking the talk

I just saw this and thought it was both amusing and relevant:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/arch...

Also, another thing.  If people think we have too many people in the world, why are they still here?  I'm sorry it's hard to say without seeming rude.  I mean, if ethically motivated people can't raise the carrying capacity of the world or otherwise have a net positive impact, then wouldn't the responsible thing be to just kill ourselves for the good of everyone else?  If we wouldn't do that, then we have to either admit to a selfish agenda or false assumptions.  It's probably both.On Rethinking 'overpopulation' posted 3 years, 1 month ago 77 Responses

lota

What's the need for paper?  A small jug of water works better.On Umbra on recycled toilet paper posted 3 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Eating chickens destroys the rainforest.

http://www.goveg.com/environment-wastedResources-rainfore...

"...According to the nonprofit group Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms..."On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

one more

Bruce Lee:
Martial Artist/actor, source: His daughter live on the Big Breakfast (British TV programme) said he was 100% vegetarian about 8 years ago.

http://www.ivu.org/people/sports/index.htmlOn No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

anarchy

Kaela,

I'm not imposing anything.  I'm presenting my views in the discussion.  But in any case, imposing morality is the way of the world.  Isn't that what laws are about?  Do you think we can have any meaningful progress on environmental issues without some people 'imposing morality' on others?  Talk about deregulation...

What if I was driving an H3 to work or just for fun, would you want to impose your morality on me by saying it was bad?  (By the way, I drive a 3 cylinder geo metro.)

All I'm saying is that when a cow gives her blood in the form of milk, it seems very wrong to take her blood with a knife.  

It's bad enough that the animals can't speak.  Don't try to shut up those who speak in their interest.On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

Sorry I don't have time to make this shorter...

I really appreciate seeing all your views in this important discussion.  I hope my humble perspective can also be of service.

All this is a question of our experience as real beings in an illusory world.  If we look at the universe as matter, then the objects have no real value.  A living thing would simply be a brief reaction of chemicals.  Its coming into existence would be of benefit, and there would be no loss when it perished.  Just as a stone cannot appreciate the company of another stone, there would not even be any sentient being to experience these changes.  So materially, living or dying make no difference.

Taking the opposite perspective, seeing the world as a manifestation of spirit, there is also no difference.  Each spirit soul is eternal and has no real connection with the body, this world, or anything material at all.  So again, there is no difference between death and life because neither pertains to the spirit soul.

Looking at our daily situation, we find that our existence is a combination of these opposite realities.  We are sentient but surrounded by matter.  The sentience is life (or real), and the matter is death (or unreal).  Thus we are always alive, and the body is always dead.  While there is absolutely no gain or loss in this world, we project and then experience all sorts of happiness and distress due to our mistaken identification with matter.  The result is that we are trapped in an illusory struggle for existence.  That is animal life, and humans are more or less affected in the same way.

The root cause of our suffering is our desire for enjoyment, which attracts the mind to the world.  It is based in ignorance, and perpetuates ignorance.  Constitutionally our position is to give service, but due to the influence of material nature we want to be served to increase our enjoyment.  This error binds us to the illusory struggle through all sorts of combinations and permutations of nature, all of which is more or less suffering.  

Looking at the topic of discussion from this perspective, the environmental ethic can either be subtle sense gratification or it can be a development of compassion.  The same is true of helping animals.  Both are forms of service more or less under the influence of the illusory identification of the body with the self, but they are two steps on the path to greater realization.  This development of compassion softens the heart, so to speak, and makes us more sensitive to the real needs of the living entities.  Gradually our service becomes more direct as we come to understand the real needs of the living entity (rather than the needs of the material body), and our lives become more sublime.  Others become inspired, and gradually we all move toward freedom and happiness.  It is actual evolution.
On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

reason behing the madness

caniscandida,

  I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean in reference to the various elemental signs.

  Regarding the wisdom of the external teaching of Bhagavad-gita, one should understand it within the context of Mahabharata.  Accordingly, there were many reasons why the war was appropriate.  To properly evaluate the wisdom of the war, considering its effect of destroying civilized culture all over the world; one has to first understand the identity of the living entities and the real goal of life.  Simply put, we are spiritual persons, distinct from these material bodies; and it is in our best interest to separate ourselves from this world which is based on illusion.  If not for the hard struggle for existence, it would be very difficult to separate ourselves from the ignorance that is born of this illusion; and thus we would be perpetually separated from the inconceivably wonderful, loving service of the Personality of Godhead.  In other worlds, when life is easy, our tendency is to try to enjoy our senses; but when things get very difficult, we are more inclined to give up this nonsense and seek a permanent solution to the real problems of life.  Hare Krsna.On Eat it up posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

reducing need

Eating lower on the food chain (vegetarian) can drastically reduce water consumption.  About 5 years ago I did some calculations (sorry I didn't keep the figures) of my dietary water consumption, comparing my usage from when I ate a lot of meat to the amount after I switched to a vegetarian diet.  I pulled water usage estimates from three sources, and used the average.  The result was my saving 400,000 gallons of water per year by giving up meat.  When I added my wife and children into the equation, our collective savings was over 1 million gallons each year.

Naturally a proportional savings could be made by simply reducing meat consumption.

I don't know what was the basis for the (vastly) different water consumption numbers, requiring that I average the numbers; but I figure that it could have a lot to do with the specific agricultural practices.  For instance, grass-fed cows require much less water than grain-fed.  So that's another way that water consumption can be reduced.

Giving up meat would also be very helpful for alleviating the problem of water rights issues in the Midwest USA.    On Water scarcity will cause lots of scary things to happen. posted 3 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

re: the enviro ethics of eating, living, and dying

Dave,
    First of all, I don't like the distance I have to commute, but changing it would be immensely difficult and ultimately detrimental.  It would mean quitting environmental compliance my job, making my wife stop homeshooling my kids and get a paying job, putting the younger kids in daycare, and my finding whatever local job I could get.  Part of that would be a significant loss to our state's environmental cleanup program for which I raise a substantial sum of money, and also additional driving on my wife's part.  (One benefit of my long commute is that my wife hardly ever has to drive anywhere.)

Another option would be for us to sell our house, abandon our certified backyard wildlife habitat to someone who will probably mow it, sell the animals of our sanctuary to the market for slaughter (which would necessitate abandoning our religion in the process), and buy a house in the city (which is beyond my financial means).

The main point I've been trying to make is that quitting meat simply requires eating non-meat foods, a mere change of taste, while giving up cars requires a huge lifestyle change for anyone not living in a big city.

On to the ethics...  I haven't read the authors you mention.  Of course we can make all sorts of philosophical arguments that killing is OK, but if someone puts a knife to your throat, you will probably be afraid and not want to die.  A cow feels the same fear, only worse because she has no access to any transcendental philosophies.  If you're going to argue that animal slaughter is OK, then I would ask if you would allow yourself to be slaughtered for someone's hamburger.  I suspect not.  It's a matter of might makes right, which is contrary to genuine civilization.  In general, I have to say that the slaughter of livestock is exploitative.  Obviously the factory farmed animals who go to the slaughter factory are exploited, but also the local farmer who has a personal relationship with the animal who trusts him is also exploiting when he kills it.  It may seem unfair, but imagine yourself in the animals place.  Would you rather be murdered by a stranger or someone you trust?

In the matter of the ethics of our family animals, of course I've carefully considered that too.  Your examples were the cats and guineas.  The cats come and go as they please and eat what they like.  The guineas love to eat bugs, and recently I built them a house for their protection.  They're free to leave if they want, and indeed some have wandered off.  Personally I believe that many animals can have beneficial relationships with people.  They provide a service and receive love and protection similar to the way I serve my employer and get paid for that.  Actually our animals are probably getting a better deal than I get at my job.

Consider our cow.  I have promised to protect her and any offspring she may have, to the very best of my ability.  She grazes the grass and provides manure.  (I have 5 acres and no power mower.  Either the animals eat it or I cut it with my scythe (ScytheSupply.com).)  We would like to breed her so she can have better companionship, and we can have her surplus ahimsa milk.  

What makes the eating of animals so unethical now, contrary to most of history, is the matter of necessity.  In aboriginal societies, animal killing is often a matter of survival.  Now it is a matter of taste.  There is a significant difference between killing for immediate survival and killing for pleasure.  

Also, the other major difference has to do with population.  Throughout most of history, the human population was very small compared to modern times, so the environmental impact was of no real consequence.  Meat eaters require roughly ten times the land to produce their food compared to vegetarians.  Their use of all kinds of resources pertaining to food production is magnified, some as much as two or three orders of magnitude.  With the way we are encroaching on each others' resources in the world today, meat-consuming societies are especially likely to have conflicts over food issues.  It may well be that those with the taste for blood will end up with a clear advantage in these wars; but since I'm going to die anyway, sooner or later, and I'd at least prefer go with a clear conscience.  
On Vegetarians are ruining our bad headline posted 3 years, 4 months ago 33 Responses

The end of manure?

Mihan,

It's sort of silly to think that animal slaughter is necessary for getting manure.  Live animals pass dung, not dead ones.  I keep a cow, 4 sheep, two goats, and a variety of fowl, but I have no intention of killing any of them.  They're good for companionship, excrement, grazing, bug-eating, etc.  They're worth a lot more than their meat.

I also keep 5 cats, a dog, and several other pets, and they do fine without slaughterhouse food.  It's fine that the catch catch mice; in fact that's why we got them.  Obviously it's in some animals' nature to kill and eat weaker animals, but I as a human I prefer to cultivate my nature to be more compassionate.On Vegetarians are ruining our bad headline posted 3 years, 4 months ago 33 Responses

12,800 BTUs

So that would be about 12 ounces of heating oil saved.On Umbra on heating with bathwater posted 4 years ago 3 Responses

counterproductive

...the urge to pull off and get a Big Mac.

Suggesting I slow down while she plugs fast food hamburgers.

..........
So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?

Meat and the EnvironmentOn Umbra on speed limits posted 4 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

once a week?

If it's worth mentioning to have a meat-free diet once a week, why not do it every day?  Should we do all the other good things only once a week?  Is it really so hard for people to eat vegetables, grains, and fruits?  If someone doesn't feel full on a vegan diet (myself included), they can have milk products and still the diet will have only 1/10 of the impact of a meat-based diet.  Anyone who thinks they need meat should try curd fried in ghee.  Hare Krishna.On Umbra on personal actions that make a real difference posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

nitai gauranga

It is true that religion teaches against over-consumption and economic injustice, but it also teaches that God is the ultimate source for granting everyone's wishes.  For instance, in Sri Isopanishad, Mantra 8, God is described as "the self-sufficient philosopher who has been fulfilling everyone's desire since time immemorial."   There are also teachings about a law of karma, which indicate that everyone gets what he or she deserves.  Teachings such as these, when misunderstood (taken out of context), can give people a sense of entitlement or that the success in pursuit of enjoyment is a sign of piety.

Of course, that conception entirely misses the point of religion, but one should not expect average people to easily understand the inconceivable reality that exists beyond their empiric jurisdiction.  In Bhagavad-gita (7.3), Krishna informs Arjuna, "Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth."  Unless a person actually knows God, it is practically impossible to successfully abandon selfishness, which extends up to the desire for salvation.  

Dave said, "What do people need? A sense of purpose, security, and community; to be loved by a circle of family and friends; physical health."  

Ultimately these things cannot help.  A sense of purpose?  Every created thing must be destroyed.  Security?  Health?  Same problem.  Community, family, and friends?  See below.

Our faults are our selfish interests, which couple with our deep feeling of identification with our gross and subtle material bodies.  Each of us has a strong drive to satisfy ourselves, and we make different varieties of arrangements in the form of communities, nations, etc., to satisfy our material needs.  Yet we remain perpetually unhappy because of a constitutionally incompatible arrangement.  Spirit is compatible with spirit, and matter with matter; yet we are spiritual beings trying to enjoy material nature, and incompatible situation.  This situation can never be satisfying any more than finding a pot of gold in a dream.  Because we are eternal spiritual persons, whatever enjoyment we feel in our connection with matter is temporary and illusory.  Because of this illusion, we are unable to control our desires, unable to understand our relationship with God, and our situation will gradually become more unbearable until we are forced to realize that there is in fact no real happiness in our association with material nature.  God is withholding His opulence from us so that we will wake up from this bodily identification.  Therefore the only solution is to somehow awaken our dormant love of God, the ultimate goal of life.  Hare Krishna.
On Our materialism disguises a deeper problem posted 4 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

No mower

On my five acres, about one acre is taken up by a house, pond, driveways, and barn.  Two acres are mowed by a few sheep and goats.  I cut about a half-acre with a scythe, and the rest is wild, a certified backyard wildlife habitat.

www.nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat/

www.scythesupply.com

Using a scythe is one of the most pleasurable activities, believe it or not.  Whether for cutting grass or wildflowers (don't say weed!), a scythe will do it all; and it looks really cool.  For those who are into active meditation, there's hardly anything more mindful than working with one of these blades.  It's a dance, and it's real, good, old-fashoned exercise.  Hare Krsna.On Umbra on lawn mowers posted 4 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

great idea

Who needs sunshine?  We can burn the moonshine.

Hare KrishnaOn Can the moon provide infinite clean, cheap energy? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

whatever.

I've got just a few moments right now, but I have to comment.  

Even apart from the fact that atheism is nothing but a fool's dream, I can't find any value in the atheistic conception.  If nothing is eternal, then what's the purpose?  Atheism does not even know any real difference between life and death, or between the essence and the appearance.  

In Isopanishad, verse 1, the rule of environmental conduct is clear:

"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong."

I cannot speak for those who claim to be religious, but who do not know Sri Krishna; their religion is empty.  However, one who knows Sri Krishna sees God everywhere.  To such a person, everything is sacred.

Hare Krishna.On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

diet

   Personally, I couldn't consider myself an environmentalist at all without being a vegetarian.  That's how I "3.Distinguish real environmentalists from fakers."  Meat production uses incredible amounts of land and water, and is heartless.On Ten ways to turn that global frown upside down posted 4 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Earth to jdhlax

jdhlax,

If you parents had advocated your beliefs, you might not have been here to argue them.  If, as you say, the overall impact of children is always negative (with the exception of people who live with monkeys), then what can you say about your influence?  If, by your own philosophy, you are a detriment to the Earth, and that factor is of primary importance, then why are you still breathing?  Do you have more right to live than any of my children or any future child I may have?  

Someone apparently educated you about the problems of overpopulation, but you then argue that education does nothing to solve the problem.  Why then are you trying to educate us about it?

My understanding of population and sustainability was learned as an Environmental Studies major at U.B., most notably in class with Professor Lester Milbrath, using his book, Envisioning a Sustainable Society, as the text; and he gave me an "A" for a paper showing meat-eating as our primary environmental concern.  I learned to walk lightly on the Earth in classes with Sandy Geffner, especially his course called "Ethics of Survival."  

I also studied population problems there, and at that time I was an advocate of ZPG and perhaps NPG; but with maturity I dropped that as an ideal.  The urge to reproduce is incredibly powerful; and it is hard to imagine the consequences of 1 child per couple (really per woman), which would mean a society of no brothers or sisters, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, etc.  What a radical change to the structure of family and society!  Your proposition would require either the totalitarian imposition of surgical birth control or would result in a demographic shift in favor of those with the least self-control.  

I don't know what planet you live on where there are no plants and animals due to overcrowding of humans.  My 'own' back yard (in the USA) is a picture of diversity and a sanctuary for both plants and animals.  

Even though it may be a little crowded here, I invite you to come back to Earth.On Umbra on having kids, revisited posted 4 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

care for cows

If you visit one of our farm communities you will something unique in the USA: old cows.  In accepting their milk, we also accept the cow as our mother.  

In India today the whole system of varnashrama dharma has declined to a shell of its ideal.  In states where cow killing is illegal, cows are cruelly herded to other states for slaughter.  

However, that does not mean that there the ideal cannot be lived.  Our communities strive for high standards of cow protection, which can be reviewed here: http://www.iscowp.org/

We know that Krishna desires for us to offer Him milk and milk products because of knowledge derived from scriptures, saintly persons, and our disciplic succession.  The principle is that we offer Him foodstuffs with love, according to His desire, and that He tastes the foods by His merciful glance and transforms them to spiritual foods by this contact.  The 'remnants' are thus known as 'prasad,' mercy.  In this way the cow is directly engaged in God's service, as are we, and if done properly the whole system is perfect.On PETA and getting your message Out There posted 4 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

Got beer?

PETA's "Got beer" campaign was stupid, IMHO.  Although I've been an animal rights activist and advocate since college about 12 years ago (when I also stood outside of McDonalds handing out ugly fliers), I had to split with PETA over that one.  Milk has a lot of merits, and the real issue is the treatment of cows.  

As a Hare Krishna, our philosophy is that we offer milk to Krishna, as He desires, and we take the remnants which Ayurveda says nourishes the finer tissues of the brain that aid spiritual understanding; and because of this relationship of taking the cow's milk, we treat the cow as our mother.  Cows are natural mothers, and the best treatment of cows means to nurture this relationship.  Only the lowest of mankind would ever kill his mother.  Does PETA envision that everyone would stop drinking milk, and cows would wander around happily in a vegan society?  PETA's solution is neither practical nor ideal.  

It's nice that they have a goal of protecting cows, but their promotion of veganism is not ultimately consistent with this goal.  Their promotion of beer in its place is immature and irresponsible.  On PETA and getting your message Out There posted 4 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

grapefruit seed extract

I've used liquid grapefruit seed extract in water sprayed on bathroom mold to kill it, and it worked well.  Apparently citrus fruits have in their seeds natural compounds that inhibit mold as a way of protecting the seed.  There's also a concentrated powder form that would probably be good to use for scrubbing. On Umbra on bathroom mold posted 4 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses