Animals in food production

[history]

Is there a thread on the forum discussing the treatment of animals in factory farms?

I know there is a lot of discussion here on the benefits of a predominately meat based diet and I believe it has been stated that organic meats are optimal, if affordable, but even organically grown animals more often than not wind up in the same horrific processing plants as nonorganic food animals (full of terror at death which permeates their flesh), so I'm wondering how that is ethically reconciled by the members here and how it fits in with the other information about consciousness/responsibility/internal/external consideration discussed here.

Thanks so much.

 

[Aneke]

Hello, History,

My reply might not fit in exactly with the questions you've posed, but I've muddled through similar ethical issues. I'm kind of a lurker on the forums and trying to get over feeling self-conscious, so here it goes.

I live and work on a cattle ranch with my family (my parents, husband, and brother). We have a herd of mother cows, and take care of their calves until they're about a year and a half old, and then we sell them through a contract with a buyer.

I'll tell you up front that our cattle are not organic. They're currently certified all-natural. It's my dream and goal to move to organic/grass-fed. We're going through some restructuring on the business end and basically trying to avoid going broke. Change can't happen overnight, no matter how much I wish it could!

Anyway, in the world we live in, if you really want a product, you must be prepared to search it out and pay for it. I would love to see shelves full of organic, grass-fed, quality assured meat at every grocery store. I would love even more if each label said what ranch the meat came from, and where it was processed. (As of now in the USA, beef packers won't even label country of origin!)

The best you can do is go to ground zero. Find someone who raises what you're looking for. I think I've seen _http://www.eatwild.com/ recommended on the forums--it lists grass-fed producers whom you can contact directly. Depending on where you live, you can ask around at health stores and farmer's markets.

Once you find an organic/grass-fed producer, you can ask them about their practices before buying. Most likely, they take their animals to small local packers who process only a few a day. This is the most ethical situation, IMO. No crowding and it's over as quickly and painlessly as possible.

A practical option is to buy in quantity, as in a whole or half beef. You could see about visiting the ranch, and also the packer. That way you know for sure where your animal is coming from. As a producer, I probably won't go out of my way just to sell you a package of burger. But if you're going to buy a whole animal, you'll get taken much more seriously. ;)

 

[history]

Hello, History,

My reply might not fit in exactly with the questions you've posed, but I've muddled through similar ethical issues. I'm kind of a lurker on the forums and trying to get over feeling self-conscious, so here it goes.

Hi, Aneke,

Your post is great! Thanks so much for responding.



[quote author=A]I'll tell you up front that our cattle are not organic. They're currently certified all-natural. It's my dream and goal to move to organic/grass-fed. We're going through some restructuring on the business end and basically trying to avoid going broke. Change can't happen overnight, no matter how much I wish it could![/quote]


Understood!!




[quote author=A]Anyway, in the world we live in, if you really want a product, you must be prepared to search it out and pay for it. I would love to see shelves full of organic, grass-fed, quality assured meat at every grocery store. I would love even more if each label said what ranch the meat came from, and where it was processed. (As of now in the USA, beef packers won't even label country of origin!) [/quote]


No kidding. It's insane!



[quote author=A]The best you can do is go to ground zero. Find someone who raises what you're looking for. I think I've seen _http://www.eatwild.com/ recommended on the forums--it lists grass-fed producers whom you can contact directly. Depending on where you live, you can ask around at health stores and farmer's markets. [/quote]


I have a house in an area known for its locally produced meats and produce. This is not a problem for me at all and not really what I was after in my post but again thanks so much because I'm sure this is great information for those that don't have the kind of access we do. :)



[quote author=A]Once you find an organic/grass-fed producer, you can ask them about their practices before buying. Most likely, they take their animals to small local packers who process only a few a day. This is the most ethical situation, IMO. No crowding and it's over as quickly and painlessly as possible.[/quote]


I will say here that animals 'know' when they are in a facility intended to take their lives. The work by Temple Grandin, for example, acknowledges that fact. It may be quicker in some smallish facilites but there is still fear, raised cortisol levels, etc., and death in a slaughter house is never completely painless. I am not advocating not eating meats but I do think these issues deserve discussion here.

http://grandin.com/


I am still in the process of understanding 2D, 3D, 4D, etc., and I must be upfront and state that I have considerable concern, if I understand correctly, that other animals are considered soulless, but putting that aside for a moment, and to get back to my original question/concern, I'm still wondering how it is ethically reconciled by the members here and how it fits in with the other information about consciousness/responsibility/internal/external consideration discussed here to eat other animals that have been subjected to terror in the final moments of their lives and, maybe even more significantly for us, as the predators/eaters, what those stress chemicals and 'negative vibrations' do to our own bodies upon consumption.



[quote author=A]A practical option is to buy in quantity, as in a whole or half beef. You could see about visiting the ranch, and also the packer. That way you know for sure where your animal is coming from. As a producer, I probably won't go out of my way just to sell you a package of burger. But if you're going to buy a whole animal, you'll get taken much more seriously. ;)
[/quote]


Absolutely! And that's how it's done in my area for a lot of people with the money to have such a "luxury".

Keep up the good work on your farm! :D

--
Edit: quotes

 

[Psalehesost]

There is no fully ethical solution for us here in this world.

No matter what you do to feed yourself, there will be pain, suffering, death as a result.

Agriculture as practiced destroys the very soil utilized, removing nutrients, and beyond that often eventually turning it into desert. The process also annihilates entire ecosystems. And on the scale of individual animals, harvesting alone kills many times more than die directly in processing animals for food. So it is clearly very far from ethical - see the thread "The Vegetarian Myth" in the Diet and Health section for pointers to more info.

But ultimately, a wholly animal-based diet allows the maximal efficiency - the least needed consumption - in best providing for the body's needs. In addition, the C's suggest that not only do our bodies need to be fed, but also our minds - as STS beings, we literally eat consciousness in the form of other life, and without high-quality sources, i.e. animals, we simply do not have the chance to really grow - as I see it, this basically makes the choice one of becoming a zombie who merely consumes, versus a consuming critter who's (potentially) working to wake up and thereby becomes able to do something creative with the fuel consumed - making the suffering not in vain.

Whether the C's are correct or not, we know the health effects of vegetarianism and what the body actually needs, i.e. animals products - and body health includes brain health, which in particular suffers from a wrong diet. So if you hope to give back to the world through your actions - doing something that counts - and for this purpose wish to be at your best, then there really is no choice to begin with.

I think that's ethical enough: To do what it takes to function and then pay through efforts, growth and doing something for the world. We can do no better.

 

[history]

Hi, Psalehesost.

There is no fully ethical solution for us here in this world.

No matter what you do to feed yourself, there will be pain, suffering, death as a result.

Agreed and as a former longtime vegan, even then, it drove me crazy that other vegans never seemed to consider the harm in the production and transport chains for all their faux animal products they so loved.


[quote author=P]Agriculture as practiced destroys the very soil utilized, removing nutrients, and beyond that often eventually turning it into desert. The process also annihilates entire ecosystems. And on the scale of individual animals, harvesting alone kills many times more than die directly in processing animals for food. So it is clearly very far from ethical - see the thread "The Vegetarian Myth" in the Diet and Health section for pointers to more info.[/quote]

Harvesting food other than animals, you mean?



[quote author=P]But ultimately, a wholly animal-based diet allows the maximal efficiency - the least needed consumption - in best providing for the body's needs. In addition, the C's suggest that not only do our bodies need to be fed, but also our minds - as STS beings, we literally eat consciousness in the form of other life, and without high-quality sources, i.e. animals, we simply do not have the chance to really grow - as I see it, this basically makes the choice one of becoming a zombie who merely consumes, versus a consuming critter who's (potentially) working to wake up and thereby becomes able to do something creative with the fuel consumed - making the suffering not in vain.

Whether the C's are correct or not, we know the health effects of vegetarianism and what the body actually needs, i.e. animals products - and body health includes brain health, which in particular suffers from a wrong diet. So if you hope to give back to the world through your actions - doing something that counts - and for this purpose wish to be at your best, then there really is no choice to begin with.

I think that's ethical enough: To do what it takes to function and then pay through efforts, growth and doing something for the world. We can do no better.[/quote]


I hear you, but again my specific question was not just about the ethics of eating animals but specifically about fear in the death process and how that effects the meat and those that consume it. Temple Grandin has some information about that on her site and I will post some direct links later. I just wanted to know what anyone here thinks about that.

And I must however argue that most animal products that most industrialized consumers have access to are not "high quality", not in the least. They come from animals not fed THEIR natural diets, pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics, are sick, injured and stressed, etc., all things you and most here surely know.

And again, as I am learning to apply internal and external consideration, how does it apply here? Is this how it applies:

"I think that's ethical enough: To do what it takes to function and then pay through efforts, growth and doing something for the world. We can do no better."

Other than what you wrote here, how does i/e consideration apply, please? Practical examples of i/e consideration will really help me to understand how it works better overall.

Thank you so much!

--
Edit: quotes

 

[Psalehesost]

I hear you, but again my specific question was not just about the ethics of eating animals but specifically about fear in the death process and how that effects the meat and those that consume it. Temple Grandin has some information about that on her site and I will post some direct links later. I just wanted to know what anyone here thinks about that.

And I must however argue that most animal products that most industrialized consumers have access to are not "high quality", not in the least. They come from animals not fed THEIR natural diets, pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics, are sick, injured and stressed, etc., all things you and most here surely know.

I think there's always been fear in the death process for most animals eaten - so it is in nature, as well, when predators (including our hunter-gatherer ancestors) chase their prey, and/or wound it. So I would think that we are adapted to some level of that - but not to factory-farmed meat.

I did not intend to say anything to the contrary regarding most industrialized animal products. People here who pay attention to diet buy and support better options whenever possible, which it is for many members, though some have lack of access and/or money for something better. Most people are, in any case, slowly killing themselves (and destroying their brains) through what they eat - so implicitly, nothing I (or others) say about optimal diet or health applies to the majority of people, who are "stuck" in (addicted to) consumption of carbs, grains, gluten, casein, GMOs, trans fats, etc., and processed food in general.

And again, as I am learning to apply internal and external consideration, how does it apply here? Is this how it applies:

"I think that's ethical enough: To do what it takes to function and then pay through efforts, growth and doing something for the world. We can do no better."

Other than what you wrote here, how does i/e consideration apply, please? Practical examples of i/e consideration will really help me to understand how it works better overall.

Generally, internal and external consideration (definition on cassiopedia.org) is a concept concerning interaction with people - external consideration being to do whatever makes life work the best for both you and others, no matter what one's emotional (or other) programming tells one to do. (As Gurdjieff said, "separating inner and outer attitude" so that one is not a slave to inner attitude in outer behavior.) You can find discussions of it in various interpersonal contexts by searching the forum (sometimes they are also termed inner and outer considering - same thing).

I guess it could however also be taken in relation to life in general, or the planetary environment - expanding the concept (keeping in mind that this is not the general definition). Then it would be to do whatever makes life work the best for both oneself and it - for the system of life on Earth. This is very broad. Of course, one idea is not to inflict any uneccessary harm - and here I think environmental destruction, whether a matter of e.g. pollution and/or of agriculture as commonly practiced (even when "organic"), would be an example. (Where of course actions may be beneficial or detrimental either directly or indirectly.)

 

[history]

Yes - basically harvesting machines destroying everything in their way, plants and animals alike.


Understood.


I think there's always been fear in the death process for most animals eaten - so it is in nature, as well, when predators (including our hunter-gatherer ancestors) chase their prey, and/or wound it. So I would think that we are adapted to some level of that - but not to factory-farmed meat.


Very true. Good point.


I did not intend to say anything to the contrary regarding most industrialized animal products. People here who pay attention to diet buy and support better options whenever possible, which it is for many members, though some have lack of access and/or money for something better. Most people are, in any case, slowly killing themselves (and destroying their brains) through what they eat - so implicitly, nothing I (or others) say about optimal diet or health applies to the majority of people, who are "stuck" in (addicted to) consumption of carbs, grains, gluten, casein, GMOs, trans fats, etc., and processed food in general.


Agreed.



Generally, internal and external consideration (definition on cassiopedia.org) is a concept concerning interaction with people - external consideration being to do whatever makes life work the best for both you and others, no matter what one's emotional (or other) programming tells one to do. (As Gurdjieff said, "separating inner and outer attitude" so that one is not a slave to inner attitude in outer behavior.) You can find discussions of it in various interpersonal contexts by searching the forum (sometimes they are also termed inner and outer considering - same thing).


I'm still not comfortable with excluding animals from this consideration but this helps clarify the concepts for me. Would "people" include organic portals then, also?



I guess it could however also be taken in relation to life in general, or the planetary environment - expanding the concept (keeping in mind that this is not the general definition). Then it would be to do whatever makes life work the best for both oneself and it - for the system of life on Earth. This is very broad. Of course, one idea is not to inflict any uneccessary harm - and here I think environmental destruction, whether a matter of e.g. pollution and/or of agriculture as commonly practiced (even when "organic"), would be an example. (Where of course actions may be beneficial or detrimental either directly or indirectly.)


This is very helpful. Thank you very much. I did read the definition several times but my learning curve is through practical application. Thanks so much for this effort.

 

[Psalehesost]

Generally, internal and external consideration (definition on cassiopedia.org) is a concept concerning interaction with people - external consideration being to do whatever makes life work the best for both you and others, no matter what one's emotional (or other) programming tells one to do. (As Gurdjieff said, "separating inner and outer attitude" so that one is not a slave to inner attitude in outer behavior.) You can find discussions of it in various interpersonal contexts by searching the forum (sometimes they are also termed inner and outer considering - same thing).

I'm still not comfortable with excluding animals from this consideration but this helps clarify the concepts for me. Would "people" include organic portals then, also?

I don't think animals need to be excluded - the point (which the article on Cassiopedia put better than I did) is that, as generally used, it refers to "personal interactions". On second thought this can obviously include animals - just think of pets, for instance. And naturally, yes as to OPs. (For practical purposes every human is much like an OP until they fully wake up, which even here few have really done - I certainly haven't. So the distinction between OP and non-OP seems to have little practical use in one's everyday life - the concept is much more important for understanding the world and how people can differ in their developmental potential.)

For some more "meat" on topics such as these, I'd recommend reading In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky - the narrative, and the examples given in the talks relayed make it an easy read - which is not to say that it is simple to fully understand - it is one of those books you're never fully done with.

 

[history]

Generally, internal and external consideration (definition on cassiopedia.org) is a concept concerning interaction with people - external consideration being to do whatever makes life work the best for both you and others, no matter what one's emotional (or other) programming tells one to do. (As Gurdjieff said, "separating inner and outer attitude" so that one is not a slave to inner attitude in outer behavior.) You can find discussions of it in various interpersonal contexts by searching the forum (sometimes they are also termed inner and outer considering - same thing).


Got it. Thanks.



I don't think animals need to be excluded - the point (which the article on Cassiopedia put better than I did) is that, as generally used, it refers to "personal interactions". On second thought this can obviously include animals - just think of pets, for instance. And naturally, yes as to OPs. (For practical purposes every human is much like an OP until they fully wake up, which even here few have really done - I certainly haven't. So the distinction between OP and non-OP seems to have little practical use in one's everyday life - the concept is much more important for understanding the world and how people can differ in their developmental potential.)


Good to hear. I also meant I'm not comfortable with them being considered 2D, which I understand to mean soulless, but I'm really just getting familiar with the terms/levels, etc., so it's possible I have that wrong.

As for OP's, points well taken.



For some more "meat" on topics such as these, I'd recommend reading In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky - the narrative, and the examples given in the talks relayed make it an easy read - which is not to say that it is simple to fully understand - it is one of those books you're never fully done with.


Thank you. I will look for it. Your descriptions are great, btw.

 

[PerihelionX]

Although this is not the complete answer it may be helpful. Kosher meat products must be slaughtered painlessly in accordance with Jewish law. If you are looking for meat slaughtered more humanely Kosher meat may be a good option. Obviously well fed and chemical free is a separate criteria. If you can get Kosher organic that may be closer to the ideal.

_http://www.koshercertification.org.uk/whatdoe.html