The Vegetarian Myth

[Approaching Infinity]

WOW, I'll gleen what I can but I stand alone.

Of course, that is your free will.

If you people think that murder is the way....

Cat, this is a paramoralistic statement. First of all you use the emotionally charged word "murder", thus creating an equality between the killing of an animal and that of a human. This probably wasn't intentional on your part, but that is the effect. Not only that, but the way you phrase this sentence assumes the truth of an unproven premise: that we think murder is the way. That is a gross misunderstanding, and a malicious insinuation to boot. It is rude and inappropriate, to say the least, and skirts very close to violating the rules of our forum.

All that diatribe on psychopaths, how they start out by torturing animals, their lack of empathy and their murderous ways and you can't see the parallel. What is wrong with you!!!

Another false analogy. There is a difference between psychopathic torture and the slaughter of an animal for food. You may not be able to see it, and it is clear that it is an important, emotional concern of yours. But you are letting that emotional cloud your judgment and affect your respect and treatment of others.

As for the "What is wrong with you!!!", that is just another paramoralism, implying there is something wrong with us. Well, the goal of this forum isn't so much to see what is wrong with everyone else, but what is perhaps wrong with "us". In other words, it might be a healthy exercise to ask yourself, "Are they really all wrong, or am I perhaps wrong?"

 

[Woodsman]

This is hard stuff, and I sympathize. It's not easy, and the fact that you care shows empathy, a good and noble trait. But it's time to cool down. This is the alchemical process of soul growth. Friction and then retreat, and then repeat. It's the Work, and it's why we're all here, and now it's your turn. It's a gift.

You've been given a lot of rattling information by smart people who have gone through the painful process of really thinking through this challenging subject. These are not thoughtless or cruel people. They are not speaking from ignorance, so it is upon you to try to grasp why they reached the conclusions they have done, difficult as it IS.

For me, I did the same. I spent a couple of years trying the vegetarian route. It didn't work, but I know now both sides of the coin, and I recognize all of your emotions as ones I had myself. I didn't have enough information. When I did, the thinking became clearer.

The truth is this:

1. You MUST take life to eat.

2. You are a killer. You kill directly if you eat even a single apple; apples are babies. And we are killers by proxy, because apple trees feed on animal flesh; had to in order to exist.

There's no escaping it. You came to this world, and to participate, you sign a virtual contract to be a killer, and to be killed. It's the circle of life, and it is impossible to abdicate from it while still being here.

Every living thing agreed to this condition by coming here. Because in truth, it's not actually so bad. (Despite what I said earlier), we are not actually killing anything. These are just bodies; we share the material energy back and forth so we can all take turns. Souls are not consumed in this process.

The intensity of emotion connected to this sharing of energy back and forth provides impetus to learn Appropriate Behavior; a key lesson. There would be no desire to learn if it didn't hurt and feel very real.

So what can you do?

You can pretend that you're not a killer while you kill plants and animals by proxy, but this path leads to disintegration and madness. We've seen it over and over again. Embrace lies and your brain decays, (literally, in the case of vegetarians.)

Or you can respect the system, and respect the participants as best you are able. Love your meal, in both life and death.

Always remember; as above, so below. How do you want to be treated when it comes time for you to be food? -And you WILL be food, ARE food, for microbes, 4D energy milkers, and maybe even for something with teeth one day.

And that's okay. It's your gift back to the world when you're done taking your turn.

 

[kalibex]

The intensity of emotion connected to this sharing of energy back and forth provides impetus to learn Appropriate Behavior; a key lesson. There would be no desire to learn if it didn't hurt and feel very real.

I find that an especially apt description ("Appropriate Behavior"), Woodsman.

There are choices to be made.... To avoid Reality, or come to see it with increasing objectivity?

To treat the things we will inevitably consume with Respect, or with Contempt, or, (possibly worse), with Indifference?

 

[Cat]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

 

[Alana]

WOW, I'll gleen what I can but I stand alone. If you people think that murder is the way....

If you read the one book everyone has asked you to, you will understand where we are coming from. You will also understand that we don't think that murder is the way. We accept the realities of life on our planet after lots of research to establish what these realities are, and how to live our lives in ways that are true to our physiology, our nature, our planet.

All that diatribe on psychopaths, how they start out by torturing animals, their lack of empathy and their murderous ways and you can't see the parallel. What is wrong with you!!!

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

Now you are just making insulting and ridiculous claims. But if that's how you feel, I am sure there are many places on the internet where you will feel like home.

 

[Keit]

And just in case someone will decide to force their vegetarian lifestyle on their pets (both cats and dogs), here's is a cautionary tale:

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

I know this is a predator planet. That is what I mostly hate about this place. Well, I won't be a party to it.

But you are a party to it. Every day. In the process of harvesting the plants that you eat, hundreds of animals died. And what about the fact that it has been proven repeatedly that plants suffer, too? But you eat them anyway. Why are plants less important in your eyes than animals? Aren't they part of the ecosystem, too? Why the double standard?

Then, the buttons on your clothing are probably made of galalith (milk casein with formaldehyde). If you ever watched an old movie or photographs, they are made of celluloid coated with gelatin. Many homeopathic or Chinese remedies are made with animals and insects, too. The list goes on and on.

It' just my opinion but I think true veganism is just a theoretical concept. I have yet to meet someone who truly never partakes in the killing in one form or another. It simply does not exist on this planet. And vegans know this better than anyone.

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

See Approaching Infinity's previous answer regarding paramoralistic statements.

 

[Alana]

And just in case someone will decide to force their vegetarian lifestyle on their pets (both cats and dogs), here's is a cautionary tale:

Some people force this diet on their own children. Talk about murdering your own children, eh?

12 year old vegan has the degenerating bones of 80 year old

Infant child dies from malnutrition caused by parents' strict vegan diet

French vegans in dock over baby's death

Vegan diet increases the risk of birth defects, scientists warn

 

[Mike]

Hi Cat,

You might take something from this quotation from 'In Search of the Miraculous' in terms of crystallization and crystallization on the wrong foundation as explained by Gurdjieff. As an exercise after reading this, if you are willing, take a break and consider that your views you have expressed here might be incorrect and how much of your life, drives and beliefs are tied up in them. Maybe consider the emotions and thoughts tied up with your views and how they color your perception of the subject and affect your objectivity. It is possible you crystallized on this foundation of veganism.

On one occasion, at one of these meetings, someone asked about the possibility of reincarnation, and whether it was possible to believe in cases of communication with the dead.

“Many things are possible,” said G. “But it is necessary to understand that man’s being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death, may be very different in quality. The ‘man-machine’ with whom everything depends upon external influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, the next moment another, and the next moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies to him.

In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a certain fusion of man’s inner qualities, a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death of the physical body. But think for yourselves what there is to withstand physical death in a man who faints or forgets everything when he cuts his finger? If there is anything in a man, it may survive; if there is nothing, then there is nothing to survive.

But even if something survives, its future can be very varied. In certain cases of fuller crystallization what people call ‘reincarnation’ may be possible after death, and, in other cases, what people call ‘existence on the other side.’ In both cases it is the continuation of life in the ‘astral body,’ or with the help of the ‘astral body.’ You know what the expression ‘astral body’ means. But the systems with which you are acquainted and which use this expression state that all men have an ‘astral body.’ This is quite wrong.

What may be called the ‘astral body’ is obtained by means of fusion, that is, by means of terribly hard inner work and struggle. Man is not born with it. And only very few men acquire an ‘astral body.’ If it is formed it may continue to live after the death of the physical body, and it may be born again in another physical body. This is ‘reincarnation.’ If it is not re-born, then, in the course of time, it also dies; it is not immortal but it can live long after the death of the physical body.

“Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of ‘friction,’ by the struggle between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is. But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to ‘crystallize.’ But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. ‘Friction,’ the struggle between ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the ‘fear of sin,’ can evoke a terribly intense struggle between ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

“Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still. Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved. In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it? A man of this kind becomes an ‘immortal thing,’ although a certain amount of consciousness is sometimes preserved in him. But even this, it must be remembered, occurs very rarely.”

I recollect that the talks which followed that evening struck me by the fact that many people heard something entirely different to what G. said; others only paid attention to G.’s secondary and nonessential remarks and remembered only these. The fundamental principles in what G. said escaped most of them. Only very few asked questions on the essential things he said. One of these questions has remained in my memory.

“In what way can one evoke the struggle between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in oneself?” someone asked.

“Sacrifice is necessary,” said G. “If nothing is sacrificed nothing is obtained. And it is necessary to sacrifice something precious at the moment, to sacrifice for a long time and to sacrifice a great deal. But still, not forever. This must be understood because often it is not understood. Sacrifice is necessary only while the process of crystallization is going on. When crystallization is achieved, renunciations, privations, and sacrifices are no longer necessary. Then a man may have everything he wants. There are no longer any laws for him, he is a law unto himself.”

 

[Esote]

I know this is a predator planet. That is what I mostly hate about this place. Well, I won't be a party to it.

A predator planet that you hate and don't want to be part of ? I can relate to that, except that the predator is in me and I can't escape it if only hating it. Knowledge protects...

...
It' just my opinion but I think true veganism is just a theoretical concept. I have yet to meet someone who truly never partakes in the killing in one form or another. It simply does not exist on this planet. And vegans know this better than anyone.
...

Sun-Gazing doesn't partake 'in the killing in one form or another'. Unless it is the Sun-Gazers themselves may be ?
How come vegans don't 'know this better than anyone' ?

Let's pretend we are pure spirits ! Imagine : Nothing to kill, or die for. All the people living life in peace, sharing all the world, a brotherhood of man...

 

[nicklebleu]

Sun-Gazing doesn't partake 'in the killing in one form or another'. Unless it is the Sun-Gazers themselves may be ?
How come vegans don't 'know this better than anyone' ?

Eos, I don't understand this train of thought - could you please elaborate? What does "Sun-Gazing" have to do with killing animals for sustenance or farming?

Thanks!

 

[RedFox]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

I was reminded last night of something the C's said, which may explain Cat's POV.
It's worth reading the entire thing, but here is the essence of it.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,23860.0.html

[..]
Q: (L) Okay, let me try again. You said, "...aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure." (Galaxia) Oh, maybe because they are slavish, vegetables are good for them? (L) Well, that's not where I want to go yet. So, the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential. Oh boy... How to ask this... I once asked if vegetarian was the way that one should eat, and you said that no, not generally, as that was concentrating on the physical. What did you mean exactly by that? Let's see if I can come at this in a sideways direction.

A: Most vegetarians are such, believing that it is more "spiritual". This is a belief that eating a certain way will change the nature or destiny or tendencies of the soul. This is as effective as confessing one's sins to a priest and doing penance and then sinning again. Besides, as you have noted, the vegetarians you have encountered have been singularly "unspiritual".

Q: (L) Okay, let me try to ask it this way: Is the fact that we eat meat detrimental to us spiritually?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: (L) But I would say that just the eating of meat is not a spiritual issue at all. (Perceval) Eating food is a thing of the body. (L) Yeah, I mean we just try to eat in an optimal way to give our bodies the right fuel so that we can do our other work. That's our whole thing is to give the body optimal fuel.

A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Q: (L) Okay then. (Perceval) I was saying that in the scheme of things, plants eat rocks, animals eat plants, and some eat other animals. But from a physical point of view in the hierarchy that humans would eat... (Burma Jones) If only seems that way if you understand densities, but in terms of what they think, physically we're just animals to them. (Perceval) But I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about in respect of our understanding...

A: Yes, you just hit upon an important point: The genetic body tends toward the animal nature. Note that we said "tends". In those of the "fanatical" vegetarian nature, this tendency is very strong. In fact, you could even say that there is strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically.

Q: (L) So what do you mean, "strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically"? Is that what I was thinking, that these fanatical vegetarians do not want to eat meat because for them, it's like eating their own kind? For them, eating a cow is like cannibalism because they identify with the animal kingdom so strongly that...?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, that would lead to the next part of what I was thinking last night, which is that some - and I'm not saying ALL - really fanatical vegetarians of the slavish authoritarian follower type personality could be, can you say the word for me there, Belibaste? (Belibaste) OP's. (L) Organic portals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay. (Galaxia) So basically they're people with the essence of an animal?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They identify with the energetic... (Galaxia) They look like people, but they're not.

A: Yes.

Q: (Galaxia) They don't eat cows because they have the essence of a cow!

A: Yes.

Q: (Ark) They care more about the cows than about other human beings.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) That means they have empathy for animals - that is, their own spiritual kind - and not for humans.

A: Yes.
[..]
Q: (L) The kind that just don't want to be cruel to animals identify with the animals more strongly. They just don't have anything else. And then those that think it's spiritual, they're just kind of like New Age fundies. (Ailen) Yeah, but I was thinking that there might be some kind of difference in their essence or genes in the sense that some of them make a choice...

A: Not really. The only evidence for "soul potential" is the realization that the body is just a machine and needs optimal fuel.

Q: (L) Okay, there's something else I'm thinking about. Getting back to this genetic construct marrying with the physical potential... It seems that higher soul potential has been historically associated with physical problems. It's like the soul, being a strong energy, expresses itself through the body, and if the soul is unhappy, or if the soul is ill at ease, or if it's in distress, or for some reason not at peace as it is very easy to be in this day and time when there is so much cruelty and insanity rampant on the Earth, that these people with higher soul potentials tend to have more physical problems and disabilities. Is that going in a proper direction?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, individuals with the soul potential whose soul afflicts the body with its issues need to really understand the body, give it optimal fuel, and learn how to deal with the soul issues themselves separately or in a soul-based way.

A: Yes.

 

[Woodsman]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

I don't think it's like that. It's not their time, their turn isn't up, nor is their energy right for us. To function as a society, a necessary staging ground for our human lesson plans, it is inappropriate to be eating our children and our neighbors, our 2D companions. We feel that on a soul level.

I wonder sometimes what it will be like to exist at a higher density. I have sworn at times (foolishly, but it's an emotional thing), that the "enemy" which hounds us today will be hearing from me. I'll be like a spy in their midst, despite my wearing the same body type. 4D will suffer for their crimes against my people!

And maybe I'll act this out in some manner, until I sort through the emotions. I *am* angry with 4D. But it's futile. It would be me railing against God, "You built this wrong! I defy you!" It's childish, but it may be a necessary stage. I don't know. Hopefully I'll have enough grace to transition smoothly. To forgive and integrate, knowing that we all climb the same ladder, have all been/are each other.

Supposedly it's possible to exist in 4D in an STO manner, where you really don't need to eat lower life forms. That sounds nice.

But the thing to keep in mind is that nobody wins against God. All you can do is turn away and vanish; many make that choice, to cease, to have their soul substance recycle into primal matter so that the creation can try again with some other configuration which will fit. But the creation will persist. "Knowledge is Love is Light". I think it's worth having faith in the process; that it is bigger than we are, that the creation isn't arbitrarily creating difficulties without aim, without Love.

Maybe it's not your time yet. Maybe you'll never get there. Maybe you will.

Proceed as you will, and know that I respect your process. It's tough, and I hope you find a way through it which best suits you.

 

[Chu]

I think that given Cat's very firm (and quite rude) attitude, it may be hard to have a rational discussion here. We have heard these arguments many times, and we're still to see someone who can share that famous mountain of evidence regarding the benefits of vegetarianism and veganism for the body and the planet.

Lierre Keith has even more explanations, and a lot of research to back her claims. But this article is also quite interesting and should be obvious, but apparently it isn't.

The Myth of the Ethical 'Vegan'
Ward M. Clark

Ethical vegans allow themselves a pretense of moral and ethical superiority with no real effort.

Veganism dates back to 1944, when British Vegan Society co-founder Donald Watson coined the term to mean "non-dairy vegetarian." The Society expanded the definition in 1951 to state that "man should live without exploiting animals." Vegans eschew animal products in food, clothing, household products, or for any other reason.

There are a variety of reasons why people "go vegan." Some simply don't like the taste of meat. Some claim veganism is "green," and that a vegan lifestyle minimizes impact on the environment.

In 1997, a survey revealed three percent of the people in the U.S. claimed that they had not used animals for any purpose in the previous two years. Rutgers School of Law professor Gary Francione argued in 2010 that "all sentient beings should have at least one right - the right not to be treated as property."

Do ethical vegans live up to this stated standard? Do their actions live up to their own stated ethical principle, that animals have the right not to be treated as property? Do their actions really result in zero animal use? The parallel in human terms would be slavery, which no rational person thinks is ethically acceptable. Slaves are the property of masters; they live and die at their owner's sufferance.

Unfortunately for the ethical vegan, the production of their food alone reduces their claim to impossibility. Animals are killed in untold millions, in the course of plant agriculture. Some are killed accidentally in the course of mechanized farming; some are killed deliberately in the course of pest control. Animals are killed, every day. Every potato, every stick of celery, every cup of rice, and every carrot has a blood trail leading from field to plate.

In 1999, while researching and writing Misplaced Compassion, I ran into a rice farmer who posted the following first-hand account on a Usenet forum:

[A] conservative annualized estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic rice farming is ~20 pound. ... [T]his works out a bit less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is conservative. For conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is at least several times that figure. ... [W]hen cutting the rice, there is a (visual) green waterfall of frogs and anoles moving in front of the combine. Sometimes the "waterfall" is just a gentle trickle (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, total for both cuttings, other times it is a deluge (+50,000 acre).

My own family was involved in corn and soybean farming; our numbers were not that high, but they were not inconsiderable. Pheasants and rabbits are routinely killed in planting and harvesting, and rodents are killed by the thousands using traps and pesticides at every step: production, storage, and transportation.

Rational people know this and don't worry about it. It's an inevitable consequence of modern, high-production agriculture. The ethical vegan, when confronted with these undeniable facts, collapses. Their reaction, in almost every case, is to do a rhetorical lateral arabesque into a new claim, that their vegan diet somehow causes "less death and suffering" than a non-vegan diet, a ridiculous and unsupportable argument. A pound of wild venison (net cost in animal death: about 1/120th of one animal) almost certainly causes less "death and suffering" than a pound of rice (net cost in animal death: including rodents, insect, reptiles and amphibians, number of deaths may range into the hundreds).

But the numbers don't really matter. Not if there is a real ethical principle involved. What is at the heart of this fall-back argument is this claim: That a vegan diet has a lower cost in animal death and suffering than any non-vegan diet.

If any ethical vegan has crunched the numbers to prove this, I have yet to see the results. However, the numbers have been crunched elsewhere, and it turns out that a non-vegan diet may well cause less environmental impact than a vegan diet, for one reason: Food for livestock can be grown on land that is too poor for growing crops for human consumption.

If there was an actual ethical principle involved, the ethical vegan would be required to do one of two things:

- To analyze each of his or her sources of vegetable food and eat only those which are found to cause the least amount of animals to die.

- Move off the grid and grow all of their own food, scrupulously using no insecticides, no rodent control measures, and no mechanized equipment.

Note that it is only the second path that has a chance of actually accomplishing zero animal deaths.

In reality, ethical vegans do none of these things. In the real world, the ethical vegan has no idea - none at all - whether their diet causes more animals to die, the same number, or fewer, than a diet which includes meat. Even when they engage in a completely irrational search for micrograms of animal material in their diet (I know of one vegan who refuses to eat black olives because squid ink is used in part to color them) their actions are purely symbolic; they have no idea what their real impact is. Instead, they obsess over micrograms of animal products in their food while ignoring the metric tons of animal life destroyed to bring that food to the table.

An ethical principle is usually a pretty simple thing. If the willful murder of another human is wrong, then it is wrong in every circumstance. Ethical vegans claim that taking the life of non-human animals is wrong, but their actions do not live up to the claim; indeed, they don't even try. The ethical vegan follows no ethical principle. Instead, they follow a simple, easy, results-neutral, and ethically indifferent rule: Do not put animal parts in your mouth. It allows them a pretense of moral and ethical superiority with no real effort; it is a cheap and easy pose, nothing more.

In fact, ethical vegans exhibit a stunning and savage hypocrisy. Ethical vegans, as a class, fail utterly to put any of their professed ethics into action. They claim to not cause harm to animals, but they do; when confronted, they claim to cause less harm to animals than the non-vegan, but they are utterly unable to show that to be true, and are willing to take no real effort to even quantify their impact. They are intimately involved, every day, in an activity that causes the deaths of millions of animals, and they do nothing about it.

Ward M. Clark is a Colorado-based freelance writer and consultant who has followed and written about the animal rights movement for over thirty years.

And Cat, if you are sincere about wanting to at least check out this information, I recommend that you check this out:
Lierre Keith on 'The Vegetarian Myth - Food, Justice and Sustainability'

If after reading this and watching those videos you still want to make this sort of claim:

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

Then, we definitely live in different realities.

 

[luc]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

I was reminded last night of something the C's said, which may explain Cat's POV.
It's worth reading the entire thing, but here is the essence of it.
- snip -

Thank you RedFox - I had the same thought after reading Cat's comment, but didn't remember the session. There really seems to be an extremely strong identification with the animal kingdom, which ironically means an orientation "downward", despite all the lofty "spiritual feeling" associated with veganism/vegetarianism.

I think the kind of love for animals that LQB just talked about in the ketogenic diet thread, which I also witnessed in many small scale farmers and hunters, is a "real" love, based on deep knowledge about the animals ("love is knowledge"), whereas this blind identification with animals many vegan extremists show is really a childish love based on ignorance - it doesn't seem to amount to more than "oh, look how sweet he is!" imho. I mean, how can you be so identified with the animal kingdom and yet outright deny that nature is based on living beings consuming living beings? I mean, ever watched your lovely cat (sic) hunt?

And this brings me to another thought: On the other side of the spectrum, we know that there are "human predators" (psychopaths, schizoids, authoritarian followers etc.) who seem to identify with the animal kingdom as well - but they think we live in a "dog eat dog" world where anything goes, and that is supposed to be human nature. So maybe they identify with the "predator archetype" of the animal kingdom. The extremist vegans/vegetarians on the other hand seem to identify with the animal kingdom as well, yet seem to think by pretending there are no predators, everything's great in lala-land - maybe they identify with the "sheep archetype"? So maybe these are just two sides of the same coin - both groups ignore large parts of reality and look "down", evolutionary speaking, with their ignorance of human potential and idealization of the animal world.

Both groups seem unable to see that there may be a path "up" as well, which means using all our distinctively human capabilities (intelligence, self-reflection etc.) not to deny reality, but to learn more about it, especially about ourselves - which includes acknowledging the predator in us, without idealizing it, and outsmarting/outgrowing it instead of denying its existence and thus being governed even more strongly by "it". Anyway, just some thoughts.