Are Vegetarians...NonViolent?

[lightningbug]

All around me there are many spiritual people telling me the world is going to become vegetarian for one reason or another. Maybe all the animals in the farms will become diseased, so we'll stop eating them. Maybe all the fish in the sea will die, so we'll stop eating them.

Either way, it seems only a matter of time before the world becomes vegetarian. Great news for vegetarians. Bad news for me, since I don't understand the very basic vegetarian belief. That it is a non-violent diet.

When I was six or seven, my dad took me to the forest and we picked some wild flowers. We brought the flowers home, and put them in a vase. What happened next forever changed my perspective of the plant world and our relationship with them. The flowers died. They died slowly within days while the rest of the wild flowers outside thrived. And I didn't understand why the flowers died since we had put them a big vase of water, and plenty of sunshine.

Well around the same time at school we were learning a bit about the natural world, the life cycle of butterflies. And even the life cycle of plants. And this was when I learned that the basic plant needs roots. No roots. Plants can't drink water and die.

Then a revelation hit me. All adults must know this. And they don't care. Adults know they are condemning flowers to death when they pick them. And they don't care.

I realized there's no point in making an argument. People don't care if they kill flowers. But at the age of seven I made a personal vow, which I have kept. I will never pick flowers.

Then comes christmas time! Who doesn't love the fresh scent of a christmas tree? I loved the christmas tree so much, I even wrote little story about it. I was drawing the tree in the pot, when another realization hit my childish brain. This pot is far too small for tree roots! This tree is just another giant picked flower and without roots its going to die!

And this hurt me more than mere flowers, because of all the plant life - the tree is just wow. I've always felt they had souls. And were killing them for a holiday decoration!

Now, I know that trees are being killed for lots of other extensionally meaningless things, like toothpicks. But its way too complicated for me to begin to say when it is okay to kill a tree, and when it isn't okay to kill a tree. The only thing that made sense to me, as it made sense to me at the age of seven..............was how tragic it was to rip a tree from its roots. And make a mockery of it as it struggles to drink water.

Then comes middle school, when I first really encounter vegetarians. And our first meeting was not a happy one. I ask the vegetarians, why they do not eat meat? They're answer was simple - because animals are living things. So I ask them, but aren't plants living things? And the usual response was. "Yeah but..they're not really living" "They're not conscious" or "They don't feel pain"

All three of these answers stroke a bone so deep with me, so much to the point, I never wanted to be associated with vegetarians. Vegetarians are the reason why I dislike vegetarianism.

The argument that plants were not conscious was something I couldn't grasp my mind around. How can anything be living, without awareness? It seemed evident to me as early as middle school that what separates life from non-life, is self awareness. It would make no sense why a plant would bother to breathe, if they didn't care to be alive. The idea that life just lives because its programmed to live, seemed illogical to me.

My teachers argued against me. Explaining that something needs a nervous system to be conscious. So then I asked myself, a catholic at the time........Does the soul need a nervous system to be conscious?

Do aliens need nervous system to be conscious? Couldn't there be other systems of consciousness, besides a nervous system, which is very specific to the animal kingdom on earth?

How can plants even interact with their environment in the way that they do, without some sort of system?

Well, I'm happy I kept to my hunches. As it turns out, we know now that the most basic life forms, single-celled life forms - are self aware. That by communicating with each other, the most basic life forms distinguish self from non-self!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA

And if we realize that self-awareness is a basic function of basic life forms......why wouldn't self awareness be the norm for all life forms?

Now...there are very good and valid arguments against many farms and slaughter houses. But that's not where I want to bring this argument. I'm putting this here because there is another argument for vegetarianism. And there are two main spiritual arguments for vegetarianism, both I have 'beef' with.

One. God designed for us to eat vegetables. Not animals. And two. The nonviolent argument. Any consumption of an animal is violent, but consuming a salad is nonviolent.

So I've tried to dig deeper at the argument that God wants us to be vegetarian. Well the first thing I find is genesis. Where God commands us to eat the fruit of trees. Now fruit is very special, it is the ONLY living thing on this planet that WANTS to be eaten. The trees WANT you to eat their fruit. And certainly, the fruitarian argument, that is the diet of eden, the diet God intended for us....MAKES SENSE!!

It does make moral sense.

Why would God want you to eat the carrot, anymore than God wants you to eat a chicken? When the bible seems to make it clear, God loves all his creations. The fruit becomes the only thing you can consume...............without actually harming a living thingl!

The God-Vegetarian argument takes many twists and turns. Some saying, oh, its okay to eat plants because they have no soul. Oh its okay to eat plants because, their consciousness is sleeping, so they don't know you're eating them. Oh its okay to eat a plant, because the human soul can't reincarnate as a plant.

But none of these God arguments really get to the moral heart of the matter. Why God would want us to eat any living thing to begin with???

The nonviolence argument becomes just as puzzling for me. I was reading up on the nonviolence practice, and I found something very - strange. They refrained from harming plants.........in the invent it would harm bugs and microscopic life??????

So the microscopic organisms that could be harmed should we pull a plant from its roots, have more value, than the plant itself? Or am I misunderstanding some of these arguments?

Its just so frustrating that a vegetarian places more value on microscopic life, than a plant, thousands of years more advanced and complex than any micro organism. Is it because we can clearly see microscopic life moving around in a petri dish, to let you know its alive? Well then..just fast forward plants...They are always moving!

Do you understand my dilemma in a world saying vegetarian is the spiritual diet?

In my perspective, I can't fathom it being wrong to eat a living thing - because im no magical air breathing yogi. I can't get away from eating a living thing. And I don't want to be hypocritical and just pretend vegetables aren't living.

I can't sit here and pretend vegetarianism is a nonviolent diet, when biology shows us how plants employ various self-defense techniques. Why do they self defend themselves, if not for the fear of death?

I can't sit here and pretend that vegetarianism is a spiritual diet, when spiritually speaking, why does God want us to eat any living thing? In the garden of eden it was fruit....very different from a living vegetable.

And of course there are so many ills and wrongs happening in the food market today. But in my perspective, it's not that it is morally wrong to eat meat. So much as it is how we have gone about it, and the over consumption of meat. Likewise, it's not just our animal farms that are completely unnatural, but so are our monoculture plant farms. There is nothing in nature that resembles it!!

Really, if you demand that my diet is spiritually moral...I would have to live off fruit!! Or worse......air. Until then, I will just try to eat healthy. And healthy meat as it turns out, doesn't come from abused animals.

[John Sorensen]

Morality and food are incompatible.

*Is it violent to plant the same vegetables as in monocropping thus depleting the soil of the very minerals needed to sustain organic life?

*How would a vegetarian world be sutainable? How would the soil not be depleted? Would everyone be using Hydroponics?

...Well, I tried vego for two years and it wasn't for me.


My current diet emphasises nutrient density. There is nothing "natural" or "spiritual" about making a body make of protein, fat and water get by on vegetables.


To me to be Spiritual is living in harmony with nature, as primitive hunter gatherers did, who ate a LOT of primarily meat, guts, grease, liver, brains, bone marrow, intestines etc - the most NUTRIENT dense parts of the body. There is far more Vitamin C in raw sheeps liver for example than in any fruits and vegetables, it has famously been used to cure people of various cancers.


Whatever we choose to eat, something has to die, be it plant or vegetable.

I didn't design this planet, but I'm living on it, and it has certain biological laws, and when we ignore them, we suffer the consequences. Our bodies are made of the earth and water, they literally are an extension of the earth itself, but we like to fool ourselves and ignore all the rubbish/chemicals we have put into the environment that is now inside our bodies, in the water and in the air we breath - even in newborn babies, the umbilical cord blood has pesticides and other fun chemicals present.


Well, when I do eat, I give blessings for all food that I eat, but when it gets in my mouth and hits the old stomach acids, well that is about as violent as it gets, being dropped into a pit of acid!


From the Weston Price Organisation:

The Pursuit of Happiness

When taken together these data suggest that nutrient-dense animal fats rich in vitamin A, arachidonic acid, andvitamin D will not only help us avoid mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, but help us to confront our challenges with focused, goal-oriented behavior and to sustain effort over time in order to realize important goals in the future. While there are many other factors that influence mental health—cognitive, social, spiritual—there is a physiological element of mental health that cannot be ignored. A return to traditional foods and traditional methods of food production and preservation will help us restore a culture willing to invest in its future while supplying the nutrients necessary to support the motivation to make that future happen.

I can say since upping my quantities of Vitamin A and D from animal source foods, I have never been healthier, stronger or happier and more mentally resilient. Contrast that to the two years a lifetime ago on a vegetarian diet where I was manic, energy levels all over the place, central nervous system was over taxed and my adrenal glands were over worked, not good!

Severe deficiencies of Vitamin A and D (which MOST people have) from animal sources dramatically increases chances of babies being born with mental illness - schizophrenia, autism and a host of others.
Fats, particularly animal fats have critical micronutrients that combine with other nutrients in the body for proper absorption.

Also,

"Arachidonic Acid Cooperates with Vitamins A and D to Regulate Stress Via Dopamine and Cortisol"

Which means chronic Vitamin A and D (from animal sources) deficiency results in elevated stress levels, adrenal burn out, damaging endocrine system, glands, immunity etc.

*I would say that SOME vegetarians are indeed violent / unbalanced due to their lack of essential fats in their diet.

Now, if only I could remember what that thing in my skull is primarily made of........?

brain-fat.jpg

[Sinera]

Vegetarians (who do it right, you can do anything wrong of course) do not lack essential fats - nor Vitamin A or D. It's a myth. Btw, we all have a vitamin D deficiency anyway. But vegetarian vitamin D or even vegan is also possible to gain, e.g. from lichen, a vegatarian form (at least) from the wool of sheep. Vitamin A is best consumed via beta-carotenes which you find in lots of veggies.

There are many pseudo-medical myths spread it seems by the meat and consumer industry nowadays again.

For vegans there is only the supposed lack of Vitamin B12 an issue resulting in anemia or neurological problems, including psychological (depression) in the long run. Vitamin-B12-deficiency has however much often different origins (e.g. stomach diseases or CEDs, such as Crohn etc.). So it also concerns "normal" eaters.

Moreover, VitB12-lack does not even apply to vegetarians who consume dairy products (cheese, etc.). Moreover, some say that some algea or some veggies contain VB12, but I need to re-check on that (e.g. the infamous Sauerkraut is said to have it).

I'm vegetarian for years now. I do not lack anything. Many others don't either. So where's the point in stating that I need to fall ill without doubt because that is what is being propagandised now in the media? Most people who consult doctors on a weekly basis are not vegans or vegetarians I daresay. If the propaganda was right there would be another situation which I clearly do not see.

When I was depressive I can say that I was much more depressive as a meat eater before.

Most vegans/veggies I know are more vitally and healthyly appearing than heavy meat eaters, which however admittedly also relates to other lifestyle-health-related attitudes these people have (e.g. sports, yoga, meditation, etc.).

Meat (esp. red meat) causes cancer (esp. colon cancer) with higher likelyhood and lots of obesity-related and heart/cardiovascular diseases, arteriosklerosis, also later diabetes in the guise of the metabolical syndrome. That's a fact, check the stats.

Please don't fall for all the negative propaganda by the industry and some of their minion doctors against vegans and vegetarians etc.. It seems exaggerated recently, there is at least in my country a kind of crusade for meat-eating and against vegetarian/vegan raw diets in the mainstream mass media (whereelse???), since (I suppose) the industry suffer a lot of financial setbacks by people becoming more health aware in greater numbers, doctors maybe too.

[John Sorensen]

Vegetarians (who do it right, you can do anything wrong of course) do not lack essential fats - nor Vitamin A or D. It's a myth. Btw, we all have a vitamin D deficiency anyway. But vegetarian vitamin D or even vegan is also possible to gain, e.g. from lichen, a vegatarian form (at least) from the wool of sheep. Vitamin A is best consumed via beta-carotenes which you find in lots of veggies.

So, you have had independent laboratory tests to confirm this, because anything else is just hearsay?

Why is it that the strongest healthiest cultures ALL ate an abundance of Vitamin A and D from animal sources in antiquity (circa 1900) and grew significantly larger, taller, fully developed skeletons and jaw structure, nor CROWDING of teeth (unlike those who did not eat these foods, who had overcrowded teeth, just like we modern people due to improper development of the jaw) and far stronger than their neighbours?

These were groups such as the New Zealand Moari, Masi of Africa, Inuit of Alaska, Native American Indians, Aboriginal tribes of Australia and others.

While those who ate a predominantly vegetarian diet were typically shorter in stature, less disease resistant, not as physically strong (and hence dominated by their neighbours in tribal conflicts).

Well, this data is all available in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which is one of the largest studies ever done on what factors create the ultimate human specimen in term of high-immunity, free of disease, no mental illness, high degree of happiness, lack of stress etc.

Any modern study of Nutrition that neglects this data is just incomplete.
I prefer to stick with the facts, rather than conjecture.

http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Phys...l+degeneration


*Why does everyone have a Vitamin D deficiency? So even me, while I am currently in the sun for around 1 hour a day in just shorts and taking 5000 IU daily of Vitamin D3 Chocalciferol is deficient? Please explain this idea.

*I am not against any diet, people are free to eat whatever they like, but I do say be informed first, and make an informed decision after looking at the various available data, which for me took many years, and constant changes and re-inquiring into my errors of perception.

[Ayan01]

I think you are actually talking about the purity of the food source, natural vs processed food here rather than vegetarian vs non-vegetarian. Can you give me a source? Heres one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSAZ1voWjGU (Actually when people research this stuff it makes me think they are objectifying the people in the photographs and undermining the culture of the ingegenous peoples of the tribes mentioned, spread love I say...its like you cant spread love if you are messing with photos of people and making them examples of inequity...so I will site the nature of this video as being a bit offensive to some...he's actually trying to say they were all the picture of health before the processed foods came along...its like that whole thing where they find a native tribe in the amazon somewhere and they all have perfect teeth...etc) (let me know if its not the right one, I didn't have time to look through all the vids)

From 'TAUBES book 'why we get fat' where he directly talks about crowding of teeth, development of the jaw, growth of the skeletal system and attributes the irregularities to the introduction of processed foods into the diet. Weight and height to the genetics of the individual rather than the introduction of androgens or proteins. In particular I direct you to his research on the people of the northern circumpolar region whose diet consists of high amounts of saturated fat and little fish and whose body composition is of a low body fat, low cholesterol and low insulin levels (natural vs processed)

Basically hes saying all these people were healthier than we are now even though their diet consisted of very little meat (seasonal at best) and mostly natural food sources,)

The book you cited was first published by Sorenson in 1939 and included research from the previous century. This is before a lot of modern science was published which taubes includes in his book even though he had to go back in time for some of it. I invite you to look at his work...he is a proponent of meat. Im only pointing out your statement above and addressing it with knowledge I have acquired.

Meat just tastes good...cmon just say that. I like the informed decision thing, I think we all need to do that, often its a personal thing...I used to love eating meat...Im not going to say its bad...lots of people do it...its a personal thing...do what makes you healthy I say...maybe its different for me for a 1000 different reasons. I have friends that have higher metabolisms than me or naturally low iron etc..they might need to supplement...often its trial and error I think

Im still looking for good tofu if anyone has any suggestions? is it how you cook it? Im an impatient cook

[Sinera]

And you really base this all on just one book from 1939? And a probably outdated and very biased one? That is also a bit of 'conjecture' for me.

It is also only one study and it has furthermore been criticised, as one can read, e.g. regarding certain biases, no control groups, range of aspects examined, ignorance of other influential factors, etc.

I don't like quoting from Wikipedia but here's for the sake of finding sth fast:

"A 1981 editorial by William T. Jarvis published in Nutrition Today was more critical, identifying Price's work as a classic example of the "myth of the healthy savage," which holds that individuals who live in more technologically primitive conditions lead healthier lives than those who live in more modern societies. The review noted that Price's work was limited by a lack of quantitative analysis of the nutrition of the diets studied, and said he overlooked alternative explanations for his observations, such as malnutrition in primitive societies and overindulgence in the Western diet, rather than the diet itself, as a cause for poorer health. The review makes the assertion that Price had a preconceived positive notion about the health of primitive people, which led to data of questionable value and conclusions that ignored important problems known to afflict their societies, such as perodontal disease. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price#Nutrition

So his book seems to contain a bit of positive stereotypes or even a bit of positive racism ("myth of the healthy savage")? Moreover, today fortunately we do not need the ability to be stronger than other tribes in order to dominate (kill?) them. (Btw, it would ironically confirm the thesis made in the title of this thread regarding non-violence .)

And what is overlooked most, also by this study: there are many other (environmental, genetic, diseases-related, socio-cultural, historical) factors that come into play when it comes to the physical development and properties of populations. Making it dependent on eating habits only is probably a bit pseudo-scientific if you ask me.

Some comments on Vitamin A:

I do not contend that vitamin A from animal meat is healthy, it certainly is. But you get enough preformed Vit A from milk and eggs too. And you can even overdose preformed Vit. A with toxic effects - and the body gets rid of the surplus. The body synthesises the necessary beta-carotenes from it , e.g. take carrots where you have beta-carotenes directly which is even better! So you do not need direct/preformed Vitamin A (which indeed is found more in animals). A necessary provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene and the body converts it all into the 'active' vitamin A - you do not ingest any 'active' Vitamin A. Beta-carotene is plant and even preformed A can also be found in dairy products. There you have it. You don't need meat for this necessarily, animal source for preformed A yes (but due to milk it's still vegetarian) but not meat. The active vitamin A comes about in the body anyway metabolised from its precursors. Moreover, beta carotene ingestion (from many plants, e.g. carrots) would already be sufficient for its (active A) production. It's even better as it avoids the overdose toxicity problem!

Two forms of vitamin A are available in the human diet: preformed vitamin A (retinol and its esterified form, retinyl ester) and provitamin A carotenoids (...). Preformed vitamin A is found in foods from animal sources, including dairy products, fish, and meat (especially liver). By far the most important provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene; other provitamin A carotenoids are alpha-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin. The body converts these plant pigments into vitamin A. Both provitamin A and preformed vitamin A must be metabolized intracellularly to retinal and retinoic acid, the active forms of vitamin A, to support the vitamin's important biological functions (...)
(...)
The foods from animal sources (...) contain primarily preformed vitamin A, the plant-based foods have provitamin A, and the foods with a mixture of ingredients from animals and plants contain both preformed vitamin A and provitamin A.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vit...ofessional/#h3

I assume Weston Price did not know about these biochemical interior physiological facts of Vitamin A synthesis in 1939, which largely debunks from today's viewpoint his assumptions. We cannot blame him for that of course.

Some comments on Vitamin D:

Not sure if I understand your comment or question regarding Vit. D deficiency in your last post. Yes, Vitamin D is special issue (such as Vitamin B12 for vegans btw - but not for vegetarians who consume dairies) - but not exclusive to vegetarians/vegans at all.

Yes, Vit. D you get mostly from fish, especially cod liver oil - which is of course a healthy source. If you are an eat meater you should eat mostly fish, it also has lots of vital omega fats (which however you also find in plants, etc.). I've read also that some algae (chlorella) and some veggies (e.g. sauerkraut) have vitamin D.

However: actually we could not eat that much fish (or eggs, or cod liver oil, or any meat) to cover our supposed deficiency. It's not possible! You cannot ingest that much. And this I heard in a presentation by an expert on Vitamin D (... yes, I am doing these things as a naturopath, I attend regular presentations lectures on orthomolecular and probiotic medicine over the internet via a medical laboratory analysis academy, don't want to be a know-it-all, just back up where I got it from).

The decisive fact is this: Vitamin D "IS" the very 'sun vitamin', it is not nutritional in the first place - although one can argue that we eat necessary precursors for the later synthesis of it, e.g. cholesterol.

Still: It's sun exposure that does the greatest part. What you get from any (!) food is miniscule in comparison! It's the sun, nothing but the sun.

Indigenous people or/and our tribal ancestors were much longer in the sun than we are today. The indigenous people (or our ancestors) mentioned are/were mostly living outside in warm climate conditions, so they had lots of time, plus exposure due to their usual spare clothing, in the sun to metabolise Vitamin D pre-forms in their overall skin (which then is further refined in the liver and finalized in the kidneys). That in my view is the main reason that they have more D, not nutrition. It's the sun exposure. It's the enviromment, the living conditions. But not the food.
Maybe one exception: northern indigenous people (e.g. eskimos) who get most of their Vit. D from fish, but they have it almost as their only food source. (I would also never expect them to change their diet into a meat-free one, that would be impossible in the first place and not recommendable, either).

This sun/climate-factor might also have been one factor that was overlooked by Weston Price, one among his many errors, as it seems. The sun has many beneficial health reasons. I've read in past life regression transcripts that the sun alone could heal people in ancient times. (And then we have the sungazing / UV-light diet practice too! But this leads us too far out now.).

In sum, your assertion that meat is needed for Vitamin D and A is imv largely debunked.

Back to the general topic:

Many vegetarians and vegans are pretty healthy. Many studies prove this. There was one recently trying to prove the opposite but they applied a cheap trick because they attributed illnesses to vegetarians who that had been former meat eaters and only had changed diet for their health later on. Here's a translation of an analysis (it's in German, therefore the translator):

http://translate.google.com/translat...und&edit-text=

Here's some more info, there are many studies out there proving that vegetarians live healthier or at least are not unhealthier than meat-eaters:

http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/261511.php

There were 2,570 deaths among the study participants during a mean (average) follow-up time of almost six years. The overall mortality rate was six deaths per 1,000 person years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality in all vegetarians combined vs. nonvegetarians was 0.88, or 12 percent lower, according to the study results. The association also appears to be better for men with significant reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality and IHD death in vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians. In women, there were no significant reductions in these categories of mortality, the results indicate.

"These results demonstrate an overall association of vegetarian dietary patterns with lower mortality compared with the nonvegetarian dietary pattern. They also demonstrate some associations with lower mortality of the pesco-vegetarian, vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets specifically compared with the nonvegetarian diet," the authors conclude.

If vegetarians are sick and it is due to nutrition (if at all which isn't always easy to prove!) then they maybe made mistakes in their diet, which you of course can - e.g. one who only eats dairies instead of enough vegetables and fruit. There are many who do it the wrong way, that's for sure. But so it is for other types of diets.

And let's not forget: Meat (esp. porc) is cancerous esp. for the intestines, it is the main reason for bowel cancer actually. Meat also is the main factor for arterial / cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, insufficiency, angina pectoris, etc.). Not to speak of the entire overweight plague issue (esp. in the US) which however is also caused by too much refined sugar, to be fair. This all is rather undoubted even by modern orthodox medicine today.

But you don't need studies pro and con, it is actually common sense. In my view the fact of many healthy (healthier!) vegetarians pretty much debunks your assertions that vegetarians lack something in nutrition.

And then please also consider fruitarians and their raw diets: Many eat only raw vegetables and fruit and they are pretty healthy, never see a doc. So how come they are not all ending up in hospitals now immediately, which they should according to your views? They don't. And many of them do not even take in any supplements.

Of course, if you believe meat is good and necessary for you, it's fine, of course you should keep eating it then. No one forbids you to do that. I also think everyone should eat what they like and think it is good for them. I also assume you promote a kind of 'paleolithic' diet which is also 'in vogue' now. I believe too this is a good thing as the kind of meat you then eat is better than our industrial Western meat. Still, the fact that are you inexpicably then claiming with the same breath that vegetarian diet is unhealthy, lacking and even dangerous and should to be replaced by (your) paleolithic diet, needs to be called and exposed clearly for what it is: Sheer nonsense. Sorry. But it must be said this way.

(Ps: I am NOT in this forum to argue about this topic any longer, so I will refrain from further posting and reading in THIS thread. The reason also is: I've done defending vegetarianism against biases and pseudo-science already elsewhere and I'm really a bit fed up with it. I also don't want to give any lenghty essays on nutrition anymore. Sorry. Plug needs to be pulled. No offense meant, nothing personal, so please excuse me, I respect every opinion on the subject. Still, if you write an answer, bear in mind that I do not read it. Thanks.)

[SiriusTraveler]

Personally I don't eat animals mostly because I feel the animal industry is just so bad and because of the health benefits (that's being proven over and over..) of not eating animals. I can't support such a wrong business as the animal industry so it makes it pretty simple for me actually. Basically I guess my choices are based on love, compassion and moral for others and for myself. Those are my choices and they are good for me