Ethical problems with lab-meat grown from stem cells from animals

Taking stem cells from humans, still perpetatues the notion that animals are resources, which is the problem that enables all exploitation of animals in the world. Some more moral problems: [1]

As long as animals are viewed as resources/property, they will be victims of unnecessary harm and death, including the unnecessary harm and death that they are inflicted in the production of animal foods, that people pay for when they are consuming meat, milk, eggs and other animal foods.
I recommend this article discussing this: http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2013/08/are_we_the_animal-lovers_we_th.html

1. http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/svar-fran-vegan-pa-fragan-ar-det-etiskt.html

Vegan reply to counter argument: But…Isn’t eating animal products, meat, milk, eggs, etc., natural?

 If our body was designed for meat consumption, humans wouldn't get these problems: http://vimeo.com/15787322 , http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Meat in large quantities is not dangerous for an omnivore.

I don't understand this "human nature"/natural-argument.

It is also discussed here:
Question 5: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?Answer: Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.

In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.
Quote: www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/

----
There is no doubt that we can live a very healhty life on a vegan diet:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

Thus, eating animal foods is inflicting unnecessary harm and death upon animals, and this we all agree is morally wrong.

---------------------More arguments:

Quote from www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ :

This “But” is like saying that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God.  Something else that is big and important—nature— wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against nature. We are behaving in

an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even if you’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is like “But God” without God. It seeks to establish necessity, but without God. But why do we think that nature intends, whatever that means, that we eat animals? The usual response is to say that we are physically adapted to eat meat and other animal products.

 

Putting aside that many people are lactose intolerant, and that many physicians are pointing out that animal products are detrimental to human health, the most we can say is that we can eat animal products; there is nothing about our bodies that suggests that our bodies are designed to do so. Humans compare physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly expel decaying meat. Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains and have alkaline saliva that is needed to predigest grains, as do humans. Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva.

(..) And, as we stated earlier, the evidence is quite clear that we don’t need animal products to be optimally healthy. You would think that if we were intended to eat animal products, those of us who don’t (and haven’t for decades) would suffer deleterious health effects. But we don’t. We do just fine. We have to make sure we get vitamin B-12, which humans do not manufacture, or at least not in reliable quantities. But all humans have to get B-12 from somewhere. Carnivores get it from meat; vegans get it from nutritional yeast, other fortified food, or supplements. But all B-12 comes from microorganisms. (..)

 

So while there is considerable evidence that animal foods are detrimental to human health, we don’t want to get into a battle of studies here to convince you that it’s healthier not to eat animal products. We do, however, want to make clear that the very best a consumer of animal products can say is that her diet is no better than that of someone who eats a balanced diet of non-animal foods.

 

In sum, there is no evidence that nature requires that we eat animal products. Indeed, the extant evidence is to the contrary." End of quote.

 
More Resources:
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html

That our ancestors ate meat, doesn't morally justify the consumption of meat

Some of our ancestors ate meat. It consisted of 25% or less of their diet.
We still don't have any adaptations for it.

This is a good lecture covering this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
Another article: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/16/science-debunks-paleo-diet-again?cmpid=tp-ptnr-nutritionfacts

But, so what?
Why do you think it matters morally whether our ancestors ate meat or not??

We can thrive on a vegan diet.
Harming and killing animals for "pleasure"/convenience isn't moral. Thus veganism is our moral obligation.

I highly recommend you to study this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/what-michael-vick-taught-us/#.UfTj1m37aQI

Counter-arguments to 'Humans are carnivores and must eat meat'

This is my reply to this erroneous comment: "I hope all U vegans and vegetarians realized we would still be monkeys in trees if the climate hadn't changed in Africa & we were forced out of the trees & in to the grasslands then started to incorporate large amounts of red meat into our diet which was needed and that was in why & how our brains developed the to the point of where we are now the dominant species and dominant mind on the planet ! we carnivores could not should not and will not give up meat eating because we are genetically predisposed to needing wanting and eating meat !!
END OF DISCUSSION !!!!"

My reply:
1. First of all, we don't need meat:
"“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)"

Thus, we are not carnivores.

2. It wasn't the meat, that caused us to evolve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4

3. Do you think it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals? Of course you do.

Here’s the problem: at least 99.99% of animal use, which results in the suffering and death of animals, is unnecessary! At least 99.99% of animal use is for food, but humans can easily get their nutrition from plants.
If so, go vegan: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.Ue484W34V5s

4. Even if what you said was true, that it was meat that caused us to evolve. Think of this:
Question 6: If we did not exploit animals, we would not have society as we now know it. Does this fact not prove that animal use by humans is morally justified?Answer: No. In the first place, the question assumes that we would not have devised alternatives to animal use if that were necessary either because nonhuman animals were not available or because we made a moral decision not to exploit them as resources. Second, even if animal use were necessary for society as we presently know it, the same argument could be made with respect to any human activity. For example, without wars, patriarchy, and other forms of violence and exploitation, we would not have society as we now know it. The fact that a given activity was a necessary means to what some of us regard as a desirable end does not prove that the means were morally justified. Present-day Americans would not enjoy the level of prosperity that they now enjoy were it not for human slavery; that does not mean that slavery was a morally acceptable practice. Third, there is at least an argument that our present-day society, with its violence, pollution, inequitable distribution of resources, and various forms of injustice is less desirable an end than some think, and that we ought not be so eager to endorse the means that got us where we are today.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.Ue4_kG34V5s

5. We are definitely not carnivores anatomically.
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.

Or digestive tract is longer than carnivores, so that our food can stay in the body longer so we can digest plant matter. We need more surface area and we need more microbes.
Quote from: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo

More information gathered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/06/humans-are-herbivores-not-omnivoresmeat.html

----

Morality: Why becoming vegan/stop eating meat and other animal foods - is not 'a matter of opinon'

First read this:  Vegan reply to 'Morality is a matter of opinion'

You are rejecting an objective morality and then you are claiming that I have the burden of proof. I disagree. You can’t prove that morals are subjective. It is your opinion. I think the burden of proof is on the person that is trying to claim that it is acceptable to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other sentient beings – humans as well as nonhumans. Only by being apathic or endorsing other sentient beings being inflicted unnecessary suffering and death, can you create any real suffering and harm. You can’t have any theoretical certainty about your position at all. You are, I hope, trying to live a life of compassion and love towards your fellow human beings. You only need to extend this love and compassion towards nonhuman animals and stop inflicting unnecessary harm upon them by going vegan. As Philosopher Gary Francione clearly demonstrates in his writings that the case for becoming vegan is very strong; and shows that you are required to go vegan to live according to your moral belief that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon nonhuman animals: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
You probably already try to follow the principle of not inflicting unnecessary harm and death toward nonhuman animals, e.g. you are probably opposed to animal abuse and would hopefully step in if you saw someone trying to abuse and kill a dog. You only need to be consistent in this principle, and stop paying people for engaging in completely unnecessary industrialized animal abuse and exploitation to produce animal foods.

I also recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.Udrxm21RfO4

As for your appeal to nature-argument for consuming animal products, I recommend you to read this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/no-its-not-natural/#.Udr6WG1RfO4
I disagree with the statement that we are omnivores (biologically we are not):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/search?q=herbivores&max-results=20&by-date=true

http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/debunking-paleo-diet-paleolithic-diet.html
Even if we biologically were omnivores, it wouldn’t morally justify the consumption of animal foods, just like that our ability of engaging in engaging in violence and discrimination against other humans justify this behavior.

You wrote: “the rejection of man-made moral codes means the rejection of all love and compassion. But in so many cases, morals and compassion are themselves in conflict.”

It depends on whether you live according to your beliefs or not. Not standing up against violence and discrimination, or engaging in violence and discrimination, makes this world into a world of less love and compassion.

I argue that we humans do share the moral intuition that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other beings. Almost everyone in this world argue that humans have a moral value, and that this means that we have moral obligations in terms of how we behave against each other, including that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death against other humans. Many people discriminate based on irrelevant criteria against other people and claim that we don’t have certain moral obligations to other people. However this doesn’t negate that we humans have a shared moral intuition. These instances only describe cultural prejudice that people adopt through cultural indoctrination. People of all cultures are claiming that we have moral obligations against other sentient beings, with the capacity of feeling suffering, including the obligation not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them. Sometimes because of cultural prejudice, some people are irrationally excluded from some people’s moral concern. I argue that our moral intuition is not to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon anyone that are sentient and can be harmed. Sometimes people use irrational arguments to exclude people from this principle, either by claiming that the harm is necessary, or by using other irrational arguments (appealing to ‘tradition’, supposedly ‘natural order’, e.g. of god), and people become convinced to this arguments by cultural indoctrination. The same is true of speciecism. People use irrational arguments to exclude other species from their moral concern.

The moral intuition of our population, whom recognizes that animals are sentient and able to feel suffering, is clearly that we shouldn’t inflict them any unnecessary suffering. This is e.g. why there was such a public outcry against Michael Vick: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

“In fact, in the case of small local farmers and free range farmers, humans are more compassionate in killing than any other species.”

Many of the farmers you refer to, e.g. the farmers of ‘free range farmers’ of “free-range chickens” exploit the animals throughout all their lives. You can easily Google this.
It is interesting that refer to the notion of compassionate (‘sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it’).
I think you can theorize as much as you like, but I don’t think you on a deeper plan can convince yourself about that murder and inflicting unnecessary suffering and violence is ‘as good’ as fighting against violence, discrimination, unnecessary suffering and death; and that it is an irrelevant struggle just as fighting for making people prefer apples over bananas. I don’t think that you on a deep level can convince yourself of that morals is just a matter of subjective opinion, I think it is only a theoretical construct that people have in their heads. I think you can feel very satisfied on a deep level as a human being when you are helping people, are fighting against violence and discrimination, and that violence and discrimination never can satisfy yourself on a deep level.

You wrote: “And, by the way, the imposition of one person/group’s morality on other people (speaking of Nazis) has created a lot more suffering and violence and apathy in the world (all those that stand and watch) than amorality, which has never been popular enough to create nearly as much harm as you seem to think.”

More accurately you should say that the imposition of discrimination and unnecessary violence based on irrelevant criteria has created a lot of suffering, violence and apathy. The Nazism prevailed because that so many stood indifferent and silent against this discrimination. Your view that ‘morals are subjective’ is giving people a pass from standing up against discrimination and violence, and it may even encourage them to participate in such, since they can comfort themselves with the view that there is no such thing as unjust discrimination, violence and injustice.

----------

Further discussion:

“remember, you are the one trying to convince me to change my behavior, while i have no interest in changing yours. that being the case, where does the burden of proof truly lie?”

Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person being racist or a person trying to convince someone to reject racism?
Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person murdering others or a person trying to convince someone to stop murdering persons?

You are claiming that I should prove my claim of whether there is such thing as an objective moral. It is impossible to prove such a claim, and it is impossible to prove your claim that morals are subjective.

“when i say morality is a matter of opinion because it is unproven, i am not merely giving my opinion, but simply following the definition of the word "opinion'. anything not back by fact is opinion, that's simply the definition of the word. and the conflicting moralities throughout culture and history, i consider evidence of subjectivity.”

It isn’t. Cultural indoctrination is very powerful.

We all know this from our era in which many are influenced by the discrimination and violence of speciecism and sexism. People claim that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, but yet they daily do it through their daily meals. People are living in a way that contradicts their moral intuition.

It is also very possible to severely damage our moral intuition. This is what people are doing when they are excluding human animals and nonhuman animals from their moral concern, and is starting to exploit, harm and kill them. The more you participate of your exploitation, the more you destroy your moral intuition.

If you are part of a culture where you have a tradition of exploiting say other people groups or other species, and you do this on a regular basis, e.g. at every meal, you lose a lot of your love, compassion and inner intuition of what is morally right and wrong.

So you will find cultures in which exploitation of other people groups and species are celebrated, you will find cultures in exploitation based on sexism, heterosexism, ageism and racism are celebrated and are the norm, and you will find cultures with various other forms of discrimination and violence.

But in no way does this prove that morals are subjective.

Speaking of cultural indoctrination, violence and injustices, I also recommend this article:
Why does many people abuse humans, dogs, cats and other animals?:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/why-does-many-people-abuse-humans-dogs.html

Why eating meat, milk and other animal products is causing animals unnecessary suffering and death

You wrote: “ I feel with a small amount of meat, eggs, vegetables, grains and fruits i still have a wide variety in food, and a balanced diet. “

I recommend you to watch: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ; Eggs are unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm

A starch-based diet without animal products is very healthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/starch_solution.html

“So let’s apply the analysis that we all agreed was uncontroversial to using animals for food: have we got a good reason? Is there any necessity involved? The short answer: no. But wait! Don’t we need to eat animals and animal products to be healthy? No. No one maintains that it’s medically necessary to eat animal foods. The extremely conservative Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, formerly the American Dietetic Association, has stated: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy , childhood , and adolescence, and for athletes. [1] And mainstream physicians are, with increasing frequency, pointing out that animal products are actually detrimental to human health. We could now embark on a long discussion of the many studies that show that animal products are harming our health but we don’t need to because whether or not you agree that consuming animal foods is detrimental, there is certainly no argument that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. That is , even if we do not believe that we will be more healthy if we eat a sensible vegan diet, we cannot reasonably believe we will be less healthy.”

Quote from: Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Location 195). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

You are claiming that you have a necessity for eating animal products, that it doesn't constitute 'unnecessary suffering' as dog fighting does, if I understand you correctly. This isn't correct. You don’t have any necessity. You will be even healthier eating a vegan diet. So if you continue to consume animal products you do it despite that you have any necessity for it. And hurting and killing animals despite the lack of necessity is unethical.

What do you say?

Vegan reply to 'humans have killed and eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years"

And there has been human slavery for at least several thousand years, as well as animal abuse and oppression of women. How many thousands of year does it take for an unethical tradition to become ethical do you mean?

That people are eating meat, only means that sometime some humans started to eat meat, and it became a well-established tradition.

In no way, does a well-established tradition in any way create a moral justification for a behavior. My point is that a well-established tradition of an unethical behavior does not justify an unethical behavior.

There are 2 separate moral issues that you discuss:
1. Killing for survival; 2. Killing despite the complete lack of any necessity.
Regardless of whether one thinks it is morally excusable to kill human and nonhuman animals for survival e.g. if stranded on a desert island and if that is the only possible way to survive; people’s moral intuition is that is morally wrong to hurt and kill any individual despite the complete lack of necessity.

The argument that I brought up is discussing killing animals despite the complete lack of necessity. You brought up arguments that don’t refute my arguments.

I recommend you to read this article: 'Francione: We're all Michael Vick

'
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Vegan answer to 'Humans are omnivorous by evolution'/'eating meat is natural'

'Nilan,
“Human are omnivorous by evolution, morality doesn't even come into play here. As a species, criticizing us for consuming meat is as futile as calling bears or crows "immoral" for eating meat.”

No, humans have a choice and can thrive on a vegan diet. We’re eating animal products despite the lack of “necessity”. We are killing and hurting animals despite that we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.
Regardless of whether we have evolved to be able to eat animal products, doesn’t tell whether it is moral or not.
We have evolved to have the capacity to inflict unnecessary violence upon other beings e.g. humans, this doesn’t morally justify unnecessary violence.

Also the statement that we are “omnivores” is flawed. We eat animal products despite having the body of an herbivore.
Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.

Quite the opposite is true.
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html

Body odor:

The Effect of Meat Consumption on Body Odor Attractiveness

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract

True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Native Americans killing and eating buffalos, doesn't justify eating meat

My reply to a person who brought up the Native Americans to justify eating meat:
Native American, or other people groups, ate and are eating animal products because of cultural indoctrination, following the eating habits of our ancestors and society.
That a group of people, or a society, has done something for thousands of years, does not in any way show whether something is morally right or not.
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 58 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?

Pleasure. Convenience.

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.

Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.

Last sentences was a quote from Law professor Gary Francione, who also has written this excellent article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Humans don't eat meat for survival

 Lorr Aine,
Thank you! So glad that it gave you alot to think of and that you will look into it.
It is so wonderful with love, compassion and peace, and the more we extend it to other beings - regardless of whether it is a human, dog, cow, or other animal - the more we also transform the world, and we transform ourselves.

You asked me: "Can I ask a question? If the chips were down, the world was invaded, and the way we live our lives now was a thing of the past.......and the only way for us to survive was to eat animal, would that still be wrong??"
Would you think it was wrong to eat humans in order to survive?
I believe in nonviolence. I wouldn't kill and eat human animals, nor kill and eat nonhuman animals. This is an article I recommend on the topic of nonviolence: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.UYUj9cqiFI0

But in any instance, even persons who don't believe in this: Our current violence and slavery towards animals is inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon them; and 99% of our population understand that inflicting unneccessary suffering and death upon animals is morally wrong. I recommend this article discussing this: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/what-michael-vick-taught-us/

People eat meat, milk and eggs because of cultural indoctrination

For me it took almost 28 years to wake up from the cultural indoctrination that it is okay to use and treat animals as “commodities” and to take their life for animal products and an experience of "taste", and as for most people, what other people wrote helped me to wake up.

Cats, dogs, cows, insects, humans. Our society wants to make a difference and then justify our use, abuse and killing for taste, pleasure or convenience, based on this difference.
However, we are all one, we are all consciousness, we all love, we all feel, we are. If we sow suffering, we reap suffering. We all have a purpose, to serve, to be a light, not to hurt or use (all animal products and the treatment of animals as commodities are hurting animals). I highly recommend World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle, www.worldpeacediet.org

We should stop hurting our family. We should treat everyone with love, compassion and nonviolence, i.e. we should go vegan . We should treat others as we ourselves want to be treated. We shouldn’t kill and hurt animals for an experience of “taste”, since we don’t want to be hurt and killed for “taste”. More information at www.vegankit.com

We have no nutritional need at all for animal products: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/