Is macrobiotic, vegan?

[Bruce Paine]

No,

Some macrobiotic people might choose to be vegan, but no, macrobiotics is not vegan.

But isn't macrobiotics concerned about the suffering of the animals that must die, in order for macrobiotic people who eat them to eat them?

Macrobiotic people may or may not be concerned about the state of suffering involved in the process of making those creatures food, but usually macrobiotic people don't concern themselves with such things.

There are seven levels of judgement as described by Georges Ohsawa and Michio Kushi (and others) and they include:

7. Supreme or Cosmic Conscious

6. Ideological or Objective

5. Social or Interactive

4. Intellectual or Self Study

3. Sentimental or Emotional and Feeling

2. Sensory or Experiencial

1. Mechanical or Physical and Moving

When we are concerned about the experiences of other animals, at what level of judgement are we functioning?

When we say something like "Let's not eat something that runs away from us!", what level of judgement or consciousness are we functioning at?

I would say we are functioning at a more emotional or sentimental level of consciousness when we are more concerned about the emotional state of the creature we are about to eat than our own need or desire to eat it.

One might come to believe that plants are conscious and aware of life and may wish to continue living as well as the creatures that we human choose to eat.

If we are concerned about the emotional state of animals that we are considering eating, shouldn't we also be considering the state of the plants we are harvesting for food?

Where does this sentiment end?

Are you willing to give up eating so that all other living things can continue to live?

Are you also going to stop all living things from consuming other living things?

Maybe after stopping consuming other living things you won't have the will or energy to deal with anything but your own survival.

For myself, I'm more concerned about how what I eat affects me.

I used to eat animal foods in almost every meal but I felt either too much energy or extremely stressed out and I often suffered from colds and influenza.

As I started to eat less and less animal foods and more plant foods I started to feel more comfortable and healthier.

I now choose to eat plant based foods at least 86% of the time, if not more.

So I choose foods based more on how they affect me than how they are affected.

I imagine that most people in macrobiotics approach their diet similarly.

How about you?

Thank you, very much.

Bruce Paine

[Johnnyzen]

Bruce is right; the original intent of Macrobiotics was not to create a "humane" diet per se, but I think that has evolved. Bruce pointed out that his diet is over 80 per-cent plant food, while the standard American diet includes much more animal food.

Ohsawa viewed much vegetarianism as sentimental, but I think taht there are rational reasons as wel to develop a plant based diet. I think bruce would agree with me that most meat today is produced in a way that is inconsistant with macrobiotics. Macros would tend to look for organic in animal as well as plant products. Food produced with awareness has a different energy, in my opinion.

To be Macro is to be in touch with nature,a nd vegan or not, is a diet where we think of what we eat, how it was produced, and how it affects us.

[Johnnyzen]

Rational. The treatment of animals on factory farms is obviously cruel. Do you disagree? Re-read my last post. It was edited.

I know that you eat with awareness. Most animal food produced here is not produced according to MAcro proiciples, would you agree? I.e. "frankenfoods", hormones, cruel factory farming practices, etc.

[MJS]

Originally Posted by Johnnyzen

Speak for yourself.

How do you knoew what other macros think about violence?

Being concerned for the suffering of other animals is not merely semtimental or emotional. It is rational as well.

Hi guys, gals,

I have been following these debates with interest, and thinking about the issue in my spare time. I think it is an issue with a lot of philosophical depth and shouldn't be shoved under the rug by either side.

I think there is something to be said for old habits being hard to break. I don't think our ancestors who survived on meat, who needed it to survive, who were born before the wisdom of Ohsawa graced this planet and for whom eating that way wasn't practical anyway, were murderers -- just as I don't think a tiger in a jungle is a murderer for hunting its prey. I don't think the Inuit people are murderers. (Unfortunate civilian casualties of the industrial revolution, yes, since their food supply has been perhaps irreversibly spoilt by our poisons.)

When people practice the carnivore lifestyle they're just following the old law of the jungle, though often these days it's in an exploitative, excessive manner. Whether the law of the jungle is appropriate on an increasingly crowded planet, well, I think most of us can agree on the answer to that.

I have a lot of respect for veganism. It is I'm certain the purest way to live. Society may need a transitional phase though. Macrobiotic diet with fish provides this.

We humans find something viscerally exciting and empowering about eating flesh particularly if one has caught and killed it oneself. Think about it, you're taking the power, the lifeforce, directly from these animals whose vitality (If they are wild or naturally raised)is still unsullied by office jobs and uncertainties, coffee and alcohol. (Downer cattle and most industry meat is a whole other disgusting ballpark. )

Think of the brave and intrepid pioneers and Native Americans, bedecked in furs, skilled hunters and cattlemen and survivalists, whom this country's heritage belongs to.

This (primitive perhaps) instinct to kill and eat animals is a significant part of the human condition and can't be quickly dismissed, no matter how gruesome some may find it. Many people find this instant power very addictive and appealing, especially if their diet contains lots of yin type food and drugs. It's an instinctive choice for most, because they don't know how to control their cravings and needs by following the middle way as set forth in macrobiotics.

I agree with other posters that it's important to point out the dangers of contaminants and over-fishing and let people make their own conclusions. Making an emotional appeal tends to backfire. People resent this because they see it as moral posturing, people will rebel and revel in their steak, --or Lobster -- preferably while they eat it in front of YOU (been there). We're a society in transition, as Nancy says in other words. I think the practical reasons for veganism and vegetarianism will become overwhelming and impossible to ignore, in the near future. I know I'll do my part, to get the word out there.

Peace to all. M Jean

[Bruce Paine]

Johnnyzen,

I choose not to eat 99% of the animal food that is out there primarily because of it's energy but I care enough to not eat foods that were mistreated, or in any other way out of balance with nature.

And I avoid factory farmed creatures less because of avoiding creatures that have mistreated but more because of who I become when I eat them.

Food becomes you, or did you not know that?

Thank you, very much.

Bruce Paine

[Johnnyzen]

Bruce, you are right. I have too much time on my hands, and yes, I retracted those caustic comments. this thread is getting interesting. I can respect your awareness. (Johnnyzen is just a nickname.)

MJ: interesting perspective!we are all evolving in different ways, for some, there is no connection between the fork and violence, but for others, the connection is very strong.

[Bruce Paine]

Thank you, Johnnyzen!

MJS,

I read a lot of emotional concepts in what you say, and if emotional appeals solely were what moved me, I'd be moving in that direction.

Macrobiotics is about freedom, not just health or well being but about freedom.

Just like humans have different kinds of teeth for eating different kinds of foods, we also have different needs and desires and the choices of foods aids us in the pursuit of them.

While I would be happier living in a world that has more vegan, vegetarian, and especially macrobiotic people living in it, I would not be as happy if everyone represented just any one or any combination of those groups mentioned.

And I certainly would not be as happy if any combination of those group's choices were the only ones allowed.

I feel that the world functions best in diversity, and diversity doesn't seem to proceed well when choices are limited.

So, while I applaud your decision to be a vegan and try to get more people to become vegan, I can't support your desire to make everyone vegan, because that's not the kind of world I want to live in.

As I have stated before, it's not important to me that everyone in the world become macrobiotic...I just would like everyone to know what a viable choice it is, so that at anytime, anyone or more of them might need and want it, it will be there for them.

Thank you, very much.

Bruce Paine

[Johnnyzen]

I agree that Macrobiotics is about freedom. Veganism can be about freedom, if it is a choice, not forced. The larger picture sees veganism as giving freedom to not only oneself, but other sentient beings, freeing them from the suffering and confinement that is not freedom.

Emotion is not all bad, but I am not talking pure emotion here. If you see suffering, you emotion may prompt you to do something about it. Perhaps it was emotion that drove Schindler and others during the Jewish Holocaust to help the Jews who were being persecuted.

Having said that, I think you can make a case for a plant based diet without any emotional componant.Also, I do not think the entire world can bre vegan. Veganism is a priveledge for those educated and with enough money and resources to aquire the many foods we have available in this country. Third world countries do not have this advantage or diversity, and so veganism would be almost impossible there. Veganism is a modern development.

[MJS]

Originally Posted by Bruce Paine

I feel that the world functions best in diversity, and diversity doesn't seem to proceed well when choices are limited.

So, while I applaud your decision to be a vegan and try to get more people to become vegan, I can't support your desire to make everyone vegan, because that's not the kind of world I want to live in.

As I have stated before, it's not important to me that everyone in the world become macrobiotic...I just would like everyone to know what a viable choice it is, so that at anytime, anyone or more of them might need and want it, it will be there for them.

Bruce Paine

Bruce,

Here's my feeling. The current epidemic of cancer, other illnesses, and mental illness is to a large extent caused by diet and other influences of industrial civilization. The poisons of industry make their way into our body for the most part through the food we eat, and the foods which contain the highest concentrations of these toxins are animal fats. I think that this fact is just about ignored in society. So are the environmental costs of raising animals in commercial farming practices. As populations rise and we need to feed more people who have less money, what are we going to feed them? Barring Soylent Green, that is?

I am not interested in "making everybody vegan" or macrobiotic; I just think that right now the world needs and wants information about how to live a healthy and satisfying life, how to understand life, and I think to a large extent they are getting the WRONG info from diet gurus like Atkins and raw foodists.

I want to help provide CORRECT information. How much more rational can I get in this desire, I wonder? I want people to know that there are toxins in animal products, that there is a natural way to prevent depression, that sugar and white flour can cause cell division and potentially turn pre-cancerous cells into cancerous ones. I want people to understand why a raw food diet can be dangerous to your physical and emotional health.

Also -- you may appreciate diversity, as do I -- but if certain elements of a diverse mix of substances were harmful, wouldn't you try to eradicate them, or at least educate people so they may avoid them if they so choose? There are a lot of things in this great world of ours that come out of a moral or rational darkness and lead to physical and environmental decay.

Perhaps my appeal contained emotion but I think a good balance of emotion and reason is natural & healthy. Who listens to a droning automaton -- how dull is history and science without a little passion or humor? As human beings with emotions we have to make healthy use of these. What is poetry but pure emotion translated through language? I understand your comment was not an attack, however.
Anyway -- Good talking to you.
Later
Mara

[MJS]

Originally Posted by Johnnyzen

Veganism is a priveledge for those educated and with enough money and resources to aquire the many foods we have available in this country. Third world countries do not have this advantage or diversity, and so veganism would be almost impossible there. Veganism is a modern development.

Johnnyzen, I'd have to disagree --

The native diets of many thirdworlders are vegan and wholesome. Their agriculture and economies have been corrupted by the west, now they eat refined foods, and meat and dairy when they can afford it. Many poor people in the third world live on beans, some sort of grain, and vegetables. Whole grains need to be re-introduced to make their diets more nutritious.

Of course the world is a vast gray scale. Pure veganism may be rare. But subsistence on a plant based diet is the rule, not the exception, in impoverished countries and more primitive economies.

I think an important project in this new century is getting food aid programs to recognize the importance of feeding whole grains & native foods to the poor in these countries. It is both economical and healthful, a win/win situation.

[Bruce Paine]

MJS,

But first you will have to convince them that the meatless way is better.

Presently, people in the developing countries associate meat and dairy with success.

They eat less meat because the low meat diet is what they can afford.

One might have a better chance at convincing the wealthy to become vegan or vegetarian than the masses that wish to become like them.

Thank you, very much.

Bruce Paine

[MJS]

Bruce --
Well, I will be happy to talk to who ever will listen to me. The wealthy, the poor, the governments and NGOs who are also working for the common good. I like to think that a certain percentage of any population has a good ear for common sense and a want of direction & new ideas. An idea can take root in more than one place at a time. You are right that meat and dairy are associated with success, and candy and Coke with fun and freedom. But every educator has to overcome superstitions and the like among those they would educate.

MJS

[Johnnyzen]

Well, I agree third world countries have a mostly plant diet, but vegan?

[MJS]

Originally Posted by Johnnyzen

Well, I agree third world countries have a mostly plant diet, but vegan?

Maybe I am wrong to use this term -- like I said, pure veganism in the modern, western sense is probably rare -- People eat what they can and need to survive. But many come really close, or have at some time in history. Providing a good example are many groups of the indigenous people of Mexico and South America. Dietary staples were and in some cases remain, corn, beans and vegetables. In parts of Japan and China, & other Asian countries, a diet of rice, beans and tofu sufficed. In Europe, at one time, many subsisted on oat and barley porridges, greens, roots and beans.

The peasants, throughout history, have typically had the healthiest diets because animal products and refined grain were so expensive. (And hence, so desirable... and then comes mass production to bring the food of the wealthy to the "impoverished" masses.) Among agriculturalists, I think a diet close to veganism was pretty common. Although seafood probably pretty common along the coasts. Among pastoralists, of course, you'll see milk, yoghurt and butter; among hunters, meat. With trade between the groups, things get mixed up. Vast grayscale, anyone? I guess it may seem I have deflated my claim. But the point I'm making, I suppose, is that more traditional cultures are a lot closer to the macrobiotic and vegan ideals that any modern society -- and the poorer a people, the greater the need for cheap, nutritiously complete food. Hence, "veganism" or something close to it is quite possible in the third world; if we don't fret about perfection and purity, it is already being "practiced" among many who can't afford otherwise.

The small amount of animal products that is consumed in traditional cultures is insignificant, in my opinion. The most important thing is to keep Western crap and excess from doing its damage and reintroduce people to their native grains.

Anyway, I'm curious about traditional diets now. Gonna do some research, and report back.

[Johnnyzen]

Thanks, MJS. Interesting comments. I would be interested in what you find. I think you will find that most "primitive" diest are almost all plant foods, with a small amount of animal food. Look at the Hunza diet, the Okanawa diet, etc.

There is a book, "Let Food Be Thy Medicine" buy Alex Jack that briefly discusses this. He mentions a very healthy INdian group here that has a diet that is pretty much vegan. I cannot remember the name.