Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm actually working toward a sort of "orthodox"-Jainism in which you only eat substances that plants are actively trying to give to other animals to help them propagate themselves (so eating fruits/bellpeppers, etc. are all ok, but killing a plant to consume it is not).

Anyway I understand that talking about animals and plants in this fashion is not a popular position on HN, and folks have and are likely to downvote me.



Another fallacy? Look at historical fruits and vegetables - these plants were trying to kill those that ate their seeds and fruit - so the progeny plant could thrive in their rotting corpse. No gratitude from me.

An exaggeration of course. But fruits and vegetables are only the lovely things they are, because of 10,000 years of selection for what are essentially grotesque bloated versions of the 'natural' seeds and fruits they came from. Outrageous genetic experiments as unnatural as modern chicken breasts and goldfish. No reasonable 'intent' of the plant may be inferred, anthropomorphizing aside.


Is what you're talking about equivalent to Frutarianism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

I certainly respect people doing that. But my perspective is that until we can photosynthesize, we're dependent on exploiting other forms of life to survive. Even modern fruit trees have been vastly changed from their natural equivalents, and farming of course creates major ecosystem changes that we're still morally responsible for, even if we're not directly killing plants.

Can we eventually get to some sort of technological plateau where we go right from inanimate objects to survival? Eventually, I'm sure. But until then, there's no morally pure way to survive, so I'm going to carry on being an omnivore and aim for reasonable harm reduction instead of purity.


Personally I think such experimentation is great. I’ve many Jain friends and it really pains me that they’re excluded from when we would go out for dinner because of their dietary restrictions.

However, in most Urban restaurants in the US today there are great options for vegetarian/vegan food, which makes them a lot more accessible.

Ultimately I do hope that the demand for alternative foods will continue to change the way we think about what we eat. The current situation isn’t sustainable. As the demand for meat from developing countries grows, hopefully the meat-alternatives will be good enough to satisfy the market.


Water doesn’t actively try to give itself to be drunk. Is it ok to consume?


I suppose it's not considered a live being, so it can't be hurt by consuming. Same with air.


Do you actually need someone to answer this for you, or are you arguing in bad faith?


Yo, don't do that here. Someone responded politely about their personal beliefs, asking a interrogative question like this is needlessly rude.


If it was never okay to as questions, then any discussion ever could be shut down with "personal belief". If some beliefs can be examined and others are deemed too sensitive, then eventually the untouchable beliefs multiply and take over all discussions.

Beliefs are meant to be examined and evaluated, not coddled.


Yep, but make sure you conduct your examination and evaluation in a polite and civil manner. Otherwise you're just being contrarian and rude.

I believe in free speech, but I also believe that rude, insulting, thoughtless or incendiary speech deserves to be soundly ignored.


I didn't say you had to coddle someone, but it's equally clear you asked the question with the intent of being a dick, not to actually engage with the parent poster. "Haha, look how superior my intellect is, did you even think about water?!" is materially different than exploring and questioning someone's belief.


Surely there's a difference between asking a question and saying things to be an asshole. Let's all strive to be less of an asshole as a society, ok?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: