Yes Jax that was exactly my point. The film Avatar is centred around that theme. At some point the blue girl mentions that killing is very sad, yet, she is some kind of warrior who kills and eats. It's about living in sync with their planet spirit thing, in the same way we should live in sync with our environment and the force. Vegetarians, however, aren't numerous enough to compensate for meat eaters, which in the most part eat far more meat than necessary. (plus, meat quality is poor nowadays, the physical satisfaction --of a craving as someone mentioned-- in eating it is very low, requiring higher consumption --probably what the companies that produce and sell meat are trying to achieve--)

as ren mentions Avatar, just look to the native Americans, they had immense respect for the animals they killed, why, because without them the winters were hard. They realized that this animal gave it's life so that they might survive, so in order to show due respect they made use of all parts that they could, so that nothing was wasted and that the animal did not die in vain. Europeans used to be that way, at least until the time of the Renaissance, after which, meat became easier to obtain, and the price of meat became a reason to mass hunt animals and domesticate them. While progress is nice, it has made people lazy, and lose the respect that the tribes used to have. I am amazed at how few people know how to hunt or fish anymore, But even those that do, not all show respect, why, because it wasn't taught to them, We have shows watching fishermen catching lots of fish, but what they don't often show, is those fish being put back. We have hunting shows where people are talking about racks and amounts, but hardly anything talking about respect for the animals killed. In the past this respect was passed down from hunter to son/daughter, as they taught them ( I plan, with the help of my father, to pass this on to my son). Nowadays, I know of people that go hunting just for the trophy, often times throwing away the rest, people going fishing, catching 30+ fish, that end up being thrown away because they can't eat them all. I personally love to fish, but the only time I keep them is when I actually plan on eating them within the week. Now some may see this as cruel, catching fish and releasing them, but this is a skill that does need to be kept up, and if ever I catch one that would not survive being put back, then fish gets put on the menu. I also hunt, and eat every thing I catch, and try to use what I can. I wish I knew how to tan for hides, but at the very least what meat I don't keep goes to the rest of my family, the bones and antlers go to a local craftsman for use in his work, but always I thank and give respect to the animal that just died so that I might live. Some may argue that in this day and age, with progress providing domesticated beef that there should be no reason to hunt, I argue that there is even more reason to learn to hunt now a days, to learn respect. Think of it as the difference between watching someone get shot on a tv show, and pulling the trigger your self, big difference, and will teach you quickly that all life needs respected.

My point is should we be thinking about such things or are they not very important to the Jedi way.

If you're thinking about it, I'd say its important to you. 

Personally i'm all for people returning to being cognizant that lives are taken to ensure their's continues.  Many people have become detached from this simple fact because of the advent of grocery stores.    However, its been human custom for aeons to give thanks to those that gave their lives so that we might continue to live.  (Somewhere along the way it morphed into giving thanks to a disincarnate being and not the organisms themselves that made the sacrifice... which as best as I can tell, has only reinforced that disconnect.)

The only vegetarians I scoff at are the ones who do it because they "dont want to kill something to survive" all the while forgetting that the plants they are eating were once living beings themselves.  I like to inform them that carrots possess a rudimentary nervous system and so may actually 'feel' the pain as you chomp them to manageable bits.  The horror on their face as they conceptualize that can be priceless.    Death is in the wake of all animate life-forms (and a quite a few less-than-animate ones as well).

Its not that we kill that is really a concern.  Death is an important facet of Life, indeed a critical piece of the cycle.  Know that there are some animals and plants that fully understand that part of their purpose is being called upon to lay down their life so that another being may live.  Its why we kill, and often how we kill, that a Jedi should be concerning themself with.  There are ethics in hunting as well as in gathering.  Much emphasis is rightly placed on the ethical slaughter of animals, but how many of us have actually studied the ethical harvest of plants?

The only vegetarians I scoff at are the ones who do it because they "dont want to kill something to survive" all the while forgetting that the plants they are eating were once living beings themselves.

THAT, PLUS the fact that vegetarians in fact cause the deaths of a greater amount of animals. Sure, they're tiny compared to cows and pigs and as such the amount of meat "killed"/produced/consumed is lower, but the amount of animals dying in the process is greater.

Either way, We'll all go star trek style some time soon, our planet cannot sustain our current lifstyles, our population is growing, and there's already 2 billions of us with an empty stomach. So while hunting for yourself is great, I'm pretty sure Tomorrow's food will have a uranium aftertaste.

Wait, how do vegetarians cause the death of more animals?

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/972951/posts

AH... the concept being, instead of killing one cow to feed 6-12 families... 'we' kill all the rats, field mice, moles, and smaller critters which depend on 'wild plant life' to survive... thereby, killing 'more' while trying to be humane to 'less'.

While I can sort of understand this stance, I admit I find it a bit blind to the day-to-day aspect of farming and the seasonal changes.  After having just spent the last 10 months in prime agricultural lands and seeing the farmer, land, and animal cycles, I find the view presented in the website a bit ... blind in how the 'cycle of life' really goes on.

When a crop is harvested, the animals 'left' are not standing in the bare fields.. shocked at the absent crop and easy prey for larger predators.  The animals tend to migrate in and out of an area depending on the weather, the condition of the crop and other factors... which keep them fairly safe and 'in the know' of when a crop is available for munching or protective cover and when it's time to pull out to hit the nearby woods and other fields with other crop types growing.

Seeing all manner of birds -- northern bobwhite, killdeer, mourning dove, eastern kingbird, white-eyed vireo, American robin, eastern bluebird, northern mockingbird, blue jay, yellow-breasted chat, field sparrow, northern cardinal, indigo bunting, common grackle, eastern meadowlark, and brown-headed cowbird. Wintering birds of these habitats include northern harrier, sedge wren, and various sparrows plus plenty of hawks and eagles.  In the fall and winter the water covered areas which once held rice then had huge populations of snow and Canagian geese and ... year round, egrets.   

No different the farm lands themselves.  Critters of all shapes and sizes use the lands for their own purposes -- depending on the necessity and the season... be they deer or raccoons or armadillos or beavers or mice or small wild cats...  critters 'get it' and tend to adapt faster then most humans would in similar situations.

I suppose if you were to say, "big or small, every potential critter lost is another life-force mark on the human 'bad karma' scoreboard". 

Then the question comes down to... do you really want to play the 'survival of the fittest game'?  Mankind sucks at that game;  since, without fang or claw or fur and without the cheat of 'tool' or weapon or steal fur and leather or working plants for fibers -- we are the least equipt to really survive in such a world.  Be it from bacteria, molds, fungii, or critters carrying their own host of diseases or reasons to want to take a nibble out of us if given the opportunity -- human survival would not rate high 'betting odds'.

The amount of animals (including insects) being killed with both methods were calculated in other studies, and the  numbers are deemed fairly accurate. The answer from the "moral" vegetarians basically was that non-cuddly animals didnt have a life worth living (I think thats the actual words they used), and that of course people eat a lot of poultry instead of nature's lawn mowers. (I confirm people in england eat a lot of chicken), cancelling/worsening the effects (as birds eat grains).

Save the environment. Do the right thing. eat horse.

do you really want to play the 'survival of the fittest game'?  Mankind sucks at that game;  since, without fang or claw or fur and without the cheat of 'tool' or weapon or steal fur and leather or working plants for fibers -- we are the least equipt to really survive in such a world.

That's starnge, I was under the impression we were by far at the top of the food chain. It would be unfair to deprive us from our only weapon: our mind. Without it we'd be fucked, there's no doubt about that. Apply that rule to animals and I'm willing to take on a bear that has no strength, no claws, no jaws and no fur at any time.

I don't buy it.  First, most of the food supply in the store is factory farmed which means it isn't eating grass, it's eating grains and also other dead animals which aren't naturally part of their diet.  Plus, it's not like meat eaters don't eat plants either.  This type of argument is fairly irrelevant.  It's gone from being about what type of choices should people make to attacking the beliefs of a group of people that, while misguided about the view they don't kill anything, are at least trying to make a moral decision.  They may not have the full picture, or they hopefully do recognize they are still taking of life to sustain themselves, but they are trying. 

A friend of mine was vegan for a while because she literally saw the flash of how the animal was killed when she ate it.  She wasn't trying to do this, she's just a gifted seer and it started happening as her gifts awakened more.  She once saw it with a potato, which wasn't quite as traumatic but yes there was still an experience.  But in the end we either choose to sustain ourselves from life outside us or we die.  Since everyone here is alive and well, we've all chosen that our existence matters.  So now, how do we do this?  Do we do it without regard for the impact we have on the world, or do we try to make ethical choices that reflect our interconnectedness with everything on this planet?  By the way, she has introduced a little food back to her diet as she's learn to control her gift and had other health issues from lack of variety. 

It was mentioned before, I believe by Kol, and I'll mention it again with my own twist: Everything that happens in life happens with the permission of the souls involved.  That means any animal that becomes food did so willingly at the soul level (doesn't mean it wanted to consciously).  But also, their experience is there as an opportunity for us to decide what kind of person we want to be.  The inhumanely treated can be reduced if everyone demanded a change to humanely produced.  The numbers being sacrificed would be reduced if we all learned to eat a normal portion instead of eating like we'll never eat again.  All of these situations are provided so we can make a decision, and each decision defines who we are in that moment.  Personally, I don't like who I am by supporting inhuman farming so I'm trying to make a change.  I'm trying to get in the habit of saying a little prayer of thanks to the food that is sustaining me.  Like any habit it takes time to develop and stick with.  Hopefully I can do more to responsibly transform one form of life to my form of life until I pass my life back on to the cycle.

I don't buy it.  First, most of the food supply in the store is factory farmed which means it isn't eating grass, it's eating grains and also other dead animals which aren't naturally part of their diet.  Plus, it's not like meat eaters don't eat plants either.  This type of argument is fairly irrelevant.  It's gone from being about what type of choices should people make to attacking the beliefs of a group of people that, while misguided about the view they don't kill anything, are at least trying to make a moral decision.  They may not have the full picture, or they hopefully do recognise they are still taking of life to sustain themselves, but they are trying.

Yes, but trying is pointless, only the result matters. If by trying something, you only worsen the situation, you have to stop. If you don't, I will make you. I don't claim to be interested in measuring suffering, it's just that the "moral" vegetarians don't do anything moral at all. They should realise it, and accept what they really are. (I would like to add that vegetarians also eat a greater amount of animals than meat eaters: there is a certain percentage of insects that can be in non-meat products without mentioning it on the label).

Just in case people are wondering, I am assuming that vegetarians eat a greater quantity of vegetables (fruits, nuts, etc) than meat eaters. It obviously doesn't work if this is not the case. (but evidence suggests it is)

First, most of the food supply in the store is factory farmed which means it isn't eating grass, it's eating grains and also other dead animals which aren't naturally part of their diet.

Not necessarily. Especially for the meat part. We know it was a bad idea now. You can feed horses and cows on grass, this is what in my experience gives the highest quality meat. Recycle your plastic, give the rest to the pig. plus, with a horse you get free rides to town. And it's cool too, people usually pay a lot of money for this kind of privilege. And what comes out of a horse is harmless to the environment (that's a problem with pigs though). unless you live in a desert, you need no irrigation as water necessary for green grass falls from the sky.

Anyway, you can't say that the meat industry has to be super intensive like it is in american hamburger factories, when it can be just like it was before (and still today, go "local"): less productive, less money, but somewhat generally better. (In fact McDonald's in France did just that to save their reputation, it worked pretty well --they sell salad too--, and you can actually taste the difference between french and british mcdonald's)