[Michelle Maier]

I think David’s suggestions are spot-on.

There are a myriad practical considerations to keep in mind.

Not everyone is as productive. Price’s Law observes that the square root of any given population produces half the value. Keeping this in mind, a designer would obviously NOT want a huge amount of communal space where unproductive ideas inevitably sabotage and drive out productive genius. Productive genius needs to have plentiful and exclusive resources- ie, those who are productive need a means of getting or being given, more land or having the ability to have exclusive use of more land.

You can get general (or average) numbers from homesteaders or sustenance farmers in the area. It will vary vastly based on location. Around here, an average farm of 10 acres can feed 12 families completely. Which means that those 11 additional families being fed represents income and not merely sustenance. That is average. A genius producer could at least double or treble that.

This goes for intellectual and structural resources as well. So a genius marketer should have exclusive control over the marketing and not have to deal with others opinions or control over the matter.

So, a designer would have to take a dynamic and changeable approach to structuring any larger community of Kin’s Domains. I obviously don’t know exactly what that would look like, but I am keen to see something based on mutual benefit and yet allow for maximum freedom of creativity and productivity.

This is of course if you want a thriving community with plentiful resources and creative genius to flourish.

[Michelle Maier]

Interesting discussion,

But I always wonder what it is we are supposed to do with all the male chickens? All the male goats? The bulls, rams, etc. Are we not to keep animals for any purpose at all like companionship? What should my dog or cat eat?

There is also the problem (although it’s not really a problem) of ample abundance of young animals that are naturally produced in an unaltered biological system. We can say that it’s fine for the wolves or coyotes or cats to kill and eat them, but not us? Are we not also part of nature? In an altered biological system, such as my rabbitry, there are *always too many rabbits. And even for those of stellar type and use – such as very desirable angora wooled rabbits- there are probably 50 individuals being produced to make that one stellar, desirable animal. Unless selective breeding is also not good. But I personally cannot believe that. The animal families have benefitted tremendously from partnering with human beings; their development can not be discarded as a meaningless spin off of some loveless carnivorous desire for meat.

Good for thought 🙂

[Michelle Maier]

Ah,

Of course there will never be a public acceptance. It must be walked out in private and in complete Honor. It is not for the faint of heart!

Cheers!

[Michelle Maier]

Hello,

Thank you for replying. I cannot live a vegan lifestyle. It would be most incongruous to disagree on a basic lifestyle factor such as this.

Cheers!

[Michelle Maier]

I love the thought that you put into your intentional choice.

Cheers!

[Michelle Maier]

Wow!
So great to hear from you!
We’ve also done a Land Patent, and that may in the long run be the way to go to get the county off our backs. Currently we are using a private discharge process to put liability back on the municipality. It works!

[Michelle Maier]

I appreciate that you bring up the CHOICE that a human being has, in contrast to a CHOICE that an animal does not have.
So on this specific choice; does the human being have a choice of how his physiology functions, different than what an animal has? I think the answer is no. Because to say differently would be to rail against the physical reality of ourselves- a reality that is just as important as the spiritual. Whatever arguments about what may in fact, be necessary for human physiology aside; we can definitely ascertain that we do not have a CHOICE about it.

And as has been mentioned before, if Anastasia said that milk and eggs are nutritious and necessary; a loving gift from animals to humans, then husbandry and all the necessary attributes of husbandry are good as well. It would be a contradiction to say that a goat giving milk to the human is good but a human giving food, shelter, protection and intentional management to the goat is not good.

I am not of the opinion that suffering is bad. But to assume that it is bad; it cannot be that husbandry causes suffering. What is left is the moment of death- or anticipation of death- that could be the cause of unnecessary suffering. We already know that the effects of a death cannot be suffering, because intentional management is good; these are the same things. We are left, then, with only the questions about which the human has a CHOICE; the suffering of anticipation of death.

Because death itself is *not* suffering- and it can never be prevented- so there is no choice surrounding this issue. But the suffering of anticipation of death certainly is a just and moral consideration that we should all take seriously.

Animals- and especially lower animals- have no sense of anticipating death. They cannot suffer that particular ordeal. Human beings are the only animal on Earth that can anticipate death, and suffer thereby. What animals may suffer from *is physical, moral or emotional stress caused by humans *because* we tend to devalue the experience of the animal. This is a human mistake. And one easily corrected.

Steiner said that animals have a group soul- and I really do believe this is a foundational truth about mammals in particular. I have farmed goats and cows, chickens, rabbits, pigs, over many years and for many generations. There is a spirit that guides each species, *but not each animal*, as we would tend to think for humans beings. Humans are individually ensouled. Animals are ensouled as a group.

And so, when a particular individual animal is to die, it is literally abandoned by the others. They will leave it and not go back to it; that individual will likewise *not* seek community. In essence, I believe the soul has already left that one. Intentional husbandry can easily spot this distinct and obvious truth.

So what is left for the farmer? To simply choose with intention and respect those animals whose time it is to die, and merely perform with the reality of what is already occurring. One may as well, as one grows in deeper connection to both the land and the stock, see into the future and plan a more fruitful family for the animals- by selective breeding, culling, choosing to hold back or fulfill any of the roles of an intentional husbandry. Not to say that the specific task of creating the environment where one is sure to never disregard the individual animal’s experience, and to be perceptive to the needs of the group as a whole is easy- but the conceptual cure is very clear.

Human beings were meant to be placed *in* and *over* the other kingdoms; not to be a separate bystander. We are here to manage and nurture them in ways that will bring them up and help their development, just as the Angels are here to guide and nurture the development of humanity.

And so, it is not actually a CHOICE that we are to perform these tasks.

I wager, then, it is merely the act of eating the body of the animal that is or is not desirable in a spiritual sense. I tend to think that the animals that I have managed on my land over many generations have a quality of nourishment that cannot be had by any other means.

Cheers.