Community | December 22, 2009 | 174 comments

Ethical eating - plants want to live, too

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&em

Image
DeliaTheArtist
"Before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

When plant biologists speak of their subjects, they use active verbs and vivid images. Plants “forage” for resources like light and soil nutrients and “anticipate” rough spots and opportunities. By analyzing the ratio of red light and far red light falling on their leaves, for example, they can sense the presence of other chlorophyllated competitors nearby and try to grow the other way. Their roots ride the underground “rhizosphere” and engage in cross-cultural and microbial trade.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves, specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication — their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from within.

Enemies of the plant’s enemies are not the only ones to tune into the emergency broadcast. “Some of these cues, some of these volatiles that are released when a focal plant is damaged,” said Richard Karban of the University of California, Davis, “cause other plants of the same species, or even of another species, to likewise become more resistant to herbivores.”

I thought this was an interesting perspective so I wanted to share it with the Current community... is the line between plants and animals just an arbitrary concept? Don't plants deserve to live as well? What implications does the further research of plant behavior have for our plate?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&em
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Culture,   Current Tonight,   16 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

174 comments // Ethical eating - plants want to live, too

  • likeamazing
  • poppys4cast
    • 0
      poppys4cast  

    • Nuts and berries, and Milk and eggs, oh my... some great symbiotic natural food sources. Culling is also a necessary process for the abundant fruitful potential of any plant. The question is perhaps are we plant or animal? Apparently a bit of both, as through out the history of human communication we seem to have been learning this skill from the plants...

    • 2 years ago
  • Madhatter244
  • kagemusha23
  • shroomfairy
  • danitassin
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • Image

    • http://bobbyrock.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/%E2%80%9Chow-do-you-vegans-justify-kil...

      From Bobby Rock...

      “How Do You Vegans Justify Killing Plants When They’re Living Things, Too?”

      As I’ve always stated around here, I’m up for spirited debate, and I don’t mind anyone challenging my life philosophies. This is how we all continue to evolve. Occasionally, however, these “challenges” can get pretty ridiculous… almost as if the “challenger” is grasping for ANY kind of clever, unassailable theory that will somehow render an entire way of living as invalid.

      In the world of Witty But Asinine Retorts to Veganism, there are a few that, unfortunately, will not go away. Heading this list would have to be the truly pathetic, “But Hitler was a vegetarian, so what does that say about your movement?” (By the way, Hitler was a far fucking cry from being veggie, as his diet included steady rations of Bavarian sausage, liver dumplings, ham, and squab. The vegetarian myth was just another calculated part of his manufactured public image as a “revolutionary ascetic.”)

      A close second would probably be the the good ol’ plants-are-living-things-too retort, which usually unfolds something like this: “You talk about having a diet and lifestyle where you avoid killing any living thing. But what about plants? Plants are living things and you kill them.”

      I hadn’t actually heard this one in a while… until its bell was sounded in a New York Times article from last week entitled, “Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too.” Predictably, the author seemed to be making a case about the futility of being vegan, since we were doomed to eat plants, and plants want to live as much as any animal does. In other words, if we’re all destined to be murderers anyway, what difference does it make who or what we’re murdering, be it plant or animal?

      Of course, in the article’s first paragraph, the author also admits to her own ethical quandaries and resultant dietary inconsistencies (omitting pork and “mammalian” meat, but not birds, fish or dairy). Whatever. I only bring up this point because these kind of lame-ass arguments are usually presented as much for the benefit of the questioner (in rationalizing their choices), as they are for those being asked the question.

      READ ON..........

    • 2 years ago
  • ashgallagher
    • 0
      ashgallagher  

    • your question: "I thought this was an interesting perspective so I wanted to share it with the Current community... is the line between plants and animals just an arbitrary concept? Don't plants deserve to live as well? What implications does the further research of plant behavior have for our plate?"

      my thoughts: ....um- all living things deserve to live, however, i believe as a human being i was not only given charge over the earth but the freedom to eat of the earth's production...while i believe in the value of living things, i believe more significantly in the value of human life, so starving one's self for the sake of plants and animals is not on the agenda.

      certainly though this does make a good point in the fact that we can't really get away from eating living things. perhaps some put more value on animals than plants and that may be the case, b/c plants and such will reproduce much more rapidly than many animals (aka, why we have certain ones that are "endangered").

      plant behaviour, is a very interesting concept and certainly i am all for studying further what plants can and cannot do. science is important and can teach us many things about the world we live in- no matter what life form it is....

    • 2 years ago
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  

    • For personal clarification purposes only...

      I never have referred to myself as a "strong ethical vegan." The accurate quote, copied and pasted directly from my Current profile, is this:

      "I'm an ethical vegan atheist with extremely strong liberal tendencies,"

      I go no further than that in regard to my being a vegan. My profile, instead, concentrates on a bit of my interests and potentially how I came to be where I now am... as a human being (not a vegan).

      In fact, here's the rest of my mini-profile:

      "My parents were labor union organizers (beginning in the 30s) and socialists, so I grew up being a human rights activist, an animal rights activist, and an earth rights activist. I came of age before and during the Civil Rights Movement and The Beatles. I went to Woodstock (major turning point in my life). I'm crazy-mad for both music and books. I miss being on the road."

      I just like being quoted or described correctly... and based on context.

      I've enjoyed the comments as a result of the submission of this article, to be sure.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • KeineReue
    • 0
      KeineReue  

    • Its been proven that broccoli has a "nervous system" and can feel pain. I've thought the same thing about plants being eaten for years. My best friend is a vegetarian and I respect her choice and always cook vegan dishes fir her when she is over, but I don't plan on giving up meat. I have low iron and i'm a hardcore carnivore. Pass the steak and potatos. medium rare, I wanna dip my potatoes in the running blood/juice. : P

    • 2 years ago
  • QuestionGeek
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • QuestionGeek:

      It is actually a very interesting topic for discussion. The National Inquirer can barely hold my interest for more than a minute and this would never be part of an issue unless it was Brad Pitt's reason for leaving Angelina and going back to Jenn. And even then they would not go into detail about his beliefs.

    • 2 years ago
  • sirpaulmcdarkney
    • 0
      sirpaulmcdarkney  

    • Oh, for fuck's sake!
      People are so fucking insensitive to other people's sensitivity and too ego-centric to realize that everything is sentient- not that it even matters because to real point is every human being is different. Not all people can digest all foods properly and, contrary to popular belief, not all people need the same nutrients in even similar amounts. If we truly were as self-CENTERed as our egos make us out to be we would be okay with whatever other people did for themselves because we wouldn't need to differentiate enough to feel so lonely (underneath the superiority complexes) that we desperately need more people just like us. I, for one, have a constantly varying diet (though fish and eggs make up the only meats) dependent upon what my body is calling for... and I'm not a self-righteous snob about it OR what people around me are eating. I care, don't get me wrong, I am concerned. My solution: share what info I have and respect them as peers enough to make a conscious decision on their own. Because I am a GOOD friend, I support them in their choices in their own lives and remind them they can always decide something else if ever they are disappointed with their own choices later.
      :P
      So there. See how much better I am than you!
      lol
      Seriously, can we stop trying to make our personal truths the truths of the cosmos; please?

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • growdude420
    • 0
      growdude420  

    • Hmmmmm. I've had a few plants in my day, and I wonder sometimes if I'm crazy when I notice that my plants react in ways no one could possibly understand unless they grow too. It always makes me terribly sad to have to kill these wondrous plants to get their "fruit", and I have wished many times that I didn't have to kill to produce something the world NEEDS.

    • 2 years ago
  • onemm24
  • NuclearLullaby
  • amae617
    • 0
      amae617  

    • does someone have a suggestion of what we are to eat then? rocks?

      also, i think it would be more productive for us to focus our priorities on other things -- like how to take care of other people in the world rather than plants' "feelings." Don't get me wrong, this is all very interesting, but i just feel like there are more important pressing things going on in the world.

    • 2 years ago
  • Agent_Alpha
  • Justin_Patrie
  • Juas
    • 0
      Juas  

    • Onions, Broccoli, Lettuce, Carrots, Potatoes and such die when you harvest them.

      Good bye, delicious salad :(

    • 2 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • AtomUniverse1
    • 0
      AtomUniverse1  

    • Ahh! how all of existence is repetitive constant of "dying" and "creation" when all this information is constantly rearranging and joining in an ever expanding existence that has no limit, all coming from a single, small point in a single instant in time.

    • 2 years ago
  • BKsaysAction
  • amae617
    • 0
      amae617  

    • look, i'm all for science but sometimes i think, why does more knowledge makes us dumber and illogical? we gotta eat something!

    • 2 years ago
  • lifestudentno83
    • 0
      lifestudentno83  

    • Gotta eat to live. That's how the world works. Even plants gotta eat. Why should people feel bad for wanting to live, whether it be off plants or animals?

    • 2 years ago
  • Ediblehearts
  • kreddig
  • dc133
  • EmperorThan
    • +2
      EmperorThan  

    • Oh give me a fucking break...

      "Let's all eat sand!" -A Nonediblethingsatarian

      "Hey now you're not taking into consideration the feelings of the sand!!!"
      -Some other fucking moron

    • 2 years ago
  • kreddig
  • LiberalismLacksLogic
  • Mitten
    • 0
      Mitten  

    • This article is ridiculous.

      It's long been established that there are levels of feeling in plants that we have yet to discover, but after millions of years of evolution, it's this simple:

      A lot of plants benefit from being eaten by mammals, and are therefore edible.

      Plants that don't want to be eaten have developed mechanisms such as poisons etc. to survive. Either that or they just aren't palatable in the first place.

      The idea that is is morally wrong to eat plants is just dumb. Yes, it's morally wrong to overeat and endanger a species of plant, but us humans are lucky enough to have the intelligence necessary to manage a situation and create sustainable diets. Sadly, as a race, we aren't doing that.

      I respect both plants and animals, in the same way that I wouldn't kill a fly, I wouldn't kill a plant. Most edible plants provide food that can be cut from the plant while it continues to flourish, this is sometimes even necessary for the plant to survive. The food that doesn't come from part of a plant is often available as a bi-product of the plants reproduction process. Yes, the plant might feel pain, or some sort of chemical response that instructs it to preserve itself where it has been damaged, but if this was so severe, then the plant would have evolved to solve the problem.

      I think the Buddhist theory is the best way to put it: To not eat anything that runs away when chased, or cries out when inflicted with pain.

      I'm tired of vegetarians and vegans being attacked for choosing not to eat meat. In order to sidestep the personal morality issue, meat eaters relentlessly brand vegetarians as people who push their views on other people and put themselves up on a moral pedestal.

      I quote:
      "there's a great book called the secret life of plants that all vegans should read before they belittle the meat eaters out ther' - because all vegans do is go out and belittle people for eating meat. Newsflash: you feel belittled because you haven't given what you eat a though, morally and ethically speaking, so you're lashing out because you feel guilty, or stupid, or something.

      While this may be true of a tiny minority of people, it doesn't mean that attacking people for their diet choices is fair game.

      I am going to belittle some of the meat eaters who have commented here, for being dumb and writing dumb comments, and also for just outright attacking vegan/veg people. I'm not, however, going to belittle all meat eaters. People can eat what they want. I'd love for more people to be vegetarian, but I'd also love to live in a crime free country, so what can you do.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
  • HotforJonus
    • 0
      HotforJonus  

    • I need to stand my ground here:

      Yes, some vegans/vegetarians do take the whole "I'm so great and green and guilt-free" approach in all of their moralistic stone-throwing. And yes, some meatitarians (as I've heard them refer to themselves), omnivores, carnivornes, opportunistic feeders, animal population controllers, hedonists, or whatever else they want to be called, can be as equally defensive as vegs, and (often) toot and salute their anthropocentric (everyone else was using big grown-up words, so I had to too) standing on such issues. And don't get me started on pescetarians- you guys are just lazy-elitists-jerks! "I only eat fish..." how dare you descriminate against pinnipeds and narwhals!

      So there. You're all wrong... in one way or the other. My, how small all of you look from way up here on this pedestal.

      As for me (tooting my own horn), I take the ULTRA "green" approach... I stumble about the woods preying (and praying) on hot and tasty bear turds. MMMM... talk about easy-pickings! Those bare bear bastards do all of the work, while I have a feast of different days (depending on what my ursus buddies leave behind- it's totally symbiotic, dudes and dudettes). And sometimes, I like to especially watch as they feast on geese... with goose-juice dripping on their chests... watching bare bears' bare chests glisten in the Yukon sunbeams- oh my! Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself there- what were we arguing about again?

      Nader 2012!

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
    • 0
      rufescens  

    • The notion that plants have some sort of instantaneous feelings is fascinating--that they can feel fear, pain, etc. (Not that I'm going to stop eating vegetables, though--I love them too much!)

      One correction, though: The line between "plants" and "animals" is not arbitrary. The two groups are reciprocally monophyletic--they have two separate common ancestors. Now, "plants" and "green algae," those could be argued to be arbitrary...

      Another question: Do hydra, jellyfish, sponges feel pain?

    • 2 years ago
  • Moopak_is_back
  • EdJoyProductions
  • julesrs007
    • 0
      julesrs007  

    • for the "Circle of Life" comment... We broke the 'circle of life' by not living sustainably and in harmony with Earth.

      P-L-E-A-S-E !

      The 'Circle of Life' does not apply to CHOOSING to let sentient beings be
      - forced into unnatural reproduction
      - to produce offspring born to 'live' their sad life in pain & misery
      - only 'alive' to to have their life cruelly and inhumanely taken to satisfy the gluttonous & over-consuming human taste-bud

      THIS IS A CIRCLE OF TERROR & HUMAN DISGRACE ... A WAR.

      We are the only species that takes more than we need from a once abundant planet.

      We are the only species that CHOOSE to create toxic waste that the planet can not utilize.

      We produce products and goods that are unnecessary to for us to live and the JUNK pollutes our environment, damages our health and destroys entire population of species.

      HUMANS ARE THE ONLY SINGULAR SPECIES TO HAVE CAUSED (and continue to cause) MASS EXTINCTIONS OF SPECIES. Eventually, we will destroy ourselves.

      "ALL ARGUMENTS TO PROVE MAN'S SUPERIORITY CANNOT SHATTER THIS HARD FACT: IN SUFFERING THE ANIMALS ARE OUR EQUALS"
      -- Peter Singer

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • julesrs007:

      unfortunately, plants also fit two of your criteria:

      being forced into unnatural production

      and being produced only to satisfy human consumption.

      for comments regarding the sentience of plants, please see my post on your comment regarding that subject

      Sorry, not a well-conceived argument

      And I would challenge you to back up your claim that humans are the only species to have caused the extinction of another. Hint- I know this to be a false statement just by its wording. You can't make such a claim without knowing the history of every species, which we do not. You might be able to say that we have no evidence to suggest that any other species has caused such an extinction, but that might not only be untrue, it wouldn't prove anything even if it were.

      Not only that, but the statement implies that out of the MANY MANY MANY extinctions that the world has seen, that NONE of those were caused by animal interactions, that ALL of them were geologic in origin or some such nonsense. Sorry, even as a theory it seems implausible.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  

    • You know I was thinking about this and it seems to me that the vast majority of our vegetable food CAN be had this way. In fact, few crops REQUIRE you to kill them for harvest. Here's a (very minimal) list of crops that don't require killing the plant.

      Artichokes
      Asparagus
      bamboo
      beans of all types
      berries of all types
      broccoli
      brussel sprouts
      chinese cabbages
      celery
      chayote
      corn
      cucumbers
      eggplant
      grains of all types
      greens of all types
      lettuce
      melons of all types
      mushrooms
      nuts of all types
      okra
      peas
      peanuts
      peppers
      pumpkins
      squashes of all types
      sweet potatoes
      tomatoes

      The main thing missing are obviously the root crops- potatoes, onions, carrots- sweet potatoes being the exception as they're grown from cuttings- and the few plants that really can't be taken except as whole plants, like head cabbages.

      You could EASILY maintain health on a diet of the above (although yes, B12 is an issue)

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
  • thewhompus
  • EtVoila
    • 0
      EtVoila  

    • This is a very interesting article, and it made me think of Mahatma Gandhi. I remember that for a few years, he was a fruitarian, meaning that he only ate things that could be taken from the plant without killing it. These included apples from an apple tree, tomatoes, grapes from the vine, etc. So, there is a way to eat without anything having to be killed. The problem is that this diet would probably kill you if you stuck with it for too long.

    • 2 years ago
  • jaystyx
  • thewhompus
  • bailey78
  • thewhompus
  • rufescens
  • ryan8566
  • flyingkick
    • 0
      flyingkick  

    • There is no way for humans to get a sufficient amount of B12 without either eating meat or taking supplements.
      Vegans, if they want to be healthy, must take a B12 supplement, which can be extracted from plants.
      A human would not be able to eat enough plants a day to get a sufficient amount of B12 though.
      Therefore, we can assume that humans in the wild had to eat meat to survive.

      Now, this doesn't mean that humans today must eat meat. But, it does prove that humans are natural meat eaters.

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
    • 0
      rufescens  
    • flyingkick:

      Actually, B12 is only produced by soil bacteria. The reason vegetarian animals amass a lot of B12 is that they consume a lot of dirt in the process of eating plants. You COULD get lots of B12 naturally without eating meat--if you ate soil.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mariased
    • 0
      Mariased  
    • flyingkick:

      That explains a lot, Rufescens. I've been a vegan for 6 years and have never taken supplements for anything. My doctors agree that I'm healthy and I've always been curious as to where the B12 is supposedly wasn't getting was coming from.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
  • annabell
    • 0
      annabell  
    • flyingkick:

      There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable. It should be noted that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency.

      Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed.

      The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs. Though present in lesser amounts than meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
    • 0
      rufescens  
    • flyingkick:

      Mariased--I'd be very careful! B12 deficiency is very, very scary business. I forget all the different problems you can end up with, but I believe irreversible blindness, digestive problems, and death are on the list. If you wish to remain vegan, take a supplement! I'm sure you cannot get enough soil to make up for a deficiency! I'm serious!

    • 2 years ago
  • flyingkick
    • 0
      flyingkick  
    • flyingkick:

      Herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fæces.

      Humans don't do this ^^

      So, we must get our B12 from either animal/insect sources or a synthetic supplement. Eating termites is not vegan by the way.

      Like I said, there is B12 in plants and soil. However, you cannot eat enough in one day to get anywhere near a sufficient amount.

      Mariased,

      A lot of vegetarian food is synthetically fortified with vitamins. You can get B12 from vitamin enriched soy milk and some Cheerios. That's probably where you're getting yours from.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • flyingkick:

      "Like I said, there is B12 in plants and soil. However, you cannot eat enough in one day to get anywhere near a sufficient amount."

      Really... Perhaps you should compare this to the first reply. One of them has to be true...

      I'll give you a hint: It's not the one you said.

      Suggesting that humans evolved to eat meat solely for the purpose is B12 would be an interesting thesis, because really, that's all you have to go on. Nothing in our physiology suggests that humans are natural meat eaters and everything suggests that we are natural frugivores. Your B12 argument is not an argument at all, so please give us all the gift of ceasing to spread ignorance around the world this Christmas.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
    • -1
      bailey78  

    • I eat meat I like a nice piece of beef done to a nice medum well state of cookedness. I like some veggies but duck is to die for i love to go out and hide in the tall grass and wait till they start to land on the water and then BOOM BOOM Kill me a duck for the pot. I have gone so far as to quit my job to go duck hunting. I have never gotten the same feeling out of planting a seed in the ground and taking care of it till I get it to bare fruit. Just because you don't eat meat don't talk bad to those of us that do.

    • 2 years ago
  • MountainManMark
    • 0
      MountainManMark  

    • If someone is actually serious about killing less plants the best way is to go veg. All that farm animals eat are plants, right? So if you really want to save plants lives, then stop eating meat, cows and pigs spend their entire day eating plants. Also it takes 1,500 gallons of water to make 1 pound of beef.

      Save the planet, go Veg.

    • 2 years ago
  • julesrs007
    • +1
      julesrs007  

    • reply to a derogatory comment towards vegans and vegetarians -

      I became a vegetarian 16 years ago when I realized where food came from... a living, feeling creature that was SUFFERING because of my taste-buds. Eventually I became a vegan because it seemed unethical for me to 'pick and choose' what defined a vegetarian simply because it was not convenient or because there was a product I enjoyed the taste of.

      Being a vegan is a personal choice. I feel more connected to LIFE when I choose not to consume animal products. I believe that veganism enables me to be more a more empathetic and compassionate human being. I do not 'push' my personal beliefs/values onto anyone but if someone asks questions...

      Our (Western) culture is totally DISCONNECTED from food. F-O-O-D is defined by many as "some thing that comes in a plastic bag or paper box from the grocery store"...
      Hence, this detachment results in health problems directly related to what we consume and the environmental pollutants associated (ex. factory farming).

      There is something shamefully WRONG about our sense of entitlement we humans have toward the life we share out planet with.

      back to the rude comment... it seems like you have some internal ethical conflict going on. needing to feel morally justified for your consumption choices (ie. to feel superior to 'plant eaters'). If being a vegan allows me to feel like a better person, then let me be!

    • 2 years ago
  • pakazak
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • julesrs007:

      Sorry, having read the thread several times now, I think the majority of comments were not at all derogatory.

      Certainly my own comments and those of the other major contributors to this thread were discussing the validity of the arguments, and weren't targeting vegetarians specifically. Elsewhere you might see me support the idea.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • @Animalia and others, this was not meant as a swipe at vegetarians or vegans. The author of the piece doesn't eat meat, I wish people would not get defensive about the article because it's not making a statement against vegetarianism per se, just bringing up other ethical considerations about food in general- it's certainly not "propaganda" of any measure.

      The whole point of the research the author brought up is to make us rethink our notion of sentience and superiority. Just as whompus said, your argument against the "suffering" of plants is along the same lines that people make against the suffering of animals. As we find out more about how plants live and what they are able to do, do our ethical considerations not change simply because we have always deemed them non sentient and their suffering nonexistent? It's certainly worth examining.

      Someone said this article was "so patently false and superficial that it is sickening. It hardly warrants a philosophical reply" - but I think exploring the idea of life, what being ALIVE really means and our levels of respect for different life is one of the most important philosophical questions we can ask.

      I noticed that many vegetarians took this as an attack on their lifestyle, and meat eaters as an excuse for their diet. It is neither of those things, simply a look into a world we don't often think about, a perspective we rarely see.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Nice comments Delia.

      Though I do think the issue calls into question many of the assertions that vegetarians use to support their ideology, I approve of vegetarianism based on other grounds, and indeed spent much of my adult life as one. But I think the use of morality in such arguments is just as slippery as moralistic arguments in general. Morality is ALWAYS propped up by arbitrary rationalizations, and it's use to impose guilt on others, whether based on their political, religious or social ideals, really is a bit unethical in itself.

      As I have said before regarding vegetarianism- It suffices to point out that it's destroying the environment. That reason alone should be enough to at least support eating LESS meat, if not removing it from your diet completely. I choose the less meat option, as I feel healthier when I eat it occasionally. It isn't necessary to bring morals and ethics into it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Minus5scenePoints
    • 0
      Minus5scenePoints  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      See, i think if someone doesn't want to eat meat, that's fine. but don't make it about eating something that was once alive. Planets are alive, they can feel pain! it's been proven. Just because they can't scream out, doesn't make it ok to eat them and feel guilt free.

    • 2 years ago
  • SuperVBoy
    • +2
      SuperVBoy  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Yes. I did take this as an attack on veganism. I've heard this argument before. It's very often because they're saying, "Plants have feelings too so being vegan is pointless. So you're an idiot and I've got to eat so I may as well stay the way I am."
      The problem is, however, although I accept that plants have evolved mechanisms that improve their ability to survive (those that didn't became extinct - survival of the fittest), do the plants actually have a 'desire to live'? Do they have 'consciousness'? Do they actually FEEL pain?

      Fruitarianism is an option since the plant has evolved to encourage the picking and eating of their fruit. The fruit is picked eaten and the seeds are dispersed by an animal that either discards the seeds (a distance from the parent) or consumes the seeds and poops them out later (again, at a distance from the parent).

    • 1 year ago
  • drewanium
  • julesrs007
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • julesrs007:

      do you know the definition of 'sentience'?

      It's the ability to sense things.....and yes, all plants have it. And not only that, they have the ability to respond to such stimuli.

      from merriam webster- Sentient:
      1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

      While plants are not conscious, they ARE responsive, and thus could be construed as having 'perception', though not in the cognitive sense animals do.

      There is essentially no difference between a bias towards the eating of plants, based on the fact that they lack cognition, and the bias towards eating 'lower' animal organisms, which while having a nervous system, lack anything beyond basic homeostatic functions.

      In other words, the same logic you use to defend the eating of plants, can be used to defend the eating of animals that lack 'cognition' and 'self-awareness' as we understand it.

      Plants DO sense stimuli like light, water, nutrition variations in the soil, temperature, day length, the presence of other nearby plants, etc etc

      DO respond to these stimuli

      DO react in a variety of ways when harmed.

      Some plants even have social programs that will favor their own species over another. In other words they will grow taller when planted with the same species in order to allow light for all the plants in the community. The will instead crowd out other species when planted in a mixed population.

    • 2 years ago
  • newinusa
  • animalia_libero
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • animalia_libero:

      People have said for thousands of years, and some still say, the same things about animals.

      The fact that we're unable to register the pain and suffering of plants is equivalent to our previous inability to register the 'sentience', 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' of animals.

      While I admit that plants lack 'consciousness, plants CLEARLY have sensation and perception, it just occurs in a way that is so different from our own nervous system that we often fail to recognize it, just like we failed to recognize the 'intelligence' of animals for so long, because it was so different from our own.

      I don't think your argument can stand on such grounds.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Einsam_Data_Old
  • EdJoyProductions
  • pakazak
    • 0
      pakazak  

    • fruits, nuts, seeds, grains.... how DO some of you manage to get out the door in the morning?
      eggs, dairy by-products (ya know, cheese, milk, like that).
      think about it. in a veggie garden, i don't kill the plants when i pick the fruit - i help the plant extend its life by picking the fruits.
      here the freakin' frozen upper midwest, the plants dies by themselves by oct/nov.

      there are all levels of consciousness - its more a matter of whether we respect what we consume.

      this is another one of those "your son and daughter are trapped in a burning house and you can only save one. which one?" types of questions that will just make you goofier than you were before.

    • 2 years ago
  • llatch666
    • 0
      llatch666  

    • Look, my heart bleeds as much as the next liberal, but if we dont eat animals, and we don't eat vegetables,......... is there something else out there that we eat and I just don't know about it? Bottom line, I'm eating something, or someone. Yep,....walkin' away now,..........

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
  • thewarnerla
  • thewhompus
  • rufescens
  • thewhompus
  • vans1170
  • skatherine
  • unclecharlie
    • -1
      unclecharlie  

    • So, do your part! NEVER eat animals! That is cruel! NEVER eat plants! That is just as cruel! Do your part to stem this "population bomb"- STARVE yourself to death! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense! (sigh- what a bunch of idiots- PETP: People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants".)

    • 2 years ago
  • lifestudentno83
  • nursediesel
  • thewhompus
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • nursediesel:

      there are people who try that diet and end up with terrible malnutrition.

      I think there was a story a few years ago about a couple who refused to breast milk their child because they thought that humans didn't need milk, and their kid starved to death.

      they went to jail, and rightfully so.

    • 2 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • nursediesel:

      Human breast milk IS the correct food to feed human infants, hands down. And mom needs to eat a healthy well balanced diet before she gets pregnant, while pregnant, while breast feeding and after breast feeding. It can be done. It is somewhat difficult in our busy lives to do so on a vegan diet unless one has the financial means to do so, yet it can be done.

    • 2 years ago
  • hell0everything
    • -1
      hell0everything  

    • My opinion on this (without reading any of the other comments posted yet), is that goddamn, I need something to eat, so I'm going to choose the thing I can't hear suffer or squirt out blood when it's placed on a grill =P

      Ignorant? Maybe to super plant lovers, but otherwise I'll starve =(

    • 2 years ago
  • ryan8566
  • hell0everything
  • emsroses
  • rufescens
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  

    • I'm assuming you're not in a position to judge what it is to be enlightened.

      And your moralistic arguments are just as shoddy as those of buddhism or any other religion. (particularly in buddhism, where karmic virtue is self-contradictory).

      Though I agree. People eat too much damn meat, and it's damaging the world we live in. In my assessment, this is probably the only truly valid argument for vegetarianism.

      Regarding plants- They are living creatures too and do have sensation, so it's an interesting argument that I've occasionally pulled out to annoy vegetarians. It's particularly effective on those vegetarians who also believe that everything is conciousness.

      The reality is that like every other animal, we have to kill to survive. How we as humans rationalize that killing some things is ok, and other things not, has always been based on arbitrary distinctions.

    • 2 years ago
  • srila
    • 0
      srila  

    • The recent World Climate Summit in Copenhagen has unequivocally affirmed that global warming is the most critical issue facing our modern civilization. That behooves each one of us –every individual on the planet – to reduce our carbon footprint. So there is no getting around it: vegetarianism is the most efficacious subsistence strategy to achieve that.
      It is estimated that at least 18% of greenhouse gases result from livestock production. If we can live by directly eating plants rather than living off hundreds of animals (who consume even more plants than a human does), it actually becomes a moral imperative to become vegetarian by that token alone. Global climate warming demands sacrifices from everyone, especially from the most gluttonous people in the world – American meat-eaters and American gas-guzzlers.

      So get over it. There are indeed far-reaching environmental, ethical and karmic consequences in whether you choose to slaughter a pig or instead pick those Brussels sprouts. The Buddha taught to follow the path of inflicting the least harm. That’s pretty much akin to the Golden Rule or Ethics 101. It is spiritual, it makes sense and it is practical.

      Get enlightened, go green, and go veg!!!

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 174
more from Community:
from the community

top videos