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

  • asherp
  • srila
    • 0
      srila  

    • As evinced by their posts, the typical meat-eater’s response is self-serving and avoids any kind of personal reflection or moral accountability. The argument that because plants don’t want to be eaten, there is consequently no difference in whatever you eat – be that a pig or a Brussel’s sprout – is so patently false and superficial that it is sickening. It hardly warrants a philosophical reply.
      But let’s just take their reasoning a step further: By this sort of logic does that mean I can eat any animal I set my palate on without any other environmental or ethical consideration? Can I kill stray dogs and cats and eat them? Shoot birds and squirrels? Can I kidnap my neighbor’s pet and gobble it when it leaves their property? Can I clobber monkeys and slurp out their brains (considered an exotic delicacy in some cultures)? Chop the fins from endangered sharks and then throw the rest of the carcasses away (as they do in Japan)? Can I comb the oceans with 5-mile nets that drag up tens of thousands of sea animals (including dolphins and sharks) and then throw away 90% of them because those species don’t serve a market demand? Can I factory-farm animals like chicken, pigs and cattle, raising them in overcrowded and abominable conditions, engendering epidemic diseases like mad cow disease, bird flu and swine flu, as well as causing 75% of the river and water-table pollution in the USA, with no second thoughts or governmental regulation? Certainly, no need to bother about the amount of unspoken and unlimited suffering from the billions of butchered animals every year, right? It’s the same as cutting down blades of grass…

      Why stop at animals? Can I eat aborted human embryos? Can I slice up and roast captured “unlawful enemy combatants” because they have nowhere else in the world to go? Can I eat vegetarians because “vegetarians taste better”? Can I butcher and eat my mother???

      This is the slippery slope you get on with such bogus logic. The fact is that throughout human history and in every culture there have been so many ethical distinctions and practical considerations and taboos as to what we should or should not eat. Otherwise, why not become cannibals? It is therefore in everyone’s interest to become cognizant of and then rethink such ethical principles, thus raising our societal standards to a more civilized level.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  
    • srila:

      Indeed, you could do all of those things. And the morality you used to determine whether it was right or wrong would be just as arbitrary as the morality you're using now.

      Would you destroy huge swathes of forest to plant veggies?

      Seems the only ethical thing to do is to grow nutrient sludge in a bio-reactor.
      You might even be able to have different flavors.

      Should we do that?

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • srila:

      So some life is less morally valuable than other forms of life?

      If eating semi-sentient plants is okay, is it okay to eat their semi-sentient counterparts in the animal kingdom? Things like clams and coral?

      Is it more moral to eat an earthworm than a cow?

      Since it's okay to eat parts of a plant if you keep the whole plant alive, is it okay to eat parts of an ant or termite colony?

      Since it's okay to eat things that the plant produces, like nuts, leaves, and fruit, is it okay to eat things that animals produce like milk and honey?

      I really think we need to take a more realistic approach to how we interact with our environment.

      I read this book on foraging for wild edibles that was written by a Native American from the northeast. The introduction tells a story about how his father had him go into the woods and hunt a deer using no tools but what he could make once he got out there. He made himself a crude spear and stalked the deer for many days, without eating any food. He learned the deer's habits, which were surprisingly regular. Eventually the deer became used to him being around, and he dropped out of a tree with his crude spear and stabbed the deer through the neck. The deer did not die quickly. Watching the animal die so that he could live pierced him to the soul, and he deeply regretted that he'd been given this task. He came out of the woods, with the deer on his back, covered in blood and crying tears of anger towards his father. He cried out to his father, "why did you have me do this?"

      His father responded, "when you feel the way you do now about the plucking a single blade of grass, you will know the way of our ancestors."

    • 2 years ago
  • Minus5scenePoints
    • 0
      Minus5scenePoints  

    • Circle of life, yo. Something eats to keep going or is to be eaten to keep another going. But, I've had many Vegetarian and Vegan friends, don't try telling them anything of this sort. they'll poo poo it, obliviously.

    • 2 years ago
  • Minus5scenePoints
  • SDLN
    • -1
      SDLN  

    • Most vegans and veggies that I've known have chosen that diet more out of concern of industry than morality (a concern I share, BTW, though I continue to devour meat nightly). I don't know if I'm alone on that or not, or even if that's an accurate representation of that community, but that's been my experience.

      I've never understood the "it has eyes" or the "it has feelings" argument, though. Of course it does. Just don't be cruel to it; don't torture it. Kill it and eat it. Life feeds on life.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • -1
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Great post. I have read this about plants before in the book "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer. There is a section where he talks about the 300 million year war between insects and plants. He pretty much mentions everything that was said in the post. I never thought it could be so interesting to read about plants.

      Plants evolve too, and adapt to their environments as well.

      And as to eating, I am an equal opportunity offender, I am an omnivore!

    • 2 years ago
  • LowShred
  • asherp
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  

    • "In the piece, a plants real-time responses to its physical environment are translated to sound. Highly sensitive electrodes are attached to the leaves of the plant. Scored movements by a human plant player stimulate physiological responses in the plant that are monitored via the electrodes and biofeedback wave analysis."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD1Uf5BnK78

      I was trying to find a piece that I saw on PBS about 20 years ago because it had these amazing experiments with biofeedback machines that showed plants reacting to a person merely thinking about harming the plant the same way it would if it were actually harmed. It was trippy and I hadn't thought about it until this post reminded me of it. I just can not remember the name of the program but I remember that experiment because it made me feel more responsible about watering my plants. :)

    • 2 years ago
  • hell0everything
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      This was the closest I could find, but Cleve Backster speaks about the phenomenon.

      An expert in the polygraph and biocommunication, Cleve Backster related details of his research into electrical responses in plant life. His studies indicate that plants can sense human intent in a kind of "primary perception" that he compared to ESP. For instance, in experiments with bean sprouts --one group of sprouts was praised, the second group ignored, and the third sent negative thoughts-- the praised group grew much faster, he reported.

      An experimenter can influence the results of a study. The studies which showed plants preferred classical music might've been the result of experimenter bias against rock music, he said. Backster's first plant experiment took place in 1966, and he's now spent over 40 years on this type of research, which he conducts out of a former DEA lab in San Diego, in an under-funded fashion.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEEwyu0n7zE

    • 2 years ago
  • ahappymintleaf
    • 0
      ahappymintleaf  

    • I feel like all the points work making have been made. Fruit has been designed to be consumed. But then leaves and tubers, perhaps not so much. And it does come down to respect for the sacrifice of living things. No excess.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • -1
      unimatrix0  

    • Human beings are animals that eat meat. There is no moral fault in a lion or tiger eating meat, nor is there with a human being eating meat.

      Any false sense of moral superiority a vegan or vegetarian feels is self deception and non-sense.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
  • pakazak
    • 0
      pakazak  
    • unimatrix0:

      "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

      ---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
    • 0
      Sam_the_Wizer  
    • unimatrix0:

      Prior to modern agricultural practices humans did need to eat meat to get vital nutrients. With commercial agriculture plant foods became available in great enough quantities to replace meat in our diet. I think that commercial farming is a problem to the health of humans and ecosystems whether animals or plants are being raised.

    • 2 years ago
  • flyingkick
    • 0
      flyingkick  
    • unimatrix0:

      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
  • pandaman2105
    • 0
      pandaman2105  
    • unimatrix0:

      i agree with you 100%

      when you really think about it, being all-vegan is completely unnatural. we ARE omnivores after all, meat is necessary and healthy, depending on how it is prepared.
      but, i do think that we eat way too much.

      what we can do is develop a standard of meat consumption in which we only get meat organically and from more humane sources, which we all know is usually a vegan's claim to veganism, how we all eat inhumanely prepared shit and just plants are suitable.

      certain nutrients can only be attained through supplements for vegans, and that doesn't seem to natural to me when the very, very "original" option exists, which is eating meat. and if you throw in some veggies and overall healthiness, you're a perfectly normal human being! we're all capable of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • Image
    • unimatrix0:

      http://www.obnosis.com/motivatebytruth/ignorance2.jpg

      This image applies to everyone above me, including unimatirx.

      "we ARE omnivores after all, meat is necessary and healthy, depending on how it is prepared."

      You need to go away, for a very long time.

      I'd provide you all with some reliable factual evidence as to why we aren't meat eaters, but hey, what the fuck is that going to accomplish? You've obviously already made up your minds about what you want to believe -- based on nothing. So I guess merry Christmas and maybe consider a new years resolution to use that thing you evolved between your ears.

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  

    • All life above a microbial level feeds on life.

      If evolution hadn't intended for me to eat meat, it would not have given me the enzymes to digest it, nor the teeth to chew it.

      People who say humans aren't meant to eat meat are liars. I have enzymes in my digestive system that are specifically for digesting meat. My teeth are made for eating some meat.

      We are omnivores. All living things wish to live. So do I. So I eat others.

    • 2 years ago
  • calm_incense
    • 0
      calm_incense  
    • asherp:

      If evolution hadn't intended for me to be polygamous, it would not have given me the desire to mate with multiple females.

      People who say men are meant to be monogamous are liars. I have hormones in my nervous system that are specifically for pursuing new females. My body is made for mating with as many females as I can.

      We are polygamists. All living males wish to mate as much as possible. So do I. So I...

      Well, I *don't*. That's the point, bub.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • asherp:

      If evolution hadn't intended for me to eat cardboard, it would not have given me the enzymes to digest it, nor the teeth to chew it.

      People who say humans aren't meant to eat cardboard are liars. I have enzymes in my digestive system that are specifically for digesting cardboard. My teeth are made for eating some cardboard.

      We are omnivores. All living things wish to live. So do I. So I eat cardboard.

      Remember that evolution doesn't "intend" anything. Intention is a human construct. Evolution just happens. There are plenty of things that our bodies are capable of that are in no way related the original evolutionary pressures that led to these abilities. Remember that the enzymes are not "specific" to digesting meat, they are "specific" to the type of macromolecule that they break down (which are most likely found in more places than just meat), big difference. When it comes to eating meat do you really have any argument other than the weak one you just suggested and the fact that it tastes good?

      BTW: I'm not saying you shouldn't eat meat, go ahead, I really couldn't care less.

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • asherp:

      anima_libro: I'm sorry, are you calling evolution ignorant?

      You're no better than evangelical Christians who say the earth is only 4,000 years old.
      Sorry dude, science is real.

      Why do humans have to cook theirs? They don't. Ever heard of sushi? pepperoni? beef jerky? steak tar tar? Cooking meats makes them easier to chew and kills parasites, the same way that we wash vegetables to prevent ourselves from eating dirt, or skin onions to prevent from eating the tough indigestible skin.

      Calm_Insence: yes, humans are naturally poly-amorous. 'Monogamy' (or in most western cultures, it's actually serial monogamy, but it's still polyamory and not true monogamy) arose out of western property contracts having to do with the distribution of land. Our next closest cousins in the great apes exhibit polyamourous mating habits and social construction.

      Bonobos are polyamourous.
      Chimpanzees are polyamourous.
      Gorillas are polygamous.

      Most indigenous societies uncorrupted by western 'values' are either polygamous, polyandrous, or poly-amorous.

      That you are so hung up on these social 'values' that you suppress your instinctual and natural urges seems, prudish and well... unnatural.

    • 2 years ago
  • SagaciousNJ
    • 0
      SagaciousNJ  
    • asherp:

      Well, this got heated quickly.

      @Calm_incense - I don't get your point, "why" don't you? You've given reason for why you would "sleep with as many women as possible" but not why you don't or what that has to do with plants. You seem frustrated. :)

      @Mindcruzer - I largely agree, but there is kind of a sticking point, you can't digest cardboard, its mostly cellulose i.e "dietary fiber" and by definition indigestible, if however it was made with non-toxic compounds then it would be a good idea to eat some....assuming you're constipated.

    • 2 years ago
  • randomly
    • 0
      randomly  
    • asherp:

      "If meat's so natural, why are humans the only species that has to cook theirs?"

      this argument is invalid. humans don't *have* to cook meat. it's out of concern for bacterial propagation. the temporal disconnect between the animal being killed and the person eating the meat allows for bacteria to grow, at least at room temp. if you're killing your own meat and eating it immediately there's nothing wrong with eating it raw. one could argue that cooking it provides an added level of convenience because it denatures the protein, but it's not *necessary*.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
  • flyingkick
    • -1
      flyingkick  
    • asherp:

      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
  • annabell
    • -1
      annabell  
    • asherp:

      I recommend a book called "Real Food, What to Eat and Why" by Nina Planck. She goes into great detail the differences in the Omniverous, Vegetarian, and Vegan diets. She also has a book that I am currently reading called "Real Food For Mother and Baby." She describes the importance of the consumption of raw dairy and grass fed beef while pregnant. Of course, if you live in a state that does not have good resources for natural, grass-fed beef, I guess you're screwed. And some states outlaw the distribution of raw dairy.

      Anyway, read the book, it's a good read =)

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • asherp:

      flyingkick,

      Incorrect.

      "B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria. It's found where things are unclean. (And meat is dirty.) This easily explains why historically it's been easy to get B12, because until recently we didn't live in a sanitized environment. Pull a carrot out of the ground and don't wash it properly, and there's almost certainly some B12 there. Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the modern diet is too clean to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12.

      Also, consider that chimpanzees' main non-plant food is termites, and termites are loaded with B12.

      Incidentally, our need for B12 is tiny -- 3 micograms a day. Not milligrams, micrograms. The amount of B12 you need for your entire life is smaller than four grains of rice."

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

      mindcruzer,

      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.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • asherp:

      "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."

      I guess I'll type it out again,

      "Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the MODERN DIET IS TOO CLEAN to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12."

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • asherp:

      Animals that are naturally herbivores and eat only plants have bacteria colonizing their digestive tract that create enzymes that allow them to break down cellulose into sugars.

      You could feed a cow cardboard and it would be able to extract energy from it.

      Humans cannot do this. However, we can eat meat and extract energy from it using enzymes that our own bodies create. Cows cannot do this, they lack the meat eating enzymes we have.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • Image
    • asherp:

      http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

      You will see that your argument concerning cellulose does not apply here as humans are natural frugivores.

      "The biological equipment of humans is such that the body is most capable of obtaining complete and optimal nutrition from plant foods. Actually however, we are NOT true vegetarians either. Many natural herbivores (horses, cows, sheep, etc.) that subsist on green leaves and grasses (ruminants) have four stomachs containing special enzymes including cellulase that can digest the carbohydrate cellulose, which is totally undigestible by humans. Leafy greens that make-up your salad are actually high calorie foods. Yet salad is a diet food that aids in weight loss. Most of the calories of vegetables are bound within cellulose, whose fuel value is largely unobtainable to our system (except for extremely valuable mineral matter from which our body does derive great benefit). True herbivores however, are fully capable of attaining energy from herbs and grasses since they secrete the enzyme cellulase, which breaks down and liberates the energy within the sugar molecule cellulose. Unlike purely natural vegetarians in nature then, the human stomach can not process large amounts of cellulose. Man cannot regurgitate and re chew his food as does the cow. Nor can the human stomach efficiently digest a mixture of all different types of foods as do true omnivores. Though nearly anything can be put into the human stomach and virtually has, our physiology is such that only foods that we are biologically adapted to can effectively be digested when eaten in compatible combinations according to the natural limitations of digestive chemistry."

      This is but a segment, please read on, it's interesting.

      http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

      Meat is not good for you. But I'm not about to start telling you how to live your life. Merry Christmas!

    • 2 years ago
  • calm_incense
    • 0
      calm_incense  

    • The bottom line is whether or not the organism is capable of experiencing pain.

      Is it sentient? Does it have a central nervous system? Pain receptors?

      I don't give a damn whether or not it's "alive".

      People who bring up plants as a "counterargument" misinterpret the reason for opposing animal cruelty in the first place.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
  • kitteneater
  • rfrrss
    • 0
      rfrrss  

    • I remember some Leonard Cohen character saying something like: "I only eat animals -- plants are so much more defenseless and it's wrong to take advantage of them"

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
  • kitteneater
  • quietwisdom
  • spacemikey
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  

    • amen sister (delia). an argument I've been using for years. there's a great book called the secret life of plants that all vegans should read before they belittle the meat eaters out there. and the life feeds on life thing from the hidden track in tool really nails it. like JohnLennon's Ghost said as well, there's a lot to be said for appreciating the sacrifice that food animals make for us. we can try to make conditions better for food animals. being angry and trying to disgust natural omnivores about a part of their natural diet isn't the way to win anyone over. instead of calling meat murder, why not exhort the benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle?

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  
    • Nephwrack:

      A healthy well balanced vegan/veg diet is no different than a healthy, well balanced diet including meat. So that whole "i'm healthier and will live longer than you because I eat plants" line is pure bigoted nonsense.

    • 2 years ago
  • rosewater
    • +1
      rosewater  
    • Nephwrack:

      Many vegans realize that plants are living beings, as well as animals, and they know they can't end all suffering in the world, but they do their best to reduce the suffering caused by their existence. Just know that animals that are farmed for human consumption must be fed about 20 lbs. of plants/grains per lb. of their body weight.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • asherp
  • laserdog
  • EdJoyProductions
  • amae617
  • Justin_Patrie
  • theghostofjohnlennon
    • 0
      theghostofjohnlennon  

    • I'm only a vegetarian because of the food processing, the irreverence, and the burden that eating meat puts on the environment and our bodies. Plants are alive as much as any animal. They even have feelings if you can believe that.

      The plain and simple fact is that something must die in order for us to survive. What we should do is not abstain from eating particular food groups for some moral imperative, but learn how to respect the sacrifice that was necessary for each meal we eat. If we only took what was vital for our survival instead of overproducing and overburdening then we'd be on a better track as a species.

      Don't listen to me though. I'm a crazy person that says plants have feelings and that we should live in harmony with our surroundings.

    • 2 years ago
  • Billy_Goodreasonnews
    • 0
      Billy_Goodreasonnews  
    • theghostofjohnlennon:

      well depending on what you mean by 'feelings' I'm going to guess you're wrong, since plants don't have a nervous system or a brain, but it should be noted that plants don't necessarily die just because you eat a part of it. If I eat a tomato, the plant survives while I am fed. If I eat a carrot, it having been eaten by me, a mammal who could potentially pass on its nutrients, is a natural and desired part of its life style.

      But don't listen to me, I'm a crazy person who believes in evolution and has a cursory understanding of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • theghostofjohnlennon
    • 0
      theghostofjohnlennon  
    • theghostofjohnlennon:

      haha good points. The problem is we don't just harvest a part of the plant we tend to kill the whole thing just to get to the edible part. I was referring to that, however vaguely, when I said, "If we only took what was vital for our survival instead of overproducing and overburdening...."

      The recycling of nutrients and other bits of matter is something that eventually everything has to do. That's why I said something has to physically die in order for us to survive.

      As for feelings, I'm talking about something that transcends our normal rationalizing, quantitative mind. You yourself said, "If I eat a carrot, it having been eaten by me, a mammal who could potentially pass on its nutrients, is a natural and desired part of its life style." The key word in there is desire. How could it desire this without a nervous system and a brain to do so? There are things science has yet to discover.

      I believe in evolution too. I just don't think it stopped at opposable thumbs for human beings and there are an infinite amount of things that cannot be grasped by simply the mind alone. In fact the mind is a hindrance to our comprehension. Disclaimer: Don't worry i do no believe in an invisible man up in the sky.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • theghostofjohnlennon:

      "How could it desire this without a nervous system and a brain to do so?"

      Well he doesn't mean that the plant ACTUALLY desires this. A plant can't desire anything. He's just putting it into a context that makes it easier to understand. Science teachers do it a lot. ex. The atom "wants" more electrons.

      "As for feelings, I'm talking about something that transcends our normal rationalizing, quantitative mind."

      If it transcends the capabilities of the human mind, how do you know it's there?

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • theghostofjohnlennon:

      Uhm. How about only , maybe, 1/2 crazy. Show me how anyone can conclusively prove that plants have feelings, and I might change my position. But living in harmony with our
      surroundings makes good sense. You live longer if you're not expending all your energy
      being in conflict with your environment. And people tend to have more Peace in their lives
      for that harmony while they do live. No craziness there, I reckon.

    • 2 years ago
  • MindBoozer
    • 0
      MindBoozer  
    • theghostofjohnlennon:

      "In fact the mind is a hindrance to our comprehension. "

      Seeing as our minds are our only way to define the reality that we live in, I'm going to have to say you are wrong. Comprehension is the ability to understand something, which requires logical thought processes to connect past experiences and apply them to the current problem. This is the function of our minds and I challenge you to do something as simple as provide yourself with food without your mind.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • asherp
  • artist_speaks_out
  • EdJoyProductions
  • 02
  • growdude420
  • spacemikey
    • 0
      spacemikey [removed]  

    • I believe it, and the words of our brother Reverend Maynard James Keenan;

      And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
      And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
      And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
      And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
      One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
      And terror possesed me then.
      And I begged,
      "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
      And the angel said unto me,
      "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
      You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
      And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
      "Hear me now, I have seen the light!
      They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
      Damn you!
      Let the rabbits wear glasses!
      Save our brothers!"
      Can I get an amen?
      Can I get a hallelujah?
      Thank you Jesus.

      This is necessary.
      Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........
      This is necessary.
      Life feeds on LIFE...

      (abridged as to be less of a repetitive d!ck)

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Uncle_B
  • Sam_the_Wizer
  • flyingkick
  • skatherine
  • Billy_Goodreasonnews
    • 0
      Billy_Goodreasonnews  

    • You leap to a very strange conclusion and use evidence that doesn't actually support your theory. Let me briefly explain why. Plants, particularly those which grow a fruit, do indeed want to be eaten. Your evidence shows why they do not want to be eaten by caterpillars, because they don't benefit evolutionarily. In other words, the caterpillar doesn't carry the seeds of a fruit after eating them and then plant them somewhere else. When a mammal or a bird eat, say an apple, they chomp it up, swallow the seeds, carry it far away in their bodies and excrete it later, surrounding the seed with their own fertilizer and giving the plant a chance to spread. Not all insects aid plants, so they developed a natural defense, although in some cases (like for bees) plants depend on insect intervention.

      Also, it seems, even though you say your not doing this, like there's a bit of a swipe at veganism implied here. It should be at least noted that veganism is more often a response to ridiculously abusive farming conditions and is less often a blanket moral claim about eating 'living things.'

      So, you may want to look a little deeper at the biology of plants and the farming conditions of chickens, cows and pigs before arguing in favor of either anti-eating plants or making the 'plants are as much life as animals' argument.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
    • -1
      Sam_the_Wizer  
    • Billy_Goodreasonnews:

      "Plants, particularly those which grow a fruit, do indeed want to be eaten."

      You eat the fruit, not the plant. Really if you're only going to eat those things that are intended by nature to be eaten you should stick to Fruits and Milk. Everything else comes at the expense of a life.

    • 2 years ago
  • pakazak
  • shizzam
12
101 - 174 of 174
more from Community:
from the community

top videos