5 ms·

And then 50 to 100 years after that people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you planted whole seeds, let them grow for months, watered them all th

by soheil 10y ago

And then 50 to 100 years after that people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you planted whole seeds, let them grow for months, watered them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their leaf, and ship that to people?" Plants are alive too.

kranner 10y ago
Are they as sentient? Do they suffer as much? I don't think there is reason to believe these things.
- soheil 10y ago
  Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. I also don't see how putting a bullet through a cow's head somehow causes any suffering.
  - pdexter 10y ago
    The problem is, that's not what's happening. Not everyone who eats cows are getting them from people who treat them as nicely as I guess you claim to. Further, why waste food and water on cows when humans can just eat and drink that themselves? Why raise a cow and then shoot it in the head when you can just, you know, eat plants.
    - soheil 10y ago
      I'd argue it's great for the cow! Think about it they're doing really well as a specie, never before in history they were so successful and enjoyed such high numbers. Their population has simply sore, that however cannot be said about most other species. Also Daniel Dennet gave a TED talk about this. [1] [1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_war...
      - sanswork 10y ago
        If aliens arrived tomorrow and took half the humans to another planet to farm their meat would you think that was great for those humans because we are now a multiplanetary species?
        soheil 10y ago
        That would be terrible, but if they did that to the cows or plants I wouldn't object. Cows don't understand what's happening to them we would! Unless we wouldn't as aliens might already be secretly controlling us and that's why we don't understand "the meaning of life" etc. in which case it's not that bad is it?
        kranner 10y ago
        > Cows don't understand what's happening to them I don't believe this is as true as you seem to think. Supposing someone proved to you with some future subjectivity-detecting tricorder that cows do understand all they go through, will you change your mind about the humane bullet method?
        soheil 10y ago
        Yes and then I'll use my transporter to beam myself to the past to right all the wrongs. > cows do understand all they go through Also you seem to be exaggerating a bit, what do you exactly mean by all? Are you talking about their entire life or just when they're about to be slaughtered, because I think for most parts cows have a pretty happy life. The slaughtering could be done more precisely and quickly but that's really just negligence on the part of some bad actors and not something that is inherently difficult to fix.
        kranner 10y ago
        So it should be perfectly all right to raise humans for slaughter then, as long as we can manage to keep them unaware that they are going to be slaughtered until the last moment?
  - pyre 10y ago
    > Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. This is not possible at-scale. Also, do you really think that giant corporations, that would willingly throw humans under the bus by the truckload to save a few dollars, give a crap about the suffering of an animal? Especially an animal that is slated for the slaughterhouse anyways? Just look at how they react to undercover videos that expose illegal practices behind their closed doors. They immediately start lobbying for industry-specific laws that make it illegal to do undercover investigative journalism of their industry (the so-called AgGag bills). They can't even stay within the letter of the current (and fairly lax) laws on how they are supposed to operate, and when exposed find it more logical to (attempt to) make it illegal to expose their crimes rather than to just stop committing said crimes.
    - soheil 10y ago
      So to me this makes it even lesser of a problem namely all we have to do is fix the legal system and stop them from lobbying aggressively instead of most of the world population all of a sudden changing its diet entirely.
      - pyre 10y ago
        Your solution here is laughable. A couple of points: 1. I mentioned that the current laws are lax for a reason. There really isn't much in the way of controls over animal agriculture other than things that might affect public health and safety. Getting all of these companies to play ball with the current legal environment will not get us anywhere near where we would need to be. 2. The idea that "all" we have to do is prevent them from lobbying and enforce the current laws is hopelessly naive and not a light undertaking. (Especially in areas where this industry is the main industry / employer). You're also ignoring all of the government subsidies that are already poured into this industry. The government has been in bed with this industry for a long time.
        soheil 10y ago
        Why do you not believe in the political system and the power that comes with that? We the people can change laws if we choose to, to sit on the bench and cry foul however will not get you anywhere. You live in (presumably US) the freest country in the world and want to take things in your hand while not believing in democracy and convincing your fellow citizens to see eye to eye with you on issues like this? No one said changing the system is easy it takes dedication and effort if you truly believe evil companies are the problem force them to follow the law if you think the laws are in adequate lobby for new ones. Political passivity is not the answer. I highly recommend reading Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneier [1]. [1] https://www.schneier.com/books/beyond_fear/ https://www.schneier.com/books/beyond_fear/
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  Plants can experience pain and do, in-fact, communicate with other plants, animals, and fungi.
  - mythrwy 10y ago
    Doesn't pain require having nerves?
    - stagbeetle 10y ago
      No. Plants do have a nerve-like (similar, but not the same) structures that send out electric signals.
grue0 10y ago
Can plants suffer? How much energy/resources/time does it take to raise plant food sources vs an analogous amount of animal food sources? Do plants require antibiotics to raise at scale? What are the environmental tolls taken by raising plants vs animals?
- bane 10y ago
  > Can plants suffer? Let's say I were to describe a living thing, that despite having no nerves or brain we could identify, responded to favorable stimuli in ways we could easily describe as a "favorable response" -- for example, the presence of usable energy would provoke the movement of appendages towards that energy source, and the presence of unfavorable or damaging stimuli would provoke an "unfavorable response", such as pulling appendages away from negative stimuli. As far as we could tell, the intelligence in this thing was perhaps entirely distributed throughout the creature rather than relying on a centralized processing center metaphor for thought. It doesn't seem to think in any way that we can easily translate, and for a very long time, we didn't even recognize they responded to stimuli at all -- but that's our fault. This creature also can't make head or tails of us we presume, our experiences of the universe are simply too entirely different. We have a few appendages, bilateral symmetry, and a mix of sensory organs -- mostly in the same appendage stalk as our central thought organ. Perhaps instead of our familiar mix of sense, this creature had an entirely different set that prioritized entirely different things -- perhaps instead of taste, the organism had some alternate way of assessing chemical composition, instead of sight, it had thousands of narrow-band EM sensing organs on the end of each appendage. Perhaps its digestive system was on the outside, a little like ours, but also turned inside out, so it merely had to have external contact with usable nutrients, not ingest it. Perhaps it transported nutrients around without a central cardiopulmonary organ but using nothing but capillary action, lungs were distributed on the underside of each of the EM sensing organ and it's "blood" didn't rely on metals to bind to Oxygen but instead was simply a nutrient stew. What if the bulk of its carbon (sure, its carbon-based) came not from food, but was simply pulled out of the air? Let's suppose this being had no mouth or way of making noise, but communicated with its fellow species using various chemical exchanges, for example, suppose one of the creatures was attacked, it might release warning chemicals into its environment letting others of its species prepare themselves by pulling back appendages, or reducing the flow of its internal blood analogue. Or perhaps when mature members of the species learned of new sources of nutrients, they might share those nutrients with young members of the species through this exchange network. Perhaps the way this species "screams" is by releasing a gas into the air that warns others nearby. Mating and reproduction depends on the species, but there are sexes. Species members have various life-stages that include an infancy analogue, a childhood analogue (with growth spurts), a sexual maturity stage and many even have old age. Some species can reproduce on their own, others require symbiotic species to help facilitate reproduction. If creatures like this dropped out of space in a spacecraft we'd call them aliens and see if we could learn their language and their technology. Would you think of this creature as something that can suffer? All I've described are plants. > How much energy/resources/time does it take to raise plant food sources vs an analogous amount of animal food sources? Animals require more energy to raise than plants in general. However, animals can be raised on food stock that both: a) humans can't eat b) grows where human ready food plants don't grow well > Do plants require antibiotics to raise at scale? Yes, as well as other various chemicals and treatments from chemicals that kill non-desirable plants to chemicals that kill non-plant animals, to chemicals that kill fungi or bacterial infections. Plants even get viruses. > What are the environmental tolls taken by raising plants vs animals? Very difficult to ascertain. The world will have animals in it one way or the other. But nearly all domestically raised plants and animals are the product of thousands of years of engineering and intense cultivation. For example, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussel sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and gai lan are all human engineered variations of the same plant. This plant only occurs naturally in very specific ecological niches. One could argue that the millions of acres dedicated to growing these mutants are millions of acres where the natural ecology is permanently damaged. But humans have been at the cabbage game for a few thousand years, it would be impossible to know what nature would have intended for that land. Similarly, cows are famously highly domesticated food, clothing, labor and milk animals with few close wild cousins due to about 11,000 years of intense selective breeding. But there's something like 1.5 billion cows in the world. If we stopped eating cows today, there'd still be 1.5 billion cows. It's obviously not ethical to just kill them all. Is it ethical to deny them natural breeding rights as well? Cows appear to take pleasure in their offspring, would it not be a slow genocide to simply end their line? We can't ask cows, they don't talk, just as much as plants don't, but we know they have emotions and moods, can be happy, excited, fearful or sad. Would a cow feel sad if it knew it could never have calves?

by soheil 10y ago

kranner 10y ago

Are they as sentient? Do they suffer as much? I don't think there is reason to believe these things.

soheil 10y ago
Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. I also don't see how putting a bullet through a cow's head somehow causes any suffering.
- pdexter 10y ago
  The problem is, that's not what's happening. Not everyone who eats cows are getting them from people who treat them as nicely as I guess you claim to. Further, why waste food and water on cows when humans can just eat and drink that themselves? Why raise a cow and then shoot it in the head when you can just, you know, eat plants.
  - soheil 10y ago
    I'd argue it's great for the cow! Think about it they're doing really well as a specie, never before in history they were so successful and enjoyed such high numbers. Their population has simply sore, that however cannot be said about most other species. Also Daniel Dennet gave a TED talk about this. [1] [1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_war...
    - sanswork 10y ago
      If aliens arrived tomorrow and took half the humans to another planet to farm their meat would you think that was great for those humans because we are now a multiplanetary species?
      - soheil 10y ago
        That would be terrible, but if they did that to the cows or plants I wouldn't object. Cows don't understand what's happening to them we would! Unless we wouldn't as aliens might already be secretly controlling us and that's why we don't understand "the meaning of life" etc. in which case it's not that bad is it?
        kranner 10y ago
        > Cows don't understand what's happening to them I don't believe this is as true as you seem to think. Supposing someone proved to you with some future subjectivity-detecting tricorder that cows do understand all they go through, will you change your mind about the humane bullet method?
        soheil 10y ago
        Yes and then I'll use my transporter to beam myself to the past to right all the wrongs. > cows do understand all they go through Also you seem to be exaggerating a bit, what do you exactly mean by all? Are you talking about their entire life or just when they're about to be slaughtered, because I think for most parts cows have a pretty happy life. The slaughtering could be done more precisely and quickly but that's really just negligence on the part of some bad actors and not something that is inherently difficult to fix.
        kranner 10y ago
        So it should be perfectly all right to raise humans for slaughter then, as long as we can manage to keep them unaware that they are going to be slaughtered until the last moment?
- pyre 10y ago
  > Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. This is not possible at-scale. Also, do you really think that giant corporations, that would willingly throw humans under the bus by the truckload to save a few dollars, give a crap about the suffering of an animal? Especially an animal that is slated for the slaughterhouse anyways? Just look at how they react to undercover videos that expose illegal practices behind their closed doors. They immediately start lobbying for industry-specific laws that make it illegal to do undercover investigative journalism of their industry (the so-called AgGag bills). They can't even stay within the letter of the current (and fairly lax) laws on how they are supposed to operate, and when exposed find it more logical to (attempt to) make it illegal to expose their crimes rather than to just stop committing said crimes.
  - soheil 10y ago
    So to me this makes it even lesser of a problem namely all we have to do is fix the legal system and stop them from lobbying aggressively instead of most of the world population all of a sudden changing its diet entirely.
    - pyre 10y ago
      Your solution here is laughable. A couple of points: 1. I mentioned that the current laws are lax for a reason. There really isn't much in the way of controls over animal agriculture other than things that might affect public health and safety. Getting all of these companies to play ball with the current legal environment will not get us anywhere near where we would need to be. 2. The idea that "all" we have to do is prevent them from lobbying and enforce the current laws is hopelessly naive and not a light undertaking. (Especially in areas where this industry is the main industry / employer). You're also ignoring all of the government subsidies that are already poured into this industry. The government has been in bed with this industry for a long time.
      - soheil 10y ago
        Why do you not believe in the political system and the power that comes with that? We the people can change laws if we choose to, to sit on the bench and cry foul however will not get you anywhere. You live in (presumably US) the freest country in the world and want to take things in your hand while not believing in democracy and convincing your fellow citizens to see eye to eye with you on issues like this? No one said changing the system is easy it takes dedication and effort if you truly believe evil companies are the problem force them to follow the law if you think the laws are in adequate lobby for new ones. Political passivity is not the answer. I highly recommend reading Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneier [1]. [1] https://www.schneier.com/books/beyond_fear/ https://www.schneier.com/books/beyond_fear/
stagbeetle 10y ago
Plants can experience pain and do, in-fact, communicate with other plants, animals, and fungi.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  Doesn't pain require having nerves?
  - stagbeetle 10y ago
    No. Plants do have a nerve-like (similar, but not the same) structures that send out electric signals.

grue0 10y ago

Can plants suffer? How much energy/resources/time does it take to raise plant food sources vs an analogous amount of animal food sources? Do plants require antibiotics to raise at scale? What are the environmental tolls taken by raising plants vs animals?

bane 10y ago
> Can plants suffer? Let's say I were to describe a living thing, that despite having no nerves or brain we could identify, responded to favorable stimuli in ways we could easily describe as a "favorable response" -- for example, the presence of usable energy would provoke the movement of appendages towards that energy source, and the presence of unfavorable or damaging stimuli would provoke an "unfavorable response", such as pulling appendages away from negative stimuli. As far as we could tell, the intelligence in this thing was perhaps entirely distributed throughout the creature rather than relying on a centralized processing center metaphor for thought. It doesn't seem to think in any way that we can easily translate, and for a very long time, we didn't even recognize they responded to stimuli at all -- but that's our fault. This creature also can't make head or tails of us we presume, our experiences of the universe are simply too entirely different. We have a few appendages, bilateral symmetry, and a mix of sensory organs -- mostly in the same appendage stalk as our central thought organ. Perhaps instead of our familiar mix of sense, this creature had an entirely different set that prioritized entirely different things -- perhaps instead of taste, the organism had some alternate way of assessing chemical composition, instead of sight, it had thousands of narrow-band EM sensing organs on the end of each appendage. Perhaps its digestive system was on the outside, a little like ours, but also turned inside out, so it merely had to have external contact with usable nutrients, not ingest it. Perhaps it transported nutrients around without a central cardiopulmonary organ but using nothing but capillary action, lungs were distributed on the underside of each of the EM sensing organ and it's "blood" didn't rely on metals to bind to Oxygen but instead was simply a nutrient stew. What if the bulk of its carbon (sure, its carbon-based) came not from food, but was simply pulled out of the air? Let's suppose this being had no mouth or way of making noise, but communicated with its fellow species using various chemical exchanges, for example, suppose one of the creatures was attacked, it might release warning chemicals into its environment letting others of its species prepare themselves by pulling back appendages, or reducing the flow of its internal blood analogue. Or perhaps when mature members of the species learned of new sources of nutrients, they might share those nutrients with young members of the species through this exchange network. Perhaps the way this species "screams" is by releasing a gas into the air that warns others nearby. Mating and reproduction depends on the species, but there are sexes. Species members have various life-stages that include an infancy analogue, a childhood analogue (with growth spurts), a sexual maturity stage and many even have old age. Some species can reproduce on their own, others require symbiotic species to help facilitate reproduction. If creatures like this dropped out of space in a spacecraft we'd call them aliens and see if we could learn their language and their technology. Would you think of this creature as something that can suffer? All I've described are plants. > How much energy/resources/time does it take to raise plant food sources vs an analogous amount of animal food sources? Animals require more energy to raise than plants in general. However, animals can be raised on food stock that both: a) humans can't eat b) grows where human ready food plants don't grow well > Do plants require antibiotics to raise at scale? Yes, as well as other various chemicals and treatments from chemicals that kill non-desirable plants to chemicals that kill non-plant animals, to chemicals that kill fungi or bacterial infections. Plants even get viruses. > What are the environmental tolls taken by raising plants vs animals? Very difficult to ascertain. The world will have animals in it one way or the other. But nearly all domestically raised plants and animals are the product of thousands of years of engineering and intense cultivation. For example, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussel sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and gai lan are all human engineered variations of the same plant. This plant only occurs naturally in very specific ecological niches. One could argue that the millions of acres dedicated to growing these mutants are millions of acres where the natural ecology is permanently damaged. But humans have been at the cabbage game for a few thousand years, it would be impossible to know what nature would have intended for that land. Similarly, cows are famously highly domesticated food, clothing, labor and milk animals with few close wild cousins due to about 11,000 years of intense selective breeding. But there's something like 1.5 billion cows in the world. If we stopped eating cows today, there'd still be 1.5 billion cows. It's obviously not ethical to just kill them all. Is it ethical to deny them natural breeding rights as well? Cows appear to take pleasure in their offspring, would it not be a slow genocide to simply end their line? We can't ask cows, they don't talk, just as much as plants don't, but we know they have emotions and moods, can be happy, excited, fearful or sad. Would a cow feel sad if it knew it could never have calves?