7 ms·

>> poor bird was encouraged to grow in an unhealthy manner The bird was not "encouraged to grow", it was forcefully bred by a corporation that treated it like

>> poor bird was encouraged to grow in an unhealthy manner The bird was not "encouraged to grow", it was forcefully bred by a corporation that treated it like trash to increase their financial gains... >> I wonder if it was painful for the bird I seems very safe to assume that it didn't have a remotely pleasant or normal life...

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
> it was forcefully bred by a corporation that treated it like trash to increase their financial gains The same could be said for plants.
- i_cant_speel 10y ago
  Plants don't feel pain.
  - samueladam 10y ago
    https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant...
    - fredley 10y ago
      Plants react to things that can harm them. Pain, however, is something that it requires neurons to experience.
      - stagbeetle 10y ago
        A rash rejection of dialog. Plants are very lowly sentient through structures that are the plant-counterparts to animalian neurons. They communicate with other plants and they sense what can be described as "pain." But, I don't think arguing on the sentience of an unprotected kingdom will further this discussion. The discussion on animal welfare seems to be an emotional one alone. As long as our mirror neurons aren't firing in response to the perceived pain animals feel, all is millhouse. This is why, I believe very few care about plant welfare. They have no mouths with which to scream, so we believe (or make ourselves believe) that they aren't in pain. That they are too dumb to feel pain (this parallels sinisterly with the cruelty of psychological medicine in the 20th century). Not to mention how silly it is to care about plant welfare... or is it? There have been little studies done on how the constant slaughter of plants affects the secondary factors (maturation speeds, yield, etc. -- as apposed to the primary: deforestation, etc.). However, I don't think there ever will be such advances in this field. Perhaps because they have no way of polluting this discussion with emotions, unlike their animal counterpart.
        occultist_throw 10y ago
        Ive always found in the quieter parts of Silicon Valley and areas, there does exist a merge between the technological and something else. I've seen this something else be called luck, magic, parapsychology.. Many names. But I've also found that it is indeed whispered and talked of behind the scenes. I've learned these arts as well, to hear the ebb and flow of what goes on around me. Many times, I can feel the data going on the wire, and the emotion it carries. Standing in our data center's networking room, I can feel thousands of voices, like a cacophony all unawares that they too are projecting emotions. Some of us can hear. But in learning how to hear, I also learned how to listen to other things we wouldn't normally consider sentient. Plants. I found I've been able to hear them, and their talk. It's not words per se, but more of word-pictures. And the more I do so, I come to the understanding that Chomsky was indeed correct, but also wrong: emotion is the underlying language. How do I prove this? I don't. I can't, at this time. These techniques were taught to me, along with my innate abilities. I doubt even an fMRI would be able to pick up on these, until long after my brain processed them. But what then? I've also been attempting to find a way to connect whatever that emotion energy I'm feeling is. If it's not matter, it must be energy.. or something else. I'm not ready to say there's a something else yet... So it must be a type of energy that we can measure, no? I know I've pissed off enough other pagans and occultists, but my primary goal is to bridge these two disparate (scientific vs esoteric) into a unified theory. Or barring that, a way to "view" this energy. Because once we can sense it, we can manipulate. But alas, I figure I'll be downvoted or worse yet, ignored. I certainly don't hold a publicly acceptable view for sure.
        stagbeetle 10y ago
        From my viewpoint, the practitioners have all but secluded themselves for the time being, away from all public scrutiny. Very seldom do I hear of them mentioned, and of those very few are intelligent. And I believe this is what could hold you back, atleast in public acceptance (if you're even aiming for this -- and not just discovery among the "initiated"). I'm sorry I can't offer you anymore words, getting a taste of the esoteric after all of this time away has left me in shock. So, may you succeed in your journey and if there's anyway I may assist, I would oblige.
  - Qantourisc 10y ago
    They "do" see other reply. Questions is: at what point do we consider it suffering ? When there is a reaction to harm ? When it has a brain ? When it has consciousness ? And what about a virtual brain, does it suffer ?
  - legolas2412 10y ago
    Is it okay to kill brain dead animals? What about a painless and euphoric death?
- kranner 10y ago
  That is a completely disingenuous argument unless you truly believe that plants are as sentient as animals.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    How do you know if one life form is more or less sentient than another? Is sentience not a subjective phenomenon?
    - kranner 10y ago
      I don't think there is currently any way to know this objectively. That's why I framed it as a matter of belief. Based on what we know about the similarities of animal nervous systems (including humans) and the dissimilarities of plant nervous systems (so to speak), I personally believe that animals are sentient to one extent or another but I find it hard to imagine that plants would be.
- danielpatrick 10y ago
  No. That's why it is very much legal for me to chop up a tree that I find on my property but not a dog.
  - krona 10y ago
    I don't know where you live but in the UK, dogs are (in law) personal property and discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner. Furthermore, farmers can kill your dog (humanly) on his land if it is causing distress to his animals. In law this is a lawful excuse to cause criminal damage. There are all kinds of lawful excuses. For instance, a person (usually a farmer) is free to kill your horse, humanly, if keeping it alive is causing a material financial loss.
    - fredley 10y ago
      > discounting welfare issues Well, that's the whole point. I thought you were going to say that in the UK, you can't just chop down a tree on your land - there are often legal barriers preventing the felling of listed trees!
      - 24gttghh 10y ago
        Being listed would seem to imply a tree was specifically selected by a town for historical or aesthetic qualities. They would seem to be on conservation or public land most of the time, no?
        fredley 10y ago
        It varies by region. In some places any tree with a trunk radius > 4" is listed automatically, for example.
    - stiGGG 10y ago
      In Germany you'll send to prison if you kill your dog. But killing your chicken, cow oder pig is just fine. That's so weird.
- Razengan 10y ago
  This isn't a response to anyone in particular here, just pitching my 2¢ among these comments; Regardless of whether anything "feels pain" or not, I, personally, would choose to not destroy anything I don't have to, even if it's a uniquely-shaped rock. I mean, look at [0]. It's probably universally safe to say that the absence of these formations would not adversely affect anyone or anything. Yet, a sapient being would agree that the world would somehow be less, in some intangible metric, without them, even if they weren't the result of a million years of forces.. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+rock+arch&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+rock+arch&tbm=isch
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  I hear this kind of argument pretty often. It's bizarre, because debunking it is pretty trivial. Even if we assume destroying plants is 100% equivalent to destroying animals (this is obviously a position not many would agree with), destroying animals is worse because animals require plant food to grow. And since animals burn calories that don't go directly to growth, it's an inefficient means of producing food (beef is especially inefficient). So the choice is: destroy a plant to eat directly OR destroy an animal who needed n plants destroyed to grow sufficiently large to eat. Option A definitionally requires less destruction.
  - d0lph 10y ago
    If you do assume animal life is equivalent to plant life, all you're saying is that consuming animals is less efficient. It would be like saying we shouldn't consume icecream because drinking milk directly saves more milk (not sure if this example is true).
    - the_gastropod 10y ago
      The assumption I pose is that (given the very generous notion) if plant life is equivalent to animal life, and destroying life is undesirable, then eating animals is worse (in this regard) than eating plants because it destroys _more_ life.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Its pretty complex. For instance, growing plants means essentially sterilizing the ground under them, killing tens of thousands of small rodents. Millions of insects. Billions of soil microorganisms.
        codezero 10y ago
        Algae is the future!
      - fmueller 10y ago
        A small detail: While destroying more life this process is _creating_ more life at the same time... Not that is has to matter.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago

> it was forcefully bred by a corporation that treated it like trash to increase their financial gains The same could be said for plants.

i_cant_speel 10y ago
Plants don't feel pain.
- samueladam 10y ago
  https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant...
  - fredley 10y ago
    Plants react to things that can harm them. Pain, however, is something that it requires neurons to experience.
    - stagbeetle 10y ago
      A rash rejection of dialog. Plants are very lowly sentient through structures that are the plant-counterparts to animalian neurons. They communicate with other plants and they sense what can be described as "pain." But, I don't think arguing on the sentience of an unprotected kingdom will further this discussion. The discussion on animal welfare seems to be an emotional one alone. As long as our mirror neurons aren't firing in response to the perceived pain animals feel, all is millhouse. This is why, I believe very few care about plant welfare. They have no mouths with which to scream, so we believe (or make ourselves believe) that they aren't in pain. That they are too dumb to feel pain (this parallels sinisterly with the cruelty of psychological medicine in the 20th century). Not to mention how silly it is to care about plant welfare... or is it? There have been little studies done on how the constant slaughter of plants affects the secondary factors (maturation speeds, yield, etc. -- as apposed to the primary: deforestation, etc.). However, I don't think there ever will be such advances in this field. Perhaps because they have no way of polluting this discussion with emotions, unlike their animal counterpart.
      - occultist_throw 10y ago
        Ive always found in the quieter parts of Silicon Valley and areas, there does exist a merge between the technological and something else. I've seen this something else be called luck, magic, parapsychology.. Many names. But I've also found that it is indeed whispered and talked of behind the scenes. I've learned these arts as well, to hear the ebb and flow of what goes on around me. Many times, I can feel the data going on the wire, and the emotion it carries. Standing in our data center's networking room, I can feel thousands of voices, like a cacophony all unawares that they too are projecting emotions. Some of us can hear. But in learning how to hear, I also learned how to listen to other things we wouldn't normally consider sentient. Plants. I found I've been able to hear them, and their talk. It's not words per se, but more of word-pictures. And the more I do so, I come to the understanding that Chomsky was indeed correct, but also wrong: emotion is the underlying language. How do I prove this? I don't. I can't, at this time. These techniques were taught to me, along with my innate abilities. I doubt even an fMRI would be able to pick up on these, until long after my brain processed them. But what then? I've also been attempting to find a way to connect whatever that emotion energy I'm feeling is. If it's not matter, it must be energy.. or something else. I'm not ready to say there's a something else yet... So it must be a type of energy that we can measure, no? I know I've pissed off enough other pagans and occultists, but my primary goal is to bridge these two disparate (scientific vs esoteric) into a unified theory. Or barring that, a way to "view" this energy. Because once we can sense it, we can manipulate. But alas, I figure I'll be downvoted or worse yet, ignored. I certainly don't hold a publicly acceptable view for sure.
        stagbeetle 10y ago
        From my viewpoint, the practitioners have all but secluded themselves for the time being, away from all public scrutiny. Very seldom do I hear of them mentioned, and of those very few are intelligent. And I believe this is what could hold you back, atleast in public acceptance (if you're even aiming for this -- and not just discovery among the "initiated"). I'm sorry I can't offer you anymore words, getting a taste of the esoteric after all of this time away has left me in shock. So, may you succeed in your journey and if there's anyway I may assist, I would oblige.
- Qantourisc 10y ago
  They "do" see other reply. Questions is: at what point do we consider it suffering ? When there is a reaction to harm ? When it has a brain ? When it has consciousness ? And what about a virtual brain, does it suffer ?
- legolas2412 10y ago
  Is it okay to kill brain dead animals? What about a painless and euphoric death?
kranner 10y ago
That is a completely disingenuous argument unless you truly believe that plants are as sentient as animals.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  How do you know if one life form is more or less sentient than another? Is sentience not a subjective phenomenon?
  - kranner 10y ago
    I don't think there is currently any way to know this objectively. That's why I framed it as a matter of belief. Based on what we know about the similarities of animal nervous systems (including humans) and the dissimilarities of plant nervous systems (so to speak), I personally believe that animals are sentient to one extent or another but I find it hard to imagine that plants would be.
danielpatrick 10y ago
No. That's why it is very much legal for me to chop up a tree that I find on my property but not a dog.
- krona 10y ago
  I don't know where you live but in the UK, dogs are (in law) personal property and discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner. Furthermore, farmers can kill your dog (humanly) on his land if it is causing distress to his animals. In law this is a lawful excuse to cause criminal damage. There are all kinds of lawful excuses. For instance, a person (usually a farmer) is free to kill your horse, humanly, if keeping it alive is causing a material financial loss.
  - fredley 10y ago
    > discounting welfare issues Well, that's the whole point. I thought you were going to say that in the UK, you can't just chop down a tree on your land - there are often legal barriers preventing the felling of listed trees!
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      Being listed would seem to imply a tree was specifically selected by a town for historical or aesthetic qualities. They would seem to be on conservation or public land most of the time, no?
      - fredley 10y ago
        It varies by region. In some places any tree with a trunk radius > 4" is listed automatically, for example.
  - stiGGG 10y ago
    In Germany you'll send to prison if you kill your dog. But killing your chicken, cow oder pig is just fine. That's so weird.
Razengan 10y ago
This isn't a response to anyone in particular here, just pitching my 2¢ among these comments; Regardless of whether anything "feels pain" or not, I, personally, would choose to not destroy anything I don't have to, even if it's a uniquely-shaped rock. I mean, look at [0]. It's probably universally safe to say that the absence of these formations would not adversely affect anyone or anything. Yet, a sapient being would agree that the world would somehow be less, in some intangible metric, without them, even if they weren't the result of a million years of forces.. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+rock+arch&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+rock+arch&tbm=isch
the_gastropod 10y ago
I hear this kind of argument pretty often. It's bizarre, because debunking it is pretty trivial. Even if we assume destroying plants is 100% equivalent to destroying animals (this is obviously a position not many would agree with), destroying animals is worse because animals require plant food to grow. And since animals burn calories that don't go directly to growth, it's an inefficient means of producing food (beef is especially inefficient). So the choice is: destroy a plant to eat directly OR destroy an animal who needed n plants destroyed to grow sufficiently large to eat. Option A definitionally requires less destruction.
- d0lph 10y ago
  If you do assume animal life is equivalent to plant life, all you're saying is that consuming animals is less efficient. It would be like saying we shouldn't consume icecream because drinking milk directly saves more milk (not sure if this example is true).
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    The assumption I pose is that (given the very generous notion) if plant life is equivalent to animal life, and destroying life is undesirable, then eating animals is worse (in this regard) than eating plants because it destroys _more_ life.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Its pretty complex. For instance, growing plants means essentially sterilizing the ground under them, killing tens of thousands of small rodents. Millions of insects. Billions of soil microorganisms.
      - codezero 10y ago
        Algae is the future!
    - fmueller 10y ago
      A small detail: While destroying more life this process is _creating_ more life at the same time... Not that is has to matter.