4 ms·

The problem with the ethical argument - that meat production is cruel and vegetable production is not - is that it makes all kinds of assumptions about plant an

The problem with the ethical argument - that meat production is cruel and vegetable production is not - is that it makes all kinds of assumptions about plant anatomy and behavior that may be wrong. In fact, the growing field of plant behavior strongly suggests that those assumptions are wrong. That plants aren't unthinking, unfeeling at all, but every bit as alive and aware of their environment as animals. It's a really fascinating field of study. They've found evidence of an analogous nerve system (that appears to send pain responses), evidence of non-genetic memory, surprisingly advanced communication (tobacco plants communicate using over 3000 chemical compounds that mean different things), environmental awareness (you can perform pavlov's experiment on pea plants using wind for the bell and sunlight for the food), kin recognition, and more. It's a lot harder for us to recognize the signs of awareness, pain, even - maybe - intelligence of a sort, because plants are completely alien to us. They communicate with chemicals, move by growing, live at a different speed. For example, most of us would immediately recognize and empathize with any animal screaming in pain or fear. Most of the animals that scream to communicate are social animals. The scream serves as a warning, "I'm hurt or afraid, there's danger, watch out!" Grass plants, when cut, release a chemical that cause other grass plants to raise their defenses. It serves pretty much the same biological purpose as a scream, "I'm hurt, there's danger, watch out!" But we would never recognize the smell of fresh cut grass as a scream.

simonask 7y ago
Most vegetarians have no trouble swatting a fly or a mosquito, though. The studies of plant "neurology" (if you can call it that) are all very interesting, but the argument that anything that has a nervous system is holy and untouchable is decidedly fringe. To compare the awareness of a tree with the awareness of a cow or a pig or even a chicken is clearly asinine.
ryandvm 7y ago
I like to think I have an open mind, but this line of reasoning is a non-starter for me. Releasing chemicals upon damage is a far cry (no pun intended) from the anguish and pain a sentient creature is obviously capable of. Plants just do not have the necessary information processing facilities to allow them to suffer. But hell, supposing they did, what could we even do about it? Are we supposed to switch to some sort of enzyme slurry diet produced by nano-machines? I don't even...
- dbingham 7y ago
  Are we so sure that plants aren't sentient or can't be sentient? We originally assumed we were the only sentient and self aware animal on the planet. We've gradually realized that we're definitely not, but the assumption that self-awareness and sentience must look similar to what it does in us seems to have stuck. Think about what's required for pavlov's experiment. They took pea plants and turned on, by turns, a fan and a light from one of two opposite directions. In the control group, there was no correlation between when they turned on the fan and when they turned on the light. In the experimental group, they consistently turned on the fan an hour or two before they turned on the light. Pea plants will grow towards light pretty actively. In the experimental group, they would consistently grow in the direction of the fan - expecting the light to follow the wind. Think about what's required for that. You have to be able to sense your environment. You have to have an awareness of light and wind. And you have to be able to associate the presence of wind - something that normally has nothing to do with the presence or absence of light - with the later coming of the light. That pretty strongly suggests there's some level of sentience at work here. My point isn't to say "Don't eat plants." It's to question whether eating other sentient beings is really avoidable for us as autotrophs. And if it is unavoidable, where does that leave us ethically? For me, it leaves me trying to treat everything I eat with care and respect and an awareness that my life comes at the cost of other lives. And then primarily examining the health and sustainability impacts of my diet, rather than using an incomplete ethics.
  - lawlessone 7y ago
    >Are we so sure that plants aren't sentient Yes. >Pea plants will grow towards light pretty actively. In the experimental group, they would consistently grow in the direction of the fan - expecting the light to follow the wind. You don't need sentience for that.
vfc1 7y ago
I'm mostly for the health and environmental impact, but the ethical side I think has validity too. Plants have but a resemblance of a nervous system if any, and they don't have a brain. Does anyone really think that slitting the throat of a cow can be compared to harvesting corn? I think the ethical argument has a good ground. If it's not necessary at all to have good health to engage in slitting animal throats, shooting male calves at birth for milk, grinding male chicks alive etc. then why keep doing it? Especially with the impact on climate change of most crops that are mostly meant to feed livestock, the methane produced, the excrements produced, plus it's linked to all sorts of diseases. So to me, the ethical aspect more than the lives of animals is also about the lives of humans. This abuse of the environment and this diet is causing disease and climate change which is impactful for humans as well.
ragged 7y ago
Let us assume you are right, and plants "feel" pain. What would be the conclusion? If you grow cattle, you have to put more crop/hay calories in then you get meat calories out. Which would mean, by eating less animals (best none) we would reduce the overall pain on all plants, as we don't need to cut so many of them. I believe that plants do react on cuts and their environment, but comparing it with killing living, conscious beings, is just rude.
moltar 7y ago
And during plant collection lots of animals die: - rodents die in wheat field during harvest - recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds - entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil
xnx 7y ago
If you're worried about plants, you shouldn't eat animals, because they eat a lot more plants than you would.

simonask 7y ago

Most vegetarians have no trouble swatting a fly or a mosquito, though. The studies of plant "neurology" (if you can call it that) are all very interesting, but the argument that anything that has a nervous system is holy and untouchable is decidedly fringe. To compare the awareness of a tree with the awareness of a cow or a pig or even a chicken is clearly asinine.

ryandvm 7y ago

I like to think I have an open mind, but this line of reasoning is a non-starter for me. Releasing chemicals upon damage is a far cry (no pun intended) from the anguish and pain a sentient creature is obviously capable of. Plants just do not have the necessary information processing facilities to allow them to suffer. But hell, supposing they did, what could we even do about it? Are we supposed to switch to some sort of enzyme slurry diet produced by nano-machines? I don't even...

dbingham 7y ago
Are we so sure that plants aren't sentient or can't be sentient? We originally assumed we were the only sentient and self aware animal on the planet. We've gradually realized that we're definitely not, but the assumption that self-awareness and sentience must look similar to what it does in us seems to have stuck. Think about what's required for pavlov's experiment. They took pea plants and turned on, by turns, a fan and a light from one of two opposite directions. In the control group, there was no correlation between when they turned on the fan and when they turned on the light. In the experimental group, they consistently turned on the fan an hour or two before they turned on the light. Pea plants will grow towards light pretty actively. In the experimental group, they would consistently grow in the direction of the fan - expecting the light to follow the wind. Think about what's required for that. You have to be able to sense your environment. You have to have an awareness of light and wind. And you have to be able to associate the presence of wind - something that normally has nothing to do with the presence or absence of light - with the later coming of the light. That pretty strongly suggests there's some level of sentience at work here. My point isn't to say "Don't eat plants." It's to question whether eating other sentient beings is really avoidable for us as autotrophs. And if it is unavoidable, where does that leave us ethically? For me, it leaves me trying to treat everything I eat with care and respect and an awareness that my life comes at the cost of other lives. And then primarily examining the health and sustainability impacts of my diet, rather than using an incomplete ethics.
- lawlessone 7y ago
  >Are we so sure that plants aren't sentient Yes. >Pea plants will grow towards light pretty actively. In the experimental group, they would consistently grow in the direction of the fan - expecting the light to follow the wind. You don't need sentience for that.

vfc1 7y ago

I'm mostly for the health and environmental impact, but the ethical side I think has validity too. Plants have but a resemblance of a nervous system if any, and they don't have a brain. Does anyone really think that slitting the throat of a cow can be compared to harvesting corn? I think the ethical argument has a good ground. If it's not necessary at all to have good health to engage in slitting animal throats, shooting male calves at birth for milk, grinding male chicks alive etc. then why keep doing it? Especially with the impact on climate change of most crops that are mostly meant to feed livestock, the methane produced, the excrements produced, plus it's linked to all sorts of diseases. So to me, the ethical aspect more than the lives of animals is also about the lives of humans. This abuse of the environment and this diet is causing disease and climate change which is impactful for humans as well.

ragged 7y ago

Let us assume you are right, and plants "feel" pain. What would be the conclusion? If you grow cattle, you have to put more crop/hay calories in then you get meat calories out. Which would mean, by eating less animals (best none) we would reduce the overall pain on all plants, as we don't need to cut so many of them. I believe that plants do react on cuts and their environment, but comparing it with killing living, conscious beings, is just rude.

moltar 7y ago

And during plant collection lots of animals die: - rodents die in wheat field during harvest - recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds - entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil

xnx 7y ago

If you're worried about plants, you shouldn't eat animals, because they eat a lot more plants than you would.