> So in the absence of one we have no more reason to assume plant-suffering than bacteria-suffering, and we lay waste to countless billions of those without bli

> So in the absence of one we have no more reason to assume plant-suffering than bacteria-suffering, and we lay waste to countless billions of those without blinking. To play devil's advocate (panpsychist's advocate?), how do we know that we aren't causing immense bacterial suffering each day? Your argument mainly appears to be a pragmatic decision to assume that suffering doesn't exist unless it's obviously apparent to our monkey brains.