9 ms·
What if plants were animals like any other?
- neom 5y agoWatched a brillo doc by DW the other day, got me all full of chills around how crazy nature is and how we take for granted it's sentient qualities: What can fungi teach us?- - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcIQpmiZ3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcIQpmiZ3Y
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- didibus 5y agoThis seems like a rabbit whole, at some point there's no objective ethics, you pick your line. Are you going to include bacteria, yeast, common viruses, dust mites, there's plenty to choose from. I think one thing that seems relevant to humans, is we seem to be bothered only once we can relate to the other being in a more explicit way. This is true even between our peers. Maybe as we understand more and more of other creatures so will our empathy.
- neom 5y agoJainism takes this pretty far, I've been learning a bit about it recently and it's pretty interesting as far as ancient religions go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism Particularly good if you're interested in diving in more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c33XPyljUiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c33XPyljUiw
- silicon2401 5y agoThanks for sharing, I'm in the same boat. I love the logical consistency of Jainism, as I've always found vegans drawing the line at animals but not plants to be a bit arbitrary. Setting the goal as avoiding harming all life and then getting as close to that as you can without just starving to death is something I deeply admire. Not to mention the attention to microscopic life is particularly impressive and science-aware imo.
- cheese_goddess 5y agoSpeaking of yeasts, I guess it's not something that's on everyone's minds, but the reason bread rises is because yeasts die in the heat of the oven and, reacting to the deadly environmental conditions, radically increase their rate of fermentation of the carbohydrates in the dough thus releasing abnormally large amounts of CO2 in a very short time. Essentially, bread rises because of the the death throes of tiny, microscopic unicellular fungi.
- gus_massa 5y agoAre you sure? I think the yeast produces CO2 before cooking and during the initial part of the cooking (while the drought temperature is below 40°C(???)). Most enzymes a cells have a temperature where they have an optimal efficiency, so I expect the yeast not to be so efficient when the drought is too hot. But when the drought get hot the tiny bubbles of CO2 expand and when it's too hot and the drought get cooked and the structure around the bubbles is fixed like in a sponge.
- mattkrause 5y agoAre you sure about that? My impression was that fermentation outside the oven causes most of the rising, with a bit of "oven spring" from the vaporization of water in the dough. The yeast obviously die in the oven, but I don't think the death per se is critical for the leavening.
- TheRealPomax 5y agoNo? They produce alcohol and CO2 during rising/proofing, and that gas has nowhere to go: it's trapped in the dough. Once heated, that trapped gas then expands during baking. The yeast dies, yes, but bread doesn't rise "because of the death throes of [yeast]", it rises because heating a gas increases in pressure, and the dough expands because of that pressure. Yes, the heat also kills the yeast, but that has nothing to do with oven spring. (And of course, the spring only "sticks" if the dough is both elastic enough to permit that expansion -for example because it has a gluten network- and developed enough that, in that expanded state, the dough can set well enough to support its own shape, rather than deflating once we remove the heat, and the high pressure gasses cool down and contract, pull the now baked bread in on itself)
- muki 5y agoI would just like to point out that the existence of (what I assume you mean when you say) "objective ethics" isn't a sure thing. I don't mean to imply that ethical nihilism (basically saying ethics aren't "a thing") is the only way forward though. We can probably assign ethical value to human action even (some would say especially) if "objective ethics" don't exist.
- cs2733 5y agoFor those who would like to read more about this, I enjoyed The Secret Life Of Plants by Thompkins and Bird https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99442.The_Secret_Life_of_Plants https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99442.The_Secret_Life_of...
- fumar 5y agoThis book changed how I viewed plants. I always thought of plants as seemingly inert matter until then. It is similar to how people who never owned pets or a farm or lived closely with animals changes their view on non-human intelligence when they adopt a dog or cat etc. The spectrum of life is infinite. Humans like categories to aid our understanding but we define the categories and are error prone.
- ping_pong 5y agoIf you spend enough time watching nature videos like I do, you will notice that the vast majority of animals are eaten alive by their predators. It's slow, and exceedingly painful and it is ubiquitous. So even if plants were conscious, I honestly don't care. A bear would eat me alive in the most painful way possible and they wouldn't even think a second about it. Neither will I.
- EvilEy3 5y agoNo-no-no, you're smarter™ so that makes it different™.
- guythedudebro 5y agoThis but unironically.
- greenshackle2 5y agoThat's not a very clever argument. Animals also routinely rape each other, fight and sometimes kill rivals, engage in cannibalism, etc.; that doesn't excuse humans committing murder and sexual assault anymore than natural predation excuses factory farming. I mean sure it's perfectly natural, sure, whatever, it's also perfectly natural if the rest of us decide to ostracize and/or throw you in jail for it.
- shagie 5y agoIt goes all the way down... even the simplest animals (and where it becomes questionable as to what is an animal). Journey to the Microcosmos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g For example - a Paramecium hunter - https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8 https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8
- matz1 5y agoI don't care either, I draw the line between human and non-human. Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human can get angry can cause me trouble.
- xhkkffbf 5y agowhile I do agree that sometimes this seems a bit newagey or, to use an obvious word, "treehugger", I've grown to appreciate the insights from the true believers. I don't always go as far as they do, but I do find there are plenty of surprises with plants. When researchers opened their eyes and looked, they could find concrete proof that plants often communicated and nurtured their young. They shared and built communities. They worked together to fight enemies. Sure, they don't use the same tactics as animals, but if you look at their progress in the abstract, it's easy to see how they're not sedentary or stupid.
- tgv 5y agoThat's projection at its worst. Just because you can map some concept vaguely on behavior of some species, doesn't mean it is doing that, nor does it imply that it thus deserves to be treated as human. > but if you look at their progress in the abstract Good thing we don't eat abstract plants then.
- xhkkffbf 5y agoIt is not projection. When you ask the question in an abstract way, it opens you up to seeing in way that's not clouded by preconception (something you seem to be doing.) Do trees pass sugars on to their offspring? Yes. Is that projection? It was validated with scientific methods that tracked deuterated hydrogen. But you can see it as some kind of wacko imagination if you want to be a science denier. And if you go back, you'll see I didn't say that plants should be treated like humans. Maybe you're the one with an imagination?
- cheese_goddess 5y ago> Worse, the production of one animal protein requires 7 to 10 plant proteins. The argument is a strictly accounting one. Even if plant suffering were of the same intensity as animal suffering, omnivores would produce seven to ten times more suffering than plant lovers alone. So, seven proteins make seven ... sufferings? Proteins are a measure of suffering?
- karpierz 5y agoNo, the point is that the process of generating meat requires the animal eat plants. So even if plants suffer, eating animals is still worse, since the animal suffers along with 7-10x the number of plants.
- EvilEy3 5y agoDamnit, I'm all out of suffering points today. No meat for me!
- cheese_goddess 5y agoOK, so 1 animal suffering = 7 to 10 plant sufferings, yes? There's a quantification of suffering according to which the suffering of one animal is equal to the suffering of 7-10 plants, correct?
- karpierz 5y agoNo, it's not comparing the suffering of plants and animals. It's only pointing out that by virtue of feeding an animal, you necessarily kill plants. So when you raise an animal to eat, you're killing both the animal as well as the plants it consumed. The 7-10x number is relative to the number of plants you'd have killed if you instead ate plants directly.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
- nottrobin 5y agoWhat a load of nonsense
- drummer 5y agoThis is why we were supposed to eat the fruits, not the plants themselves.
- Loughla 5y agoIsn't that just eating the unborn children, then? Is that better than eating an adult? (tongue in cheek, obviously)
- benlivengood 5y agoSeeds are evolved to survive being eaten and deposited with extra fertilizer some distance away. Breeding sterile fruit for convenience might be considered bad form in the plant world.
- renewiltord 5y agoI think it should be consensual. Let's just ask the plants. And we must remember that affirmative positive consent is the only sort that matters.
- grawprog 5y agoI'm never really sure what the point of things like this are. I've grown enough plants in my life to understand they're at least 'aware' in some way when bad things happen to them. But in the end, it's a basic biological fact, unless a form of life can photosynthesize, it likely consumes some form of matter that was likely from something living. Extremophiles that eat sulphur and minerals and such aside, the majority of non-photosynthesizing life consumes organic matter. Said matter was at one time from something that was alive. In the end debates about whether plants or animals suffer the same or more seem sort of moot. Life involves suffering of some kind for every living thing on this planet. It's another one of those inescapable facts. I agree we should all try and minimize the amount of suffering we directly cause, but every day something somewhere suffers because each of us exist. Trying to pretend we can erase any and all suffering we may cause ever is a fruitless effort.
- breck 5y agoPersonally debates like these make my head hurt, but I am grateful for philosophers and others who mine these topics and proffer summaries. I do think they are important topics [for some people] to think about.
- chacha2 5y ago> Trying to pretend we can erase any and all suffering we may cause ever is a fruitless effort. I wouldn't be so sure. Eduard Hartmann came up with a solution in the 19th century. https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-the-universe-the-dubious-philosophy-of-human-extinction-149331 https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-th...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- morelisp 5y agoThis is a common feature of critiques of Schopenhaur; Philipp Mainländer advanced the position that God created the universe to end its atemporal suffering, exploding and binding itself temporally in order that its suffering should eventually cease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead#Role_in_the_philosophy_of_Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead#Role_in_the_philos... It's frustrating that your article brushes off the philosophy as "unimaginably wrong" so easily with some hand wave of techno-utopian "genetic engineering". Benatar's writing takes pains to address why the situation cannot fundamentally be solved, especially via naive scientism.
- EvilEy3 5y agoThis is borderline insanity. What, you want life without side effects now? The only ethical way is death, since no humans means they don't affect ecosystem around them.
- endisneigh 5y agoI've yet to get a satisfying answer to why it matters - life is suffering. Is there any organism that can survive without the expense of something else? construction kills animals, eating animals kills animals, using computers promotes industry which kills animals. what activity can a human participate in that doesn't kill animals? of course, one can say fewer animals could be killed by doing [other things], but that's besides the point. I'm not sure you can win, nature will always find an equilibrium that will result in the same amount of death - you save the goats and they'll ruin the land and eventually all die. you kill the predators and overpopulation of the prey will run rampant resulting in eventual famine, etc. and of course, if you're lucky things are in a stable state until something evolves and figures out efficient ways to wipe everything out - I suppose that's where we come in.
- busyant 5y ago> life is suffering Not sure why I'm sharing this, but I saw a hawk kill a squirrel yesterday. It was standing on top of the squirrel (still alive) on my neighbor's lawn. Three other squirrels were screeching and they made futile charges at the hawk to try to free the other squirrel. The amount of distress / suffering / chaos was far more disturbing than I would have expected to see on a suburban lawn. I even considered intervening and trying to scare the hawk away. But the hawk's gotta eat, too. Plus, it probably would've kicked my ass. *edits for better phrasing.
- silicon2401 5y agoThere's a video I saw on youtube of a bear eating a deer alive in someone's backyard. The video is filmed from behind a sliding glass door or something, basically front row seats. It's quite horrifying; the deer screams and sounds just like a human screaming. I've gotta say, one thing I'll say about hunting is there's almost no way the animal will suffer as much from being shot as they would if they were eaten by bears or wolves instead.
- lsaferite 5y agoMy fun anecdote: I watched a hawk swoop down and land about 5 feet from a squirrel in my yard a few weeks ago. I thought to myself, "That squirrel is toast." The hawk just sat there and the squirrel charged it _and chased it off_. First time I've ever see that in my life. I'm assuming the hawk wasn't hungry or was ill, so the squirrel got lucky.
- every 5y agoI've played around with this topic before: https://every.sdf.org/.webshare/bon_appetit.txt https://every.sdf.org/.webshare/bon_appetit.txt
- 11235813213455 5y agoVegans would be in trouble. I'm eating almost only fruits and legumes, but the "animal pain" argument is a bit ridiculous (there are way better arguments like health and environment) above all with this article. Plants also have senses like touch, they feel gravity (else they wouldn't grow vertically, even in the dark)