2 ms·

> When plants are usually cut, it emits a certain chemical as a warning stressor to communicate to other plants, who on a very slow time frame are just as capab

> When plants are usually cut, it emits a certain chemical as a warning stressor to communicate to other plants, who on a very slow time frame are just as capable of perceiving stressors and able to adjust their exposure to nutrients and sunlight in a matter very similar to animals. > Yet because it is difficult to attach anthropomorphic qualities to it you are free to farm, destroy and eat, whom by all definition just as sentient as the mammals you describe. The existence of an adaptive mechanism in an organism doesn't mean that any organisms that have such mechanisms are sentient to similar degrees. You're actually completely contradicting yourself here by first arguing that other animals are "less" sentient than humans (presumably because of the neurological complexity of our brains compared to those of other species) and then continue by claiming that plants are similarly sentient to mammals.

deutschewelle 5y ago
> The existence of an adaptive mechanism in an organism doesn't mean that any organisms that have such mechanisms are sentient to similar degrees. If there is an intelligence behind such mechanism, it still would not fit your definition of sentiency correct? How are you so certain that there isn't an intelligence to all living things, plant, trees, insects and animals? How can such intelligence not adapt to its environment and instruct its physical medium to change its behavior or rearrange itself spatial temporally to maximize survivability? Is that not the definition of a lifeform? the drive to survive? really bizarre you would limit your horizon here, is it to double down on your original argument that is in alignment with what the article is proposing and the rest of us are commenting at the irony of deciding what is ethically edible or not in a country where industrial scale farming of all things sentient?

deutschewelle 5y ago

> The existence of an adaptive mechanism in an organism doesn't mean that any organisms that have such mechanisms are sentient to similar degrees. If there is an intelligence behind such mechanism, it still would not fit your definition of sentiency correct? How are you so certain that there isn't an intelligence to all living things, plant, trees, insects and animals? How can such intelligence not adapt to its environment and instruct its physical medium to change its behavior or rearrange itself spatial temporally to maximize survivability? Is that not the definition of a lifeform? the drive to survive? really bizarre you would limit your horizon here, is it to double down on your original argument that is in alignment with what the article is proposing and the rest of us are commenting at the irony of deciding what is ethically edible or not in a country where industrial scale farming of all things sentient?