4 ms·

I am familiar with that view and I don't agree with that conclusion > I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the sufferin

I am familiar with that view and I don't agree with that conclusion > I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the suffering of a cow, for example. why? why is it incomparable. the fact that you even consider "genetic relatedness" or "that plants have capacity for suffering" is an expansion that requires admitting a simpler view that many vegans have was simply wrong! there are plenty that are like "anything without a central nervous system can't suffer!" and the goal posts keep moving as they have to accept that more and more organisms avoid negative stimuli because they can predict it or don't want it. if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. which way would be incomparable? if plants could uproot and move out the way, they would. which way would be incomparable? and that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened, as if the rest of us could not perceive suffering of mammals or suffering of other species. but it was only you, the anti-suffering vegans, that ever needed the validation of additional institutions to accept this already widely held perception that killing organisms for consumption is something those organisms actively react to and avoid because of sensory inputs. and for solutions, it is arbitrary to manifest that as a dietary preference.

hombre_fatal 3y ago
I draw the line at sentience (a subjective experience) and plants don’t meet the consensus of criteria. I’m not even sure some animals like bivalves do. Also, if your next step has to land on a dog or a patch of grass it almost sounds like you are going to say it doesn’t matter because we can’t know if the grass has a subjective experience (but we know the dog has one).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cute_boi 3y ago
Vegans themselves acknowledge that veganism may not be flawless; however, this does not imply that their perspective is fundamentally incorrect. Lets say we are able to find plants would have to endure too much pain. Even in such case, veganism works because less plant shall suffer. Vegans aren't wrong.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Also, what is the flawless alternative philosophy? And is flawlessness a standard for doing anything? What belief or decision does anyone hold or choose, in any domain, that is flawless?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  less plants shall suffer? …per capita?
  - jodleif 3y ago
    Livestock would consume more plants as food than they give back as food
block_dagger 3y ago
My reasoning is based on the opposite of solipsism. I assume that I am not the only conscious being that can suffer. I also assume based on evidence that I am a physical entity and my capacity for intelligence, consciousness, joy, and suffering is based on the makeup and complexity of my nervous system. This could be wrong, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence to support this view. Looking at other species, I assume that their capacity for and quality of experience is similar. Cows are mammals, sexual, social, emotional, relatively intelligence animals. I assume their capacity for suffering is somewhat proportional based on those traits. I have no proof of this and no one ever will unless we figure out how to communicate with cows directly (probably impossible). Plants don't seem to be conscious, at least on the same timescale, as humans. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone that they don't have the same capacity to suffer as a human. What would be your reasoning for supporting that view? Note that I grew up on a farm raising sheep, cows, turkeys, ducks, dogs, and cats, and have experienced first hand the domination and torture of individuals of all these species by myself, my parents, and our neighbors. Have you seen how industrial farming works? I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that. I encourage you to break out of that mentality, although I admit many diets are based around that virtue game.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that Not quite, I find the chosen solution to be arbitrary and that the chosen solution continues to move with new information about what suffering is. Echoed by the less verbose quip someone made earlier in the thread about needing to switch to a rock based diet. I think several other rationales for the same dietary preferences are stronger, for example being against factory farming has nothing to do with only consuming plants it has to do with not consuming factory farmed meat. I think several other responses to the mammalian suffering observation are stronger, for example, regulating or reducing how much of it occurs, which would have a greater impact than your dietary preference.
richardw 3y ago
To grow the cow you need to have it murder a lot of grass over its lifetime. The grass suffering is endless. So eat one plant to save the suffering of many more. Wait, what are we optimising for here?
mjan22640 3y ago
All the cells in a organism communicate. Neurons are not special in that they communicate, but in that they do it fast. Animals move, and to do that correctly, they have a brain as fast control center. The experience of being, including suffering, is likely very similar between brained animals whose domain is movement in space. Plants live in a domain of chemical gradients in the soil and light gradients comming from the sky. They need a no-sigal (suffering) and a yes-signal (pleasure) as any other type of organism to navigate their domain properly, and the intensity of the signals needs to be appropriate, up to absolute, their live is on the stake.
wolverine876 3y ago
> if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. What is that based on? > that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened This point, and others like it, are just unfounded ad hominem attacks. Nobody here has said anything like it, and the only time I've seen something like it mentioned is when people use similar attacks.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  it’s based on this paper and the signals they receive and reactions, plants do not have vocal chords though I expounded upon the viewpoint I was familiar with, I said I’m familiar with it and wrote about it There are no strawmans or ad hominem in doing that The only response is whether the view interpretation was inaccurate or not
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Someone can't be familiar with an ad hominem viewpoint and write about it?
Sai_ 3y ago
If the theory of evolution is valid and it is also true that animals have been eating stuff from plants - like caterpillars eating leaves(painful) and bees pollinating(pleasurable?) - wouldn’t there be selective pressure to develop vocalisation to convey sentiment? So, maybe trees haven’t developed these abilities to speak because they’re sturdier and feel/sense less (or the ToE is incorrect/incomplete).
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  the theory of evolution only selects for traits till reproduction. traits that have no affect on ability to reproduce are completely random mutations that never get weeded out.
  - Sai_ 3y ago
    So why aren’t plants moaning in pleasure when insects pick up their pollen? Why does not one tree use vocalisations to attract insects? Why flowers and not, say, the death sounds of an antelope to attract a bunch of animals whose fur can be vector to transport burrs?

hombre_fatal 3y ago

I draw the line at sentience (a subjective experience) and plants don’t meet the consensus of criteria. I’m not even sure some animals like bivalves do. Also, if your next step has to land on a dog or a patch of grass it almost sounds like you are going to say it doesn’t matter because we can’t know if the grass has a subjective experience (but we know the dog has one).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

cute_boi 3y ago

Vegans themselves acknowledge that veganism may not be flawless; however, this does not imply that their perspective is fundamentally incorrect. Lets say we are able to find plants would have to endure too much pain. Even in such case, veganism works because less plant shall suffer. Vegans aren't wrong.

wolverine876 3y ago
Also, what is the flawless alternative philosophy? And is flawlessness a standard for doing anything? What belief or decision does anyone hold or choose, in any domain, that is flawless?
yieldcrv 3y ago
less plants shall suffer? …per capita?
- jodleif 3y ago
  Livestock would consume more plants as food than they give back as food

block_dagger 3y ago

My reasoning is based on the opposite of solipsism. I assume that I am not the only conscious being that can suffer. I also assume based on evidence that I am a physical entity and my capacity for intelligence, consciousness, joy, and suffering is based on the makeup and complexity of my nervous system. This could be wrong, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence to support this view. Looking at other species, I assume that their capacity for and quality of experience is similar. Cows are mammals, sexual, social, emotional, relatively intelligence animals. I assume their capacity for suffering is somewhat proportional based on those traits. I have no proof of this and no one ever will unless we figure out how to communicate with cows directly (probably impossible). Plants don't seem to be conscious, at least on the same timescale, as humans. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone that they don't have the same capacity to suffer as a human. What would be your reasoning for supporting that view? Note that I grew up on a farm raising sheep, cows, turkeys, ducks, dogs, and cats, and have experienced first hand the domination and torture of individuals of all these species by myself, my parents, and our neighbors. Have you seen how industrial farming works? I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that. I encourage you to break out of that mentality, although I admit many diets are based around that virtue game.

yieldcrv 3y ago
> I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that Not quite, I find the chosen solution to be arbitrary and that the chosen solution continues to move with new information about what suffering is. Echoed by the less verbose quip someone made earlier in the thread about needing to switch to a rock based diet. I think several other rationales for the same dietary preferences are stronger, for example being against factory farming has nothing to do with only consuming plants it has to do with not consuming factory farmed meat. I think several other responses to the mammalian suffering observation are stronger, for example, regulating or reducing how much of it occurs, which would have a greater impact than your dietary preference.

richardw 3y ago

To grow the cow you need to have it murder a lot of grass over its lifetime. The grass suffering is endless. So eat one plant to save the suffering of many more. Wait, what are we optimising for here?

mjan22640 3y ago

All the cells in a organism communicate. Neurons are not special in that they communicate, but in that they do it fast. Animals move, and to do that correctly, they have a brain as fast control center. The experience of being, including suffering, is likely very similar between brained animals whose domain is movement in space. Plants live in a domain of chemical gradients in the soil and light gradients comming from the sky. They need a no-sigal (suffering) and a yes-signal (pleasure) as any other type of organism to navigate their domain properly, and the intensity of the signals needs to be appropriate, up to absolute, their live is on the stake.

wolverine876 3y ago

> if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. What is that based on? > that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened This point, and others like it, are just unfounded ad hominem attacks. Nobody here has said anything like it, and the only time I've seen something like it mentioned is when people use similar attacks.

yieldcrv 3y ago
it’s based on this paper and the signals they receive and reactions, plants do not have vocal chords though I expounded upon the viewpoint I was familiar with, I said I’m familiar with it and wrote about it There are no strawmans or ad hominem in doing that The only response is whether the view interpretation was inaccurate or not
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Someone can't be familiar with an ad hominem viewpoint and write about it?

Sai_ 3y ago

If the theory of evolution is valid and it is also true that animals have been eating stuff from plants - like caterpillars eating leaves(painful) and bees pollinating(pleasurable?) - wouldn’t there be selective pressure to develop vocalisation to convey sentiment? So, maybe trees haven’t developed these abilities to speak because they’re sturdier and feel/sense less (or the ToE is incorrect/incomplete).

yieldcrv 3y ago
the theory of evolution only selects for traits till reproduction. traits that have no affect on ability to reproduce are completely random mutations that never get weeded out.
- Sai_ 3y ago
  So why aren’t plants moaning in pleasure when insects pick up their pollen? Why does not one tree use vocalisations to attract insects? Why flowers and not, say, the death sounds of an antelope to attract a bunch of animals whose fur can be vector to transport burrs?