[baarn] Evidence of plant sentience means we should eat plants?

[Guest guest]

In having any authentic ethical discussion, we must use some scale of measurement. In my blog post about Natalie Angier's NY Times article, I focused on the numbers of plants killed according to diet (rather than the options of fruitarianism, etc.) for various reasons:

- To debunk meat eaters' all-or-nothing approach to ethics. Basically, the carnivores' core argument (echoed by Angier) is that " We humans must kill something to survive, and scientific evidence now suggests that there is little to no discernible difference between animals and plants. " I maintain that there is probably a qualitative difference in fauna & flora's capacity for consciousness & suffering, but also that killing fewer animals & plants is an ethical choice with real consequences for those individual organisms that will live or die by our mouths.

- Vegans currently comprise approximately 1% of the U.S. adult population, and the fact that this number remains so minuscule (i.e., statistically speaking below the margin of error for most surveys) is cause for real concern: it seems to indicate that not nearly enough people receive, understand and act on our message. Given that the masses already view vegans as extremists, does anyone seriously think they'll be receptive to fruitarianism, necrophagia, coprophagia, and detritivorianism? Such restrictive diets may be viable options for committed vegans who are convinced that carrots have feelings while apples don't -- but is alienating people by insisting that it's wrong to kill lettuce really the best use of our very limited time & resources?

- No matter WHAT we do -- whether it's eating or even breathing -- we are killing something (perhaps someone). Even if you only eat fruit or decomposing plant matter, you are still ingesting billions of microscopic organisms on and inside that morsel. Knowing this, we inevitably head into arguments about where to draw the line. After all, as the immortal Horton said, " A person's a person, no matter how small! " With advances being made in the field of microbiology, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that someone someday will prove the sentience of bacteria. I'm all for minimizing death, but we have to accept that we will never, ever achieve a state of perfect dietary grace, and forever be crafting variations of the Great Chain of Being (but hopefully in the service of compassion and not arbitrarily).

Having said all that in defense of the numbers argument, I agree wholeheartedly with Victor that reactionary anger against plant sentience is counterproductive -- harmful, even -- to the vegan cause. As he pointed out, there were many disturbing reader comments posted on the NY Times site -- and though they came from opposite ends of the debate, their uncivil certitude that the other side was irredeemably idiotic certainly wouldn't make either perspective attractive to undecided spectators. We must constantly remember that our goal is to give people enough space to leave their minds open, not drive them away with snarky attacks.

Ultimately, we need not deny that plants are alive to convince people to seriously consider animals' best interests. I still maintain that evidence of plant consciousness supports vegan ethics by suggesting an animated universe in which we must tread carefully, being ever-appreciative of our own existence while awaiting whatever transformation (or oblivion) comes afterward. If there is some kind of divine judgment at the gates of heaven or karmic action & reaction or what have you, most longstanding spiritual traditions believe that the basis of reward & punishment would in fact be your answer to a cosmic test question: How considerate were you of other mortals?

Happy holidays everyone,Mat Thomaswww.animalrighter.orgOn Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:

Much of the vegetarian reaction to the recent NY Times article " Sorry,

Vegans, Brussels Sprouts Like To Live Too " takes the form of the

argument that if it turns out that plants are sentient, then that is

actually an argument for eating them, because eating animal products

involves killing more plants. This is the same answer passed down in

vegetarian FAQs and repeated by vegetarians (including myself) for over

a decade. But, given that the reasoning " if plants are sentient, then we

should eat them " is odd, to say the least, some people are thinking

seriously about what the acceptance of plant sentience would mean

vis-a-vis veganism:

-------------------

http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/what-if-plants-have-secret-lives/

 

So: What if plants can suffer, or if some plants are sentient?

 

As a person committed to trying to end suffering and oppression what

could I do.

 

Obviously I could draw a line, remain vegan, say, “Too bad plants. There

is nothing we can do about this. I must eat.”

 

I could explore other modes of getting my food. Fruitarianism,

necrophagia, coprophagia (shudder), detritivorianism.

 

And perhaps this is why it is upsetting to think of plants as possible

of suffering. Because then veganism would become the moral equivalent

of  pescatarianism, and there wouldn’t be as much space to maneuver

ethically. You can’t feed many people on naturally dead things and

fallen fruit.

 

If plants can feel it requires a rethinking of what an ethical diet,

ethical living in general, means for all of us.

-------------------

http://challengeoppression.com/2009/12/22/plants-and-reactions/

 

Every time vegans learn more about the amazing animals sharing our

planet, we grab onto that information and add it to our arsenal of

arguments in favor of, you know, not eating them. We parade the videos,

showcase the photos, share the personal experiences – look at us, we

implore, see how these other animals are smart, fascinating and engaging!!

 

But the moment plants are brought up, it’s as if we transform into

defensive omnivores. What?!? How dare you claim plants might suffer? Are

you stupid, plants can’t move, why would they experience pain?!? Your

arguments are laughable and inane! Which is, of course, how nearly every

vegan blogger reacted when they read Natalie Angier’s New York Times

article titled “Sorry, Vegans: Brussel Sprouts Like to Live, Too.” Some

of the posts were so vituperative, so unnecessarily angry that I

couldn’t help but think of similar responses I’ve read from angry

omnivores, ornery hunters, pissed-off farmers.

-------------------

 

Victor

 

--

The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/

Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

 

 

 

---

 

To to Bay Area Animal Rights Network please send blank email

to:

baarn-

 

For events:

Please see message archives and calendar at

baarn

[Guest guest]

IT is important to note the difference between cellular based chemical reactions and the expression of emotion and suffering. Much of this "evidence" of plants being sentient beings, and much of the language in the book "Botany of Desire", seem to attribute highly complex human and animal emotions to simple chemical and vibrational reactions with very little basis in fact to conclude one from the other. Emotions and suffering result from a highly complex centralized nervous system which plants lack. Many plants are grown from cuttings, where a piece of a plant is chopped off and then re-generates into a whole new plant, creating two healthy plants. Chopping off an animal limb is very different... I read some of the vegan comments following the NYTimes article, perhaps I was reading different ones, but

they do not seem angry and reactionary. The ones that I read simply point out the blatant fallacies of the premise of the article, and the actual suffering that can result from impressionable people buying into a flawed argument.

 

-Beth Seligman

 

--- On Wed, 12/23/09, Mat Thomas <ma> wrote:

Mat Thomas <ma> Re: [baarn] Evidence of plant sentience means we should eat plants?"Victor Tsou" <victorCc: "BAARN" <baarn >, "SFBAVEG" Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 1:30 PM

In having any authentic ethical discussion, we must use some scale of measurement. In my blog post about Natalie Angier's NY Times article, I focused on the numbers of plants killed according to diet (rather than the options of fruitarianism, etc.) for various reasons:- To debunk meat eaters' all-or-nothing approach to ethics. Basically, the carnivores' core argument (echoed by Angier) is that "We humans must kill something to survive, and scientific evidence now suggests that there is little to no discernible difference between animals and plants." I maintain that there is probably a qualitative difference in fauna & flora's capacity for consciousness & suffering, but also that killing fewer animals & plants is an ethical choice with real consequences for those individual

organisms that will live or die by our mouths.- Vegans currently comprise approximately 1% of the U.S. adult population, and the fact that this number remains so minuscule (i.e., statistically speaking below the margin of error for most surveys) is cause for real concern: it seems to indicate that not nearly enough people receive, understand and act on our message. Given that the masses already view vegans as extremists, does anyone seriously think they'll be receptive to fruitarianism, necrophagia, coprophagia, and detritivorianism? Such restrictive diets may be viable options for committed vegans who are convinced that carrots have feelings while apples don't -- but is alienating people by insisting that it's wrong to kill lettuce really the best use of our very limited time & resources? - No matter WHAT we do -- whether it's eating or even

breathing -- we are killing something (perhaps someone). Even if you only eat fruit or decomposing plant matter, you are still ingesting billions of microscopic organisms on and inside that morsel. Knowing this, we inevitably head into arguments about where to draw the line. After all, as the immortal Horton said, "A person's a person, no matter how small!" With advances being made in the field of microbiology, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that someone someday will prove the sentience of bacteria. I'm all for minimizing death, but we have to accept that we will never, ever achieve a state of perfect dietary grace, and forever be crafting variations of the Great Chain of Being (but hopefully in the service of compassion and not arbitrarily) .Having said all that in defense of the numbers argument, I agree wholeheartedly with Victor that reactionary anger against plant sentience is counterproductive -- harmful, even -- to the vegan cause. As he pointed out, there were many disturbing reader comments posted on the NY Times site -- and though they came from opposite ends of the debate, their uncivil certitude that the other side was irredeemably idiotic certainly wouldn't make either perspective attractive to undecided spectators. We must constantly remember that our goal is to give people enough space to leave their minds open, not drive them away with snarky attacks.Ultimately, we need not deny that plants are alive to convince people to

seriously consider animals' best interests. I still maintain that evidence of plant consciousness supports vegan ethics by suggesting an animated universe in which we must tread carefully, being ever-appreciative of our own existence while awaiting whatever transformation (or oblivion) comes afterward. If there is some kind of divine judgment at the gates of heaven or karmic action & reaction or what have you, most longstanding spiritual traditions believe that the basis of reward & punishment would in fact be your answer to a cosmic test question: How considerate were you of other mortals?Happy holidays everyone,Mat Thomaswww.animalrighter. org

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Victor Tsou <victor@loveallbeing s.org> wrote:

Much of the vegetarian reaction to the recent NY Times article "Sorry,Vegans, Brussels Sprouts Like To Live Too" takes the form of theargument that if it turns out that plants are sentient, then that isactually an argument for eating them, because eating animal productsinvolves killing more plants. This is the same answer passed down invegetarian FAQs and repeated by vegetarians (including myself) for overa decade. But, given that the reasoning "if plants are sentient, then weshould eat them" is odd, to say the least, some people are thinkingseriously about what the acceptance of plant sentience would meanvis-a-vis veganism:------------ -------http://vegansofcolo r.wordpress. com/2009/ 12/22/what- if-plants-

have-secret- lives/So: What if plants can suffer, or if some plants are sentient?As a person committed to trying to end suffering and oppression whatcould I do.Obviously I could draw a line, remain vegan, say, “Too bad plants. Thereis nothing we can do about this. I must eat.â€I could explore other modes of getting my food. Fruitarianism,necrophagia, coprophagia (shudder), detritivorianism.And perhaps this is why it is upsetting to think of plants as possibleof suffering. Because then veganism would become the moral equivalentof pescatarianism, and there wouldn’t be as much space to maneuverethically. You can’t feed many people on naturally dead things andfallen fruit.If plants can feel it requires a rethinking of what an ethical diet,ethical living in general, means for all of us.------------ -------http://challengeopp ression.com/ 2009/12/22/ plants-and- reactions/Every time vegans learn more about the amazing animals sharing ourplanet, we grab onto that information and add it to our arsenal ofarguments in favor of, you know, not eating them. We parade the videos,showcase the photos, share the personal experiences – look at us, weimplore, see how these other animals are smart, fascinating and engaging!!But the moment plants are brought up, it’s as if we transform intodefensive omnivores. What?!? How dare you claim plants might suffer? Areyou stupid, plants can’t move, why would they experience pain?!? Yourarguments are laughable and inane! Which is, of course, how nearly everyvegan blogger reacted when they read Natalie Angier’s New York Timesarticle titled “Sorry, Vegans: Brussel

Sprouts Like to Live, Too.†Someof the posts were so vituperative, so unnecessarily angry that Icouldn’t help but think of similar responses I’ve read from angryomnivores, ornery hunters, pissed-off farmers.------------ -------Victor--The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal. org/Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeing s.org/------------ --------- --------- ------To to Bay Area Animal Rights Network please send blank ebaarn-For events:Please see message archives and calendar athttp://groups. / group/baarn