In order to feel pain, don't you have to have a brain? That's where your pain receptors are. So I think that excludes plants.
Printable View
In order to feel pain, don't you have to have a brain? That's where your pain receptors are. So I think that excludes plants.
Yeah, but I think what Big D's trying to say is that plants suffer in a way we can't comprehend.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
If you stopped watering a plant, or if you leave a plant in darkness, do you not comprehend that you are causing the plant a metaphorical type of discomfort? If you uprooted a plant or burned down a tree, are they amoral acts?
You don't even need to understand how a tree functions to answer those questions.
And where would that energy come from? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Im guessing that somewhere in the process things would be burned, or made by burning stuff. you could use nuclear energy of course, but i doubt if that would be more benificial to the enviroment.
Ok, for a nervous system to be developed one must use quite a few resources. Since plants do not react much and certainly do not think, their nervous systems are far less under developed. Plants which have highly developed nervous systems would be wasting resources and so would be less likely to survive. Therefore plants having extremely basic nervous systems is naturally selected for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harle-QuinCould you please fill in that gap. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
There's a crucial difference here between the reactions of plants and the reactions of animals. The reactions of plants, as far as I know, are purely involuntary. Whereas the reactions of animals and humans are a combination of voluntary and involuntary. Plants cannot make any conscious decisions. They just react in a certain way due to their genes. From an evolutionary point of view, a plant being able to feel pain would not benefit it because pain is only necessary to guide organsisms that are capable of voluntary actions. Let me try and explain with a diagram.Quote:
Plants certainly don't feel pain, nor can they think. However, plants do react to damage - they have various systemic responses to harm, including chemical processes and whatnot. There are some that react by releasing unpleasant-tasting toxins into their leaves, and then 'communicate' a warning to their neighbours with airborne chemical signals. They react to damage, and then try to protect themselves - in animals, those responses would be considered 'suffering' and 'self-preservation'.
Human
Touches fire-----> automatically moves finger (involuntary) ----> feels pain so that human will not touch fire again (ie, will not commit the same voluntary actions)
Notice how the finger was moved away before the human felt any pain. It was not necessary for the human to feel pain for the finger to move.
If the plant were to face a similar scenario, some species would move away in reaction. But for them to react they do not have to feel anything. It is not necessary and the feeling of pain in no way benefits them because all their reactions are automatic and involuntary.
So while it is possible that plants do feel pain, evolutionarily I can see little reason to believe this is the case.
I dont know what you mean. You could argue that you are causing sperm metaphorical discomfort when you kill it, but that doesnt change the fact that it doesnt feel anything.Quote:
If you stopped watering a plant, or if you leave a plant in darkness, do you not comprehend that you are causing the plant a metaphorical type of discomfort? If you uprooted a plant or burned down a tree, are they amoral acts?
You don't even need to understand how a tree functions to answer those questions.
If you uproot a plant, the plant wouldnt know anything because it never knew anything. All its 'knowledge' was in grained in its own DNA. Every action it takes is coded for in those nucleotide pairs. Only the brain or something like that allows for voluntary action outside the realms of DNA.
EDIT: Seems that I may be wrong. I did a bit of research and apparently lots of chemicals are released from the plants when they are cut and stuff. Whether this cause pain is not really clear but perhaps I underestimated our green friends. It also seems to be true that plants even have a nervous system of sorts although a very basic one. Why on earth they need one, I dont know...
EDITGA: Absurdity of Plant Pain
Take a look at that. That agrees with my logic.
In conclusion, there is no definite answer atm insofar as I know.
So basically, according to the people who believe plants feel pain, and according to vegetarians.....what the hell are we supposed to eat?!
I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't eat plants; what they're saying is that it's wrong to claim that "eating animals is totally evil, but eating plants is totally fine!" the way numerous vegetarians and vegans do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef Gordon Ramsey
Some simple facts are as follows:
Almost everyone on Earth eats meat.
Almost all of those people would say meat is the most enjoyable part of their diet.
North America is a bloated, creepy place that gets a bad rep for industrial farming of plants AND animals...I'm sure other places are, but I don't live in them.
Hippies like to cry out about animal rights and pain and how vegetarian life is so much healthier/as healthy as an omnivorous life.
Actually, keeping this thread in general chat seems to have kept it quite civil and I'm impressed/in like with all of you right now.
I'm more amazed that this hasn't turned into a spam fest already in GC. :monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
Thats only because (no offense intended) Westerners have the most boring methods of preparing food ever. The Western vegetable dishes are so tasteless, its not even funny. They dont even do that much better with meat when they use it for crap like burgers.*Quote:
Almost all of those people would say meat is the most enjoyable part of their diet.
*Im gonna get a lot of hate for saying that. :p
Anyway, even if eating plants is wrong, eating animals is far worse in comparison. Not only do the animals eat those plants to grow, we then kill those animals causing even more pain. So eating plants could be seens as the lesser of two evils. Also remember though that fruits are intended by the plants to be eaten. And the plants dont always die.
Why is meat, when cooked properly, so tasty? God sure is sadistic.
Anyway, Quorn is extremely tasty as well when cooked right. And its healthier. And nothing feels pain (except the bacteria!)
Rather than divine sadism, it's got more to do with evolutionary advantage. We're attracted to three major categories of taste: sugar, salt, and fat. Essential for survival, especially when you're a hunter-gatherer living in a harsh pre-civilisation wilderness. Meat can provide massive amounts of many of the chemicals that are essential to living and functioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Even in recorded history, meat consumption is by no means universal. Medieval Europe, for instance, was nearly unique in that its peasant classes regularly ate meat, whereas their Chinese counterparts were wholly vegetarian.
I wasnt really being serious there, but good post.Quote:
^Rather than divine sadism, it's got more to do with evolutionary advantage. We're attracted to three major categories of taste: sugar, salt, and fat. Essential for survival, especially when you're a hunter-gatherer living in a harsh pre-civilisation wilderness. Meat can provide massive amounts of many of the chemicals that are essential to living and functioning.
Btw, meat is high in protein and sometimes fat right? Arent we attracted to protein as well? Anyway, what we are attracted to aint always healthy *stares at sweeties*
I remember hearing that peasants generally tend to eat more vegetables than meat because they need to get the most food out of their plot of land. And by shortening the food chain they were able to eat more food.Quote:
Even in recorded history, meat consumption is by no means universal. Medieval Europe, for instance, was nearly unique in that its peasant classes regularly ate meat, whereas their Chinese counterparts were wholly vegetarian.
I think vegetarianism is a really great idea. If the world was mostly vegetarian then I'd turn to it myself, but it's not, there are only a small minority of vegetarians. Really, does one person not eating meat - when thousands of other meat-eaters eat it every day - really make much of a difference? I really don't think it does. Like I said before, if most of the world were vegetarian then I'd turn to it myself, as I don't really like the way the meat is prepared, I just prefer not to think about it. I don't feel that I need to eat meat, I just choose to as it's really yummy.
I did all about vegetarians in my Food technology GCSE coursework; It got me good marks as I catered my whole product towards a special diet, so ty Vegetarians.
The world is made up by individuals, so if everyone was living by your philosophy, Zeldy, there woud be no vegetarians at all.
It isn't only about that one individual being able to do something for the animals, it's about living according to your own values, convictions and conscious. In addition, there is the influence you can make on other people by taking such a stand.
There are quite a few vegetarians in the world, actually, and if you put together how many animals they would've eaten had they been meat eaters, you will see that they do make a difference.