Plants

[Woodruff]

Makes sense, when you think about it. But I would never have put it into terms like "doing math"...which makes it more interesting to me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10134715/Scientists-find-proof-plants-are-capable-of-complex-arithmetic.html

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

[Metsfanmax]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

[Woodruff]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

I thought it had already been well-established that plants feel pain?

As an aside, I did not realize you were a vegetarian/vegan (not that it matters).

[Haggis_McMutton]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

[Metsfanmax]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

I thought it had already been well-established that plants feel pain?

No, it has not been established. There is no conclusive evidence of this in the literature. There are often bunk claims of plants feeling pain, but you won't see such claims coming from respected scientists. Plants do respond in many of the same ways that an animal would when they are being killed. We all have these instinctual biological responses, thanks to the wonders of billions of years of evolution. But when an organism lacks a central nervous system, it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal can.

As an aside, I did not realize you were a vegetarian/vegan (not that it matters).

It does not matter, but yes, I maintain a vegan diet.

[Funkyterrance]

You had to start this thread right after I finished mowing the lawn Woodruff?

[tzor]

Makes sense, when you think about it. But I would never have put it into terms like "doing math"...which makes it more interesting to me:

Well we always knew that "rabbits multiply," now we know that plants do division.

[tzor]

You had to start this thread right after I finished mowing the lawn Woodruff?

It's OK, grass grows from the bottom up.

[jonesthecurl]

Makes sense, when you think about it. But I would never have put it into terms like "doing math"...which makes it more interesting to me:

Well we always knew that "rabbits multiply," now we know that plants do division.

NO, it's cells that divide.

[jonesthecurl]

And some snakes add.

[BigBallinStalin]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Ah. Otherwise, y'all couldn't eat. That's really the justification underlying the reasoning here.

[john9blue]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Ah. Otherwise, y'all couldn't eat. That's really the justification underlying the reasoning here.

orly?

you don't think his post makes perfect sense from a utilitarian perspective?

[BigBallinStalin]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Ah. Otherwise, y'all couldn't eat. That's really the justification underlying the reasoning here.

orly?

you don't think his post makes perfect sense from a utilitarian perspective?

I'm thinking of the underlying reasoning as to why someone would choose the pleasure-pain principle and then apply it to specific living organisms.

Utilitarianism or his "preference utilitarianism" doesn't make much sense internally when we have to adjudicate between other people's and animal's interests. It just falls apart because it's incapable of revealing such answers, so Mets will substitute the requisite objective arbitration with what he feels and thinks about warm, fuzzy animals and pretty fish. It's a bunk ethical system, but it's prevails because it fits ideal worldview of how the world should be--regardless of the shortfalls, nonsense, and consequences of his ethical system (human suffering in poor places is an externalized cost to him).

[Metsfanmax]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Ah. Otherwise, y'all couldn't eat. That's really the justification underlying the reasoning here.

orly?

you don't think his post makes perfect sense from a utilitarian perspective?

I'm thinking of the underlying reasoning as to why someone would choose the pleasure-pain principle and then apply it to specific living organisms.

Utilitarianism or his "preference utilitarianism" doesn't make much sense internally when we have to adjudicate between other people's and animal's interests. It just falls apart because it's incapable of revealing such answers, so Mets will substitute the requisite objective arbitration with what he feels and thinks about warm, fuzzy animals and pretty fish. It's a bunk ethical system, but it's prevails because it fits ideal worldview of how the world should be--regardless of the shortfalls, nonsense, and consequences of his ethical system (human suffering in poor places is an externalized cost to him).

1) Your assumption is false. I didn't construct the ethical system to match my preconceived ethical beliefs; I'm a scientist, that's not what we do. I found an ethical system that I think is logically sensible, and I obey what conclusions come from it. I don't have any particular love for animals. I am not someone who rescues stray dogs (in fact, I think dogs are just a dirty mess), and I'd just as soon not be on a farm or at a zoo, in most circumstances. I just think that they shouldn't be killed or tortured because we like the taste of their flesh.

2) I alluded in the other thread to the fact that there is much more human suffering as a result of our wasteful food system, because up to 90% of the food we feed to produce our meat is not returned, pound-for-pound. That food could be sold and consumed by humans directly. Furthermore, livestock production alone is responsible for a staggering 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming and the inefficient food system disproportionately affect the poor in developing nations, as developed nations have enough resources to adapt with less difficulty. What BBS refers to as "human suffering," I can only imagine, as I would not classify the inability of a Westerner to eat a steak to be actual suffering compared to the 1.2 billion humans who survive on the purchasing-power-parity equivalent of less than $1.50 per day. The ivory tower moralizing may work for you, BBS, but there are actual humans out there who would suffer less if we all ate less meat.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. You failed again to address the fundamental problem with your ethical system (i.e. adjudication, inability to make interpersonal/inter"animal" comparisons of pleasure/pain, etc.). Without being able to do so, you still advocate for that approach. Obviously, it's not just logic guiding you.

2. One time Lootifer had a post about how this foreign group goes into a village and establishes a fish farm to feed them. Then BBS tells the foreigners that they forgot something important: they don't like fish. That's what's missing from your analysis ("pound-for-pound" and all that crap). It's not just a question of quantity, but of price and how people define profit and loss. You ignore individual tastes and preferences because obviously you just assume what's best for everyone. People in ivory towers do that, not me.

And go tell that "Westerner" living on less than $15,000 to pay higher prices for food, or tell him to shut up because people in a completely different environment have it worse. What a terrible argument. You may as well never complain about anything anyone does because "someone else has it worse." Ridiculous. You don't feel their pain, and you're hardly cognizant of it, which is why I say that such costs are externalized from you. If those costs were internalized, then you wouldn't be advocating such a ridiculous ethical system.

[patches70]

Hahah, BBS, you accused of preaching from your ivory tower by a guy who is blaming everyone who eats meat for the world's woes.

I'm not sure if BBS has an ivory tower, but he probably has an ivory back scratcher. After all, those elephants don't really need their tusks, do they?

Hahahah. That reminds me, elephant flesh is might tasty in a nice roast with some potatoes, carrots and onions.

[nietzsche]

WTF???

Nobody read the article?

The implications are none, those fucking scientists should be sent to work to Walmart for allowing their work to be used like that.

Of course plants can do that, and in fact they can do more complex things.. like .. you know.. growing, living.

This is so retarded. This finding, however important as it helps understand mechanism of plant life better, draws no moral implications whatsoever, or, better put, doesn't change anything.

[patches70]

I'm a scientist, that's not what we do. I found an ethical system that I think is logically sensible, and I obey what conclusions come from it.

Yes, scientists because of trust in logic have the higher ability of determining what is and isn't ethical. After all, it was scientists who developed nuclear weapons. It was scientists who developed weaponized bacteria, poison gas, chemical weapons and a whole host of others things that kill people.

And of course, it's all good to use animals as test subjects in the name of science, but God forbid eating animals because they feel pain.

No, I don't think because one calls themselves a scientist gives them any better understanding of ethics. No more than any individual. Hell, farmer Bob probably has a better grasp on right and wrong than the average scientist. IMO.
Science develops things and doesn't really ever consider the ethical ramifications of what is being developed, that's for someone else to figure out, not the scientist.

Mets can be a vegetarian and list off whatever reasons he wants. Those reasons don't even have to make sense. More power to him. He makes his mistake thinking that he somehow has a better grasp and knows what's better for everyone else than they do themselves. His problem is that he can't even begin to consider all that it is that he doesn't know. Which, like pretty much everyone else on the planet, is a whole lot more than he knows. Taking one tiny snippet of information and without even considering anything else thinks he knows the "solution" but doesn't bother to consider the consequences or the trade offs.

It certainly appears as though Mets has decided to be a vegetarian (which is fine for you) for whatever reasons and then cites information that reinforces his decision. You don't need to do that, Mets. Just live your life as you see fit and give the same consideration to everyone else, to live their lives as they see fit.

And if the suffering of others elsewhere disturbs you, then do something about. No one is or should stop you. You can even argue to try and convince others to see your point of view. All that is fine, just don't get a bug up your butt if people roll their eyes at you and say "whatever dude" or just flat out disagree with you. Simply nod your head and go about your business.

And since you are a scientist, then you should be able to see that human beings are designed to consume a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. If we were designed to be strictly herbivores then our stomachs wouldn't produce HCL (which herbivores do not produce as there is no need) nor would the human pancreas produce such a wide range of enzymes designed to handle both plant and animal material. We do not have multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. We are clearly designed as omnivores and scientifically, there is no getting around that fact.

Imagine, Mets had you been born an Nunamiut, you wouldn't be a vegetarian that's for sure! Even if you wanted to, because of the inaccessibility of plant foods. Your diet would be 95% or more animal matter because that's all there would be to eat. So, should the Nunamiut get with the times and become vegetarians?
Hahahah!

[patches70]

WTF???

Nobody read the article?

The implications are none, those fucking scientists should be sent to work to Walmart for allowing their work to be used like that.

Of course plants can do that, and in fact they can do more complex things.. like .. you know.. growing, living.

This is so retarded. This finding, however important as it helps understand mechanism of plant life better, draws no moral implications whatsoever, or, better put, doesn't change anything.

To be honest, I didn't bother to read the article. A potato could scream bloody murder as I boil it but I'm still going to eat it when it's cooked. I don't really have a choice in the matter, which seems horribly unfair from the potato's (or cow's or anything else I eat for that matter) point of view, but alas, I gotta eat. I won't eat people though, unless it's a really, really bad situation. In those times all bets are off......
heh heh.

[Metsfanmax]

1. You failed again to address the fundamental problem with your ethical system (i.e. adjudication, inability to make interpersonal/inter"animal" comparisons of pleasure/pain, etc.). Without being able to do so, you still advocate for that approach. Obviously, it's not just logic guiding you.

I addressed that already in the other thread. We give rights to infants and the severely mentally disabled, even when these beings cannot consent to things or cannot express their opinion. Your response was quite literally confined to this:

Insert concepts of guardianship, ability to exchange, contract law, etc. Problem resolved.

Unless you're willing to do more than say "insert X, I win" to participate in an argument (infants cannot exchange things or engage in contracts, so it's hard to see how these things are relevant), I'm not really going to engage you.

2. One time Lootifer had a post about how this foreign group goes into a village and establishes a fish farm to feed them. Then BBS tells the foreigners that they forgot something important: they don't like fish. That's what's missing from your analysis ("pound-for-pound" and all that crap). It's not just a question of quantity, but of price and how people define profit and loss. You ignore individual tastes and preferences because obviously you just assume what's best for everyone. People in ivory towers do that, not me.

You are conflating two different groups of people here. People in developed nations may indeed have a preference for meat (more on this below, though). But these people already have plenty to eat. I am concerned with people living in absolute poverty in developed nations. Many hundreds of millions of these people are malnourished or simply go hungry. Instead of selling our food crops to developed nations, or even giving it away (we really ought to if there's no way to engage in markets with these people -- try living on $1.50 per day for even a week, and I hope you'll agree that the desire to have enough to eat every day is pretty universal), we waste most of it in raising of animals. More to the point, though, I'm not telling people they have to stop eating meat. What I am saying is that if they did stop eating meat, even at slight personal sacrifice*, there would be a lot more to go around. I want them to consider that when they decide how to construct their diet. If they believe that their personal tastes are more important than helping to address serious poverty, that is their choice in a free society. But they should at least be aware of the inefficiency of the system.

I am also cognizant of the fact that individual tastes and preferences are often constructed, not inherent. No one living in rural India grows up liking Big Macs or soda, because they don't have them. That "taste" developed in places like China not because these people grew up with a thirst for Coke, but because of an extensive marketing campaign by McDonald's, Coca-Cola, etc., and the desire to emulate the traditions of the more affluent Western cultures.

And go tell that "Westerner" living on less than $15,000 to pay higher prices for food, or tell him to shut up because people in a completely different environment have it worse. What a terrible argument. You may as well never complain about anything anyone does because "someone else has it worse." Ridiculous. You don't feel their pain, and you're hardly cognizant of it, which is why I say that such costs are externalized from you. If those costs were internalized, then you wouldn't be advocating such a ridiculous ethical system.

Actually, I am suggesting that Westerners should pay lower prices for food -- all other things being equal, eating a nutritious plant-based diet is significantly cheaper than eating a comparably nutritious omnivorous diet, just because of the lack of water and food waste.

I don't know why you're saying the costs are externalized. I may not be the actually hungry person, but it is painful to me to be aware that in 2013 there are hundreds of millions of people who just don't have enough food to eat and who live in absolute poverty. The cost of that is real to me in the money I donate to charity each year, to play my small part in addressing that problem. In large part, the way my adopted ethical system has changed me the most is in my understanding of how poor people live and what I want to do to help them.

*This is also not a serious problem anymore. Go to your local supermarket and you are bound to see all types of delicious meat substitutes. Look for products made by Gardein, Nasoya, Beyond Meat, etc. Try it, I promise it won't kill you

[Funkyterrance]

@ patches: Mets didn't say that scientists as a rule have a better understanding of ethics, he provided his stance on the topic in regard to his personal ethical system with explanation. Incidentally, the thread is speaking for itself as to which individuals have the better understanding.

Here's what mets actually wrote:

I didn't construct the ethical system to match my preconceived ethical beliefs; I'm a scientist, that's not what we do.

[DoomYoshi]

http://biowoo.voices.wooster.edu/eating-our-way-through-the-plant-kingdom/

[Haggis_McMutton]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

[john9blue]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

i don't see why not. but can they feel emotions like loneliness, despair, etc.? those are painful to some extent.