Veganism/Vegetarianism

Post Reply New Topic

Interestingly, I think that this is exactly the same issue that I brought up recently in a thread called "Why do I have a perspective at all?".

It seems to me that the key issue is which things have perspectives. If something doesn't have a perspective, then there is nothing morally wrong with killing it. I think we agreed in that thread on some general ideas on what makes a physical system have a perspective. Things like "encodes itself", or "is self-rewriting". Absolutely none of these ideas apply to any part of a plant. So I'm going to eat a carrot now and not feel bad about it.

... you monster!

Well you need to eat to survive. If you don't eat it, a rabbit or bacteria will. I really don't know whether or not organisms that don't possess a nervous system have an awareness of some kind or not. I'd have to be a tree to know. I think its possible the whole universe is aware on some level, and that the central nervous system channels it and concentrates it. Concentrated pockets within a universally present awareness may be what creates the effect of perspective. The contrast between concentrated awareness (self/ego) and a background of unconcentrated awareness may be the basis of this effect. A plant might have more of an awareness than a rock but less of an awareness than an animal since its restricted to only a cellular form, where we have a neurological form layered a top a cellular form.

The plant does have a genetic system, which is a self rewriting or self encoding system, though not a neurological system. The only difference between us and a plant is we have specialized cells that communicate directly to each other through synapses. Other than that, there really isn't that much difference. Some of our memory may even be directly based in our neurons communicating directly to the genetic material in their own nuclei.

There's a phenomenon in which organ transplant recipients inherit the memories of their donors, which may be some evidence of consciousness that's non-local to the central nervous system. Its often very subconscious too. They'll have dreams about someone dying in a particular way or take on new eating habits, personality changes, only to later find out later that these peculiarities apply directly to the donor.

Last edited by JNathanK on 19 Feb 2012, 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

For some people a vegan/vegetarian diet is healthy, others not so much.

I can do about a week on a vegetarian diet, but my body requires a certain amount of carnitine to function properly. I see nothing wrong with a vegie diet if your physiology can handle it, but not everyone's is and to use a blanket statement like a vegetarian diet is more healthy than omnivorous diet is both incorrect and irresponsible.

We don't "know" what a tree feels in the sense that we wouldn't know firsthand, but what we do know from science is that pain is a signal that is processed by a central nervous system and it serves the function of avoiding danger. It's the reason paraplegics have no feeling in their legs. The underlying assumption behind biology is that structure dictates function. The structure of our legs dictate that they are used for transportation. The structure of our canine teeth dictate that they are meant for tearing meat. But the structure of a plant dictates that it can't run or hide, so what function would pain serve for plants? I don't think pain is a general condition of existence, but a function of survival. I'm not much of a holistic thinker myself, I see the trees for the forest.

We don't "know" what a tree feels in the sense that we wouldn't know firsthand, but what we do know from science is that pain is a signal that is processed by a central nervous system and it serves the function of avoiding danger. It's the reason paraplegics have no feeling in their legs. The underlying assumption behind biology is that structure dictates function. The structure of our legs dictate that they are used for transportation. The structure of our canine teeth dictate that they are meant for tearing meat. But the structure of a plant dictates that it can't run or hide, so what function would pain serve for plants? I don't think pain is a general condition of existence, but a function of survival. I'm not much of a holistic thinker myself, I see the trees for the forest.[/quote]

I think there's a downside to being a staunch holist, as well being a staunch reductionist. If you view things too much in terms of their particulates, you miss the overall picture, and if you view things too much as a whole, you miss the details. You have to look at the relationship between both aspects to get a good idea of what's really going on.

There is restless leg syndrome, though, in which a paraplegic gets uncomfortable sensations in their immobile legs.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/12/09/recent_studies_have_proven_pla.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php

There's even been a number of studies from serious academians that hint that plants may have some level of perception or sensitivity to its environment.

I don't really see why we need pain, though. The reaction to jerk back from an existential danger makes sense for survival but not so much the perception behind it. The reaction's necessary for an organism to survive but not so much the perceptual dissonance behind pain.

Last edited by JNathanK on 19 Feb 2012, 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That doesn't seem right to me. A scientist can only discover third-person facts about the world. How could a scientist uncover evidence that a system has a perspective? Unless you are claiming that "sensitivity to the environment" is the essential precondition to having a perspective. But if that's the case, then thermometers have perspectives!

The last part of this reminds me of the phrase, "you are what you eat". Before I became a vegetarian, I did notice I got a little meaner around vegetarians. I don't know why, but they tended to bring out the worst in me; however, this simply could have been coincidental or due to another explainable variable.

If you look at the third link, there's evidence of rudimentary nervous system structures and even neurotransmitters in plants. So, if cells, only in the neuron form, are the only source of conscious perception, it would be bad to assume that the pants that have neurological structures aren't perceptive on some level. I mean, its pretty much impossible to prove subjective experience through an objective model. However, the scientist studying these structures knows they have similar structures in their mind that gives them some sort of subjective awareness. So, it would only be right to consider that the plant may have some form of this too because of the brain like structures within it.

I'm gonna take the crazy route on that one. The expanding molecules in the thermometer may actually have some perception behind it. Its such a simple state for matter to be in, so there's not a whole lot of dissonance you can inflict on it. Since our brains are ultimately a concoction of very complex chemical reactions and changing states of matter, it would be wrong to assume with absolute certainty that chemical reactions elsewhere have no type of conscious phenomenon behind them.

lol

Well, maybe thermometers do have perspectives. It's not such a crazy opinion, since it is shared by at least one prominent philosopher of mind. But I tend to think that it's about more than just reaction to the environment. I think that it's more about recursion. What part of a plant knows about itself?

I've been vegan for over 10 years and my health is fine. As in, I get perfect results on blood level tests. The things that do affect me negatively are wheat (yeah I know it's trendy, but, the stuff screws me up) sugar, caffeine (I still eat both anyway).

I'm refraining from the pleasure of reading this thread, because I got over the appeal of the debate a long time ago. Just going to chime in to say that there's nothing natural about factory farming or the s**t that goes into factory farmed meat and dairy. If you lead an active lifestyle, non-GMO/grass fed/antibiotic/hormone free meat and dairy is totally a healthy part of a human diet. But good luck sticking to it exclusively.

Wow, that is quite interesting. Thanks for the links

I always thought that a nervous system and pain perception would be pointless for plants, because they can't move away to escape a threat. I never considered that many plants have defensive mechanisms against herbivore predators. It makes a lot of sense that those defenses are activated by a plant equivalent of nerves and pain receptors.

But it's even more surprising that plants communicate with each other. This is quite a paradigm shift I found two more articles on plant communication:
http://www.livescience.com/1909-plants- ... anger.html
http://goodnature.nathab.com/the-trees-are-talking/

So not only do trees feel pain, they also scream in response. We just can't hear their gaseous screams and warning cries. This shows how anthropocentric human empathy is. If something doesn't have a face and doesn't produce noises, we conclude that it can't feel anything. Anyway... what now, PETA? "Salad is murder"? "I'd rather go naked than wear cotton"?



If pulling your hand away from a hot stove was just an automatic reflex, you wouldn't learn anything from the experience. The unpleasantness of the sensation ensures that you will be more careful from now on. Continuous pain can also prevent infection of damaged tissue, since you will likely avoid touching things with a badly burned or otherwise injured hand.

This is especially important in case of broken bones. The severe pain ensures that you won't put weight on a broken leg and make things worse. And pain of the gastro-intestinal system will keep you from ingesting food, which gives damaged tissue time to heal. Pain is a very important and highly effective behavioral modificator.

To make things worse for vegans and vegetarians, salads and raw vegetables are still alive when we eat them. Unless plant tissue is cooked, it continues to respirate and function even after the roots have been removed, until it is completely withered. The plant might feel pain for the entire time. Carrots and salads in a grocery store might be screaming at us in agony.

Most carnivores have the decency to kill their prey before eating it, but herbivores chew their prey alive and kill it with their stomach acid. Isn't the latter more cruel?

*sigh*
The fact that something responds to the environment does not mean that the thing 'feels' the environment in any way. The fact that phermones are released does not mean two individual plants are even remotely 'conscious' of themselves, much less each other. If you stab a human corpse with a stake, there may be a whine of escaping gasses - that does not mean that you just killed a conscious vampire.

Think about it, people: we give robots to our children which can do all of these things, and more - and they're not conscious. They're just doing what they've been programmed to.

Also: cells are molecular machines. They are not conscious. They do not 'communicate' with the world around them, though they may respond to it and interact with other cells. They certainly do not 'communicate' with their own DNA, wich is nothing but a very large, very complex molecule. As for organ recipients 'inheriting' the memories of their donors: BS. I dare you to find me any substantiated case where a recipient knew anything about a donor which he or she could not have known or imagined through mundane means.

A corpse has no neural activity, but plants apparently do. Did you look at this link: http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/ ... roview.php ?



If plants have a nervous system that responds to nerve impulses, they feel something. I doubt that they are self-aware on the same level as a higher animal, but they are capable of feeling sensations.

The nervous system of annelids is also very primitive, but an earthworm will nonetheless twist and writhe when pierced with a fishhook, which shows that physical damage is extremely unpleasant even for very simple organisms.

You could just as well say an earthworm is simply reacting to its environment (as neurons are merely just a bunch of mechanistic cells) and not writhing in pain. If you were an extra-terrestrial who didn't know what it was like to be a human, you could just as easily make the assumption we make about plants and earth worms, towards humans. Consciousness isn't something that can really be proven or modeled rationally, as its based directly in one's own sensory experience.

I don't think free electrons are self aware, because they're not organized with enough complexity, but, even with them, I think there's some intrinsic property withing them that's conscious at some very fundamental level, whether they're organized through neurons or not.

Most people come to the conclusion of I'm human, I'm conscious, so therefore human's are conscious. I think that's too limited.

I take it to the extent of, I'm a storm of electrons being channeled through neural structures, so therefore electrons are conscious. That's not to say electrons necessarily feel pain, just that they're some sort of universal stage in which pain and emotion can manifest through if they're conducted through the right structures.