Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Neuroscience of Flora
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 10:45AM #21
mountain_man
Posts: 40,280

Jun 11, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Indeed.  I have no issues with eating meat, though I do not like to hear if animals were ruthlessly treated beforehand.  It's not like beating the crap out of a cow adds vitamins or anything.  Stressing animals causes buildup of chemicals that surely affect the meat.


No one here wants to see these animals mistreated.


I have no problem with the veggie crowd (not very fond of vegetables, myself, as I tend to eat a bland, bread-heavy diet ... can't help it), though I wish there would be more attention paid to the arbitrary nature of our diets.  Hummingbirds don't get the luxury of debating the ethics of drinking nectar.  That's all they got.  The fact we can have debates at all means our bodies can technically accept a wide range of foods.


Hummingbirds are insectivorous, they eat a wide variety of insects. Nectar, or sugar water in the feeders, is not their only food. They're just like us in that we can utilize several different sources of food. We are generalists, omnivores.


There is no one-size-fits-all diet.  Anyone who comes up and tells me I must absolutely change to this diet because they felt better after they did is an automatic logic black hole to me.  We all have needs.  While there are some general health things to think about, the fact remains that what I need is not necessarily the nutritional workup YOU need.


Everyone should choose what they want to eat, not let others dictate what they should eat.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:45PM #22
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

I, for one, don't want to see ANY Living Things "mistreated" -- including "Plants" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 11:38PM #23
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:38PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


A plant would rather not be eaten (at best, it creates fruit to distract from itself), so am I not murdering the potato when I mash it up and salt it and eat it?





Regarding potatoes, it's hard to say. They are basically carbohydrate starting points for new potato plants. They aren't root vegetables.


As for fruits, they are made to be eaten by animals, as a method of seed dispersal. Fruitarians would argue that fruits, nuts, and seeds are the only humane diet, and that also happens to be the only one deliberately designed by nature.


It's a good argument, but I can't seem to get past lacto-vegetarian and join them. Someday ....

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 11:44PM #24
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

My Family VERY much enjoys eating lots of Veggies, fresh Fruit, Salads ...


Jun 11, 2012 -- 11:38PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:38PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


A plant would rather not be eaten (at best, it creates fruit to distract from itself), so am I not murdering the potato when I mash it up and salt it and eat it?





Regarding potatoes, it's hard to say. They are basically carbohydrate starting points for new potato plants. They aren't root vegetables.


As for fruits, they are made to be eaten by animals, as a method of seed dispersal. Fruitarians would argue that fruits, nuts, and seeds are the only humane diet, and that also happens to be the only one deliberately designed by nature.


It's a good argument, but I can't seem to get past lacto-vegetarian and join them. Someday ....





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 1:21AM #25
solfeggio
Posts: 9,474

There is no reason to believe that plants have any sort of perceptual awareness.  And, it must follow then, that if plants, unlike humans and nonhuman animals, have no subjective awareness, they cannot want or desire anything.  Nor do plants have a central nervous system, so they cannot feel pain.


If it could be conclusively established that plants were able to suffer, we would be under an obligation to accord plant interests moral consideration.  It is true that plants react to stimuli, but that is to confuse a reaction or a reflex with a response.


In a world in which we kill 36 billion sentient beings a year for food, the idea that we should start thinking about moral considerations for plants is certainly troubling.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 4:26AM #26
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

From an ecological and an evolutionary point of view, the cauliflower and the chicken both are not aware of anything. The 'sentient being' argument is anthropocentric, assuming that our way of feeling is the ultimate arbiter on anything.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 9:43AM #27
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

Yes and No ...


The now increasingly well-understood Fact of our deep Evolutionary-Biological CONNECTION with ALL Living Things indicates that we are ALL more ALIKE than we previously thought ...


Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:26AM, CharikIeia wrote:


From an ecological and an evolutionary point of view, the cauliflower and the chicken both are not aware of anything. The 'sentient being' argument is anthropocentric, assuming that our way of feeling is the ultimate arbiter on anything.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:06AM #28
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:26AM, CharikIeia wrote:


From an ecological and an evolutionary point of view, the cauliflower and the chicken both are not aware of anything. The 'sentient being' argument is anthropocentric, assuming that our way of feeling is the ultimate arbiter on anything.





Sure, but that doesn't mean that plants don't have some form of awareness. They just might, and it would be very different from ours. But we could still call it awareness.


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:25AM #29
mountain_man
Posts: 40,280

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:21AM, solfeggio wrote:

There is no reason to believe that plants have any sort of perceptual awareness.....


Wait a minute.... many people do make that claim. They rely upon tests done by some scientist that hooked up some machines to them and found they reacted to threats and such.


Are you saying those people are wrong?



 

Moderated by Merope on Jun 26, 2012 - 04:22AM
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:59AM #30
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

To be ALIVE is to have SOME Degree of "Awareness" -- by DEFINITION ...


Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:06AM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:26AM, CharikIeia wrote:


From an ecological and an evolutionary point of view, the cauliflower and the chicken both are not aware of anything. The 'sentient being' argument is anthropocentric, assuming that our way of feeling is the ultimate arbiter on anything.





Sure, but that doesn't mean that plants don't have some form of awareness. They just might, and it would be very different from ours. But we could still call it awareness.


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook