You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think its only a matter of time before science proves all living things are interconnected, just like Avatar. I have read various articles which claim sweetcorn plants produce subterranean sounds with their roots, like a click or pop. The function of this is as yet unknown, it is also unknown whether it is purely a side effect of physical processes or intentional, but the young plants definitely exhibit a tendency to grow towards a sound source in the same frequency as the sounds they produce.
So, with that in mind, how would people on here feel if the only real benefit vegetarianism has , ie the fact you are claiming a non sentient life as food over a sentient firm, was negated. If the only factor it came down to was ugly cabbage versus cute lamb?
just like Avatar
They didn't have a problem with sentient creatures eating sentient creatures in avatar
Really OP?
I have read various articles which claim sweetcorn plants produce subterranean sounds with their roots, like a click or pop
Sounds fascinating, any info?
Everything as the playing field has been levelled.
Its been a theory for many years and there is some evidence that plants do communicate. sentience is a reach tho for sure.
What level of sentience are we talking here? Dog level, or more like an ant?
Synthetic food obvs. It already exists, we feed it to babies.
However, plants communicating isn't an indication that they are highly intelligent and sentient and have been discussing philosophy and art all this time. I'm pretty sure bacteria do stuff like this too.
Do we just start eating People from Peterborough? They are BARELY sentient...
I can prove that plants are sentient; the word you're looking for is sapient.
What do I win?
I’m no expert in the matter, but aren’t a lot of vegetarians, vegetarian for reasons other than not hurting baby lambs? An objection to intensive farming, and the damage that does to the planet, for one thing. Personal health reasons being another.
Can someone explain what is wrong with eating sentient, sapient, smart, dumb, LBGTQx or any other kind of being please
sweetcorn plants produce subterranean sounds with their roots, like a click or pop
It's well know that sweetcorn speak Xhosa 🙂
Can someone explain what is wrong with eating sentient, sapient, smart, dumb, LBGTQx or any other kind of being please
Soylent Green
Well think about this:
Plants know when the seasons are changing, take the trees around me for example, as soon as high summer passed they were starting to show signs of leaves withering, and not just due to dehydration like in the Teak forests. They were sensing that autumn was upon us, yet temperatures were still hovering around the 15 to 20c mark, higher than most springtime temps. So they are definitely sentient, yet have no eyes to monitor light levels. Remember, once the leaves fall, they know when to rise the sap again, so its not leaves sensing the light either.
Yes you can quote auxins and giberellins,etc but the fact is the plants are only reacting to these compounds which are self produced, how do they know when and why? Theres a lot going on here under the surface. When I last did any formal education in these matters , we knew all about how but not why, id be interested to know if anything has changed in tge last 12 years or so.
Can someone explain what is wrong with eating sentient, sapient, smart, dumb, LBGTQx or any other kind of being please
There is an issue here. The perfect counter argument exists.
Bacon.
And i never said they did, I said they were interconnected like Avatar.
Yes sentient might not be the right word then. Plants are definitely sentient. Ever heard of tge experiments where they connected a polygraph or similar to a houseplant and boiled various things, some inanimate some inanimate, only to see supposed spikes when lifeforms were boiled? I suppose im talking about awareness of being connected to the living web then.
Well think about this:
I’m pretty sure junior school science lessons have you covered for explanations there.
Educate me then, Mr.Howard.
Anyeay, the point im making is, IF it were to happen, would we be morally obliged to process food from its source nutrients without a living intermediate, or would it, as Drac suggests, level the playing field, meaning all life is equal and therefore fair game with nothing to choose between it other than aesthetics.
Also, would the artificial propogation of plants via cuttings, grafting,etc, be ethical? We villify anyone who does it to animals. Witness the reaction to the dog head transplant experiments by Vladimir Demokhov.
I'd carry on as per normal.
As the OP says, everything is linked, but perhaps not in the same way they're thinking. Every action we take, or don't take affects everything else.
Some people don't like to eat animals, or find it distasteful or even disgusting. I don't share that opinion but I respect it. Some people are okay eating some animals, but not others and some people are okay with animals dying and suffering to provide them with food, but only if they don't actually eat them - and I respect their opinions too.
Everyone has their own opinion / threshold for what they think is right when it comes to the death of other beings for them to survive.
A Vegan will generally want to avoid anything that's caused an animal to suffer or die for them. I would imagine leading a strict vegan lifestyle can be very limiting sometimes and it's a real sacrifice (they certain don't suffer in silence - that's a joke). Most Vegans would find having a 5 month old Lamb brought into an slaughterhouse, shot in the head with a bolt and having it's throat cut just so people can eat it disgusting, but many will drive. 160 billion insects and assorted 'bugs' are killed every year by moving cars in the Netherlands alone.
A vegetarian would usually choose not to eat chicken, but many will still eat eggs. The egg industry doesn't raise male chickens, they're gassed or fed live into macerators live, and that's seen as humane.
Don't click this unless you want to see what that looks like.
https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=9ff4223a9f
Meat eaters like me, are happy, or at least happy to remain ignorant about the reality of meat we buy, and it doesn't really matter if you're buying from the local organic farm shop or ASDA, in order for it to reach you, someone took a young, fit healthy animal, killed it and chopped it up. But meat eaters can be utterly enraged by by the idea of someone eating a dog, or a horse, or a whale or a Dolphin, or hunting a deer.
Even if everyone in the world became a Vegan, it wouldn't mean the end of the death of animals for us to survive Trillions upon trillions of insects killed by pesticides to ensure intensive farming can exist to feed a global population that's many multiples too large to sustain through foraging alone. Be they 'organic' pesticides or otherwise.
When it comes to possibly sentient plants, how do we, as individuals decide on what's more sentient, a virus, our immune systems kill 100m viruses a day each. A plant? How many humans would we let starve to save the lives of wheat? An insect? If we don't don't kill trillions of them every year, then Humans starve and so do the plants. Domestic animals we eat, like Cows, Sheep and Pigs? Are they more worthy of being allowed to live than Viruses and Insects because they're bigger? Cuter? More intelligent? Other animals that we consider pets in the west and wild animals? Why do we consider Dogs to be sacred because we consider them pets, but cows which are just as intelligent can be lead to slaughter in their millions every year?
whats left to eat?
Animal waste product?
We have a long, long way to go before that becomes an issue.
Quite frankly I'm appalled that I hear much more talk of giving artificial intelligence rights, or at least crediting it with consciousness, when we can barely do that for a chimpanzee. Machines should be way, way down the pecking order.
Bacon.
The only know cure for vegetarianism. Scientific fact.
Also, would the artificial propogation of plants via cuttings, grafting,etc, be ethical? We villify anyone who does it to animals. Witness the reaction to the dog head transplant experiments by Vladimir Demokhov.
He who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain.
Synthetic food obvs. It already exists, we feed it to babies.
Where do the materials used to manufacture synthetic food come from?
They were sensing that autumn was upon us, yet temperatures were still hovering around the 15 to 20c mark, higher than most springtime temps. So they are definitely sentient
That's not what sentient really means in this context.
Plants are responding to sunlight creating a chemical reaction in their leaves or other exposed parts, or temperature changes. It doesn't mean they are intelligent. I mean, let me ask another question: if I have a cup of vinegar, and I put a teaspoon of baking soda in it, it froths up. But how does it KNOW to froth up at the exact moment I put the baking soda in? Answer - it doesn't, it just happens. Same with plants - the sunlight hitting the leaves or temperatures being over a certain threshold for a long enough period triggers chemical processes that make the plant grow.
Here's another question for you. Let's say I write a computer program that starts up and says 'Hello, my name is George. Please be careful, my Enter key is very sore'. Then I program it so that when you press Enter it prints out 'Ow!'. Is my computer feeling pain? Think about what pain actually is, in a human. It's not a straightforward question.
Where do the materials used to manufacture synthetic food come from?
Asda?
Also, consider what happens down here in Cardiff in the mild South-West of Britain. Plants start coming up early after or during a mild winter, and then there's a frost or some really shitty weather and they get damaged. They didn't know it was actually still February, they thought it was April and time to come up. Why? Because it was warm. They really aren't smart.
Venus Fly Trap must have sensors or awareness
how do they know when and why?
I don't think that plants can know in the sense you're talking about. Chemical changes and heat and sunlight can cause reactions to cells, but that's not the same. Plus of course, animals are sentient, and folks still eat them, which somewhat undermines your argument, no?
But meat eaters can be utterly enraged by by the idea of someone eating a dog, or a horse, or a whale or a Dolphin, or hunting a deer.
As a lifelong vegetarian I never really understood this. What we - well, you lot - eat is broadly cultural. In the UK we see venison (meat taken from animals often considered pests) as something of a luxury but would be appalled at a bowl of horse curry. Why? Different cultures have different standards for what is "normal," some of them eat all manner of weird shit. China has an annual dog meat festival.
There is an issue here. The perfect counter argument exists.
Bacon.
Somewhere in the grim North, Cougar's 'bacon joke' trigger has just been activated and he's rushing to the nearest internet cafe as we speak.
Edit: now I just look silly.
As a lifelong carnivore I never understood it either. To sweep a generalisation - if you're willing to eat a dead thing, you should be willing to eat any deaf thing, and any part of any dead thing
Venus Fly Trap must have sensors or awareness
Sensors yes, but awareness? They're about as aware as George the computer programme I just mentioned, or a ring doorbell. When we receive a sensory input, as humans, that input sometimes goes through a whole load of processing and evaluation, and can trigger a load of emotions subject to the context on a minute level. When you press George's enter key, it just prints out 'ow'. That's all there is to it. When you touch a Venus fly trap's sensor hairs, it releases a chemical that causes cells to expand along the hinge and it shuts. It's not making a decision.
if you’re willing to eat a dead thing, you should be willing to eat any deaf thing, and any part of any dead thing
Helen Keller?
johnnymarone
Free Member
Educate me then, Mr.Howard.
Quantum mechanics has you covered here - The theory is that quantum resonance changes fractionally as a result of the earths changing position/axial tilt WRT to the sun. Thus plants (and migratory animals) react to this change at a quantum level. Animals move position around the globe until the resonance equilibrium is satisfied, plants (and non-migratory animals) hibernate, etc until the resonance returns.
So, with that in mind, how would people on here feel if the only real benefit vegetarianism has , ie the fact you are claiming a non sentient life as food over a sentient firm, was negated
That's not the only benefit to not eating the flesh of dead things. Y'know?
Somewhere in the grim North, Cougar’s ‘bacon joke’ trigger has just been activated and he’s rushing to the nearest internet cafe as we speak.
Edit: now I just look silly.
I thing I've grown as a person.
I understand temperature thresholds, cold dormancy, etc, but the phenomenon of oak trees exuding chemical warnings to surrounding oaks whilst under caterpillar attack suggests some type of community . There is nothing in it for the attacked tree.
suggests some type of community . There is nothing in it for the attacked tree.
It doesn't. It could just suggests some cells in oaks react to other chemicals produced by caterpillars, and that could happen without any need for any sort of control or understanding.
Plants have tropisms which give the reactions to light, gravity etc,.
They are not sentient as in "A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind - sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell."
There is nothing in it for the attacked tree.
There is no benefit to reproduction for an individual tree / animal either.
would we be morally obliged to process food from its source nutrients without a living intermediate
Less of the 'we' please. Some of us happily eat animals regardless of their proven sentience. It's the vegetarians who will have a new dilemna.
As a lifelong vegetarian I never really understood this. What we – well, you lot – eat is broadly cultural.
this point has always puzzled me as well
for example a pig is a highly intelligent social animal probably near to a dog in terms of intelligence. there is no moral difference between eating pig and eating dog - its purely cultural.
I can prove that plants are sentient; the word you’re looking for is sapient.
How 'sage' of you 😊
A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell.”
Whats the difference between animals and plants using that one? Plants react to light adn to different chemicals in the air and soil. Humans tasting / smelling things is just reacting to compounds in air or water etc
But the tree is already being attacked , it has gained nothing in this act, its still getting eaten. It appears to me to be a completely altruistic act.The messenger chemical and defence chemical are two different compounds,theres no need to produce a messenger unless its for the benefit of others.
Now then, oaks grow as lone trees in fields, etc, because theyre planted that way. Most trees grow in groves or woods of the same species. I wonder if anyone has genetically tested these groves to see if, as I suspect, these groves are all related to eaxh other. Are we seeing some version of family sticking together?
And where are the light sensing organs on a tree then? Dont forget they sense all these environmental changes with no discernable organs as far as I know, even in winter when the leaves fall.
It appears to me to be a completely altruistic <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">act.</span>
The important word in that sentence is "appears" . The chemicals signal that a tree emits causes another chemical change in nearby oaks to produce other chemicals that caterpillars find distasteful. Oaks have been around for over 50 million years, they've had some chance to evolve defenses.
as I suspect, these groves are all related to eaxh other.
Yes, some plants that appear as individual structures are in fact the same plant, off the top of my head, some species of Ash (Pando) are like this, and they can become some of the largest living "things".
And where are the light sensing organs on a tree then?
Phytochromes in their leaves. If you're very bored (and you must be to have got to this) here are these things called books...
Salt. We will always have salt. And sunny delight.
Yes I am bored, day 4 of 10 day isolation,and what about when the leaves fall off then?
Plants know when the seasons are changing,
You're using the word 'know' quite wrongly.
Phytochromes in their leaves. If you’re very bored (and you must be to have got to this) here are these things called books…
Which have also got leaves. Makes you think.
Is it healthy not to eat meat?
https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/micronutrients-and-mental-health
Do plant monocrops kill more creatures than regenerative (animal) farming?
https://www.ourpaleolife.com/fake-meat/
What are rodenticides and pesticides used for on arable farms?
https://www.gov.scot/publications/pesticide-usage-scotland-rodenticides-arable-farms-2018/
https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/crop-management/pests
And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree? The only beneficiary in this instance is any tree in the area which detects the signal before it is attacked, so it gets a heads up and starts to produce bitter tannins before it gets defoliated?
And why develop a sensory system to detect the messenger signal, and what it is it? Yes I know leaves have pores, etc, could it be these? Seems a very elaborate system to the tree to just happen to produce a secondary messenger chemical, which all the local oaks just happen to be able to detect, which just happens to produce bitter tannin. Why would this evolve except to ensure the mutual protection of a species ' individuals.
The same can be witnessed in Walnuts, iirc, with juglone in their roots.
Less of the ‘we’ please. Some of us happily eat animals regardless of their proven sentience.
"Please don't make rash generalisations"
It’s the vegetarians who will have a new dilemna.
*makes a rash generalisation*
I think we are getting too far engrosed with trying to explain the regulatory systems of plants here, I can read up on all that. What I wanted to get at is:
Plants are way more complicated than we first thought. There are many many more points we could explore here, such as poison production in plants and poison sensitivity in their predators, the production of unique chemicals which serve zero known purpose in plants yet which are highly active in animals.
What if, in time, we definitely prove that they can feel our existence and process that information but just cant act on it due to the way their morphology is. Animals can scurry away or whatever, most plant movement is measured in hours or seasons, not seconds (yeah, mimosa, fly traps,etc).
Would anybody feel any less inclined to eat them knowing this? Im not thinking of carnivores here, Im looking more at the veggie/ vegan crew.
Im looking more at the veggie/ vegan crew.
To sum up. Even though plants aren't sentient in the way that animals are, and "science" is unlikely to prove that they are any time soon, and omnivores are content to eat animals that have been actually proven to be sentient...You want to know what vegetarians would do differently?
Seems on the face of it, to be applying different standards, no?
Look up the ‘Gish Gallop’?
In short:
For the first link you gave, here’s a (pig farmer’s) pretty savage debunking of your keto-fanatic source:
Have fun cross-referencing and fact-checking the rest of your ‘claims’. If you have enough time! As a bonus, discuss how animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world's total grain production (In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock) and factor that into your ‘kill creatures’. Also be sure to factor in animal farming’s contribution to pollution and and climate change and deforestation (and the current /resultant anthropogenic species-extinction event). How many creatures killed? Bring the data, your thoughts and some good faith discussion to the table and I’ll be happy to give it more time 👍🏼
It appears to me to be a completely altruistic act.
What you're doing there is anthropomorphising the trees. And also being highly unscientific.
And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree?
You're thinking about this wrongly. This system wasn't designed and implemented by a specific tree. It's evolved in all oak trees, purely because a species of tree that does this has a better chance of prospering because the caterpillar infestation doesn't spread. It was a random mutation in some plant at some point in history, and that plant as a species fared better so the mutation spread.
This is like trying to explain to someone why picking consecutive lottery numbers isn't any less likely to win than spread out numbers.
@nickc
Yes I am. It does say 'if' in the title, yes? I supppose I'm getting at would they then revaluate their choices, given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred. Omnivores and carnivores, by definition , obviously couldnt give a **** as it is, why would their viewpoint change?
I thought that was pretty clear, myself.
This is like trying to explain to someone why picking consecutive lottery numbers isn’t any less likely to win than spread out numbers.
Which has actually happened. 23/jan/2016 UK national lotto main draw up came the numbers 8,9,10 and 11.
As to the thread
Thousands of living things eat thousands of other living things. End of story.
Lottery numbers? Eh? Explain that analogy to me, im afraid Im a bit thick.
To have a tree suddenly evolve a n emitter system at the same time and the same place as a tree which evolved a detector system, in the same general time frame (be no good if the detector tree was dead before the emitter tree, too far away for it to be effectual, etc) seems more than sheer luck to me, unless the emitter and detector are two sides of the same coin and linked, ie the ability to emit is tied directly to the ability to derect as they are the same 'organ' so to speak.
However, you still need two trees, an emitter and a detector to make any use of this. It would be like only having one telephone.
Anyway, like I said, im not getting at specific mechanisms, I was asking if people who ,in their eyes , had chosen the more ethical route towards their diet could a) concile themselves with there being no difference between eating plants and animals and b) how far would they go to get nutrition ,in line with their "non-kill" ethics.
Lets try that instead, is it.
Fruitarian as long as you shit in the woods.
Don’t worry they will have their revenge…
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/bYD3VnmK/EA232-FED-A6-EF-49-B1-BF24-650-D8-D61240-A.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/bYD3VnmK/EA232-FED-A6-EF-49-B1-BF24-650-D8-D61240-A.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
,in line with their “non-kill” ethics.
not all vegetarians have non-kill ethics though. You're making sweeping generalisations.
Yes I am. I would still like to hear from veggie/vegans or all those pro-kill vegetarians rather than argue minutiae though.
Yes I am. It does say ‘if’ in the title, yes? I supppose I’m getting at would they then revaluate their choices, given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred.
1) Your entire premise from the outset is wildly hypothetical. It has no more bearing on reality than the cow in Douglas Adams' Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that wants to be eaten. As a thought experiment it's interesting, but if you're labouring "yes but what if plants can think?" then you need to do some reading.
2) Who is "they"?
To have a tree suddenly evolve
Nothing "suddenly" evolves, that's not how evolution works. Small changes take millennia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution
"For example, he found that tooth length during the evolution of the horse changed at an average rate of about... 4% per million years"
Trees are like half a billion years old.
And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree? The only beneficiary in this instance is any tree in the area which detects the signal before it is attacked,
The oak trees near an oak tree are likely related.
worth bearing in mind that there isnt actually an "us" we are a meatsack with some pumpy bits to act as eco system for all the bacteria that live on us, in us etc...
on an average human 2-6lbs of us is bacteria and there are aproximately 30 trillian cells in human, there are approximately 40 trillion bacterial cells in a human,
so, really we should fuel our bacterial lords and masters with whatever keeps their ecosystem going, luckily mine seem to like pie and beer
given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred. Omnivores and carnivores, by definition , obviously couldnt give a **** as it is, why would their viewpoint change?
I thought that was pretty clear, myself.
1. We’re all omnivores by definition (if or not by choice/necessity)
2. This omnivore absolutely gives a few asterisks about what I eat and from where it is sourced
3. Even veganism is (by definition) not a zero-sum philosophy
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.
*my bold
4. Vegetarians are not really a ‘crew’, and have many different personal reasons for not eating meat.
5. Isn’t your post just a poorly-thought-out ‘gotcha’ question, Quixotic in intent and execution? Who exactly are your windmills targets? 😉
I would still like to hear from veggie/vegans
Hiya. What would you like to know?
or all those pro-kill vegetarians
You do realise, don't you, that this is not the only alternative to what nick said? That all the people who are vegetarian for reasons other than solely for animal welfare concerns aren't instead rampaging through the countryside with assault rifles?
Surely all that would be left to eat would be scientists?
never mind your plants clicking, some scream when damaged
https://www.livescience.com/plants-squeal-when-stressed.html
@cougar yes it , like I said Im bored. If anyone wants to remove themselves from a conversation please do so. None of us here, as far as I know are Nobel Prize winning biologists ,and Ive never pretended to be. Wer'e just grown people killing time on a bike riding forum. Nothing about it is serious.
To have a tree suddenly evolve a n emitter system at the same time and the same place as a tree which evolved a detector system
As said it doesn't happen suddenly, it takes hundreds of millions of years. And if some mutation happens in one tree that is beneficial, that tree itself lives for many hundreds of years during which time it produces millions of acorns and potentially thousands of saplings, mostly nearby. So it's not at all difficult to imagine this happening by natural selection.
I know it wasn't your original.point but if you are going to think about this stuff you might as well do it right 🙂
Re the original question; it would take a long time for people to accept such a hypothesis. Two possibilities occur to me:
1. By the time this is discovered we're all eating synthetic food anyway.
2. Veggies adopt the same post rationalisation strategy that meat eaters do and come up with reasons why it's ok anyway and plant feelings don't really count.
It has no more bearing on reality than the cow in Douglas Adams’ Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that wants to be eaten.
on an average human 2-6lbs of us is bacteria and there are approximately 30 trillian cells in human, there are approximately 40 trillion bacterial cells in a human,
Trillian ?. She was in the hitch hikers guide to. So many DA references on here 😀
I'm an omnivore and have the teeth and guts to prove it.
If plants are sentient, I'll continue to eat them too as part of a balanced diet.
Nom nom nom!