Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[Raeven]

Ut-oh.

The Intelligent Plant

[James2014]

Ut-oh.

The Intelligent Plant

You do realise there are 12 pages to the article? On the second page the author writes regarding the scientists working on plant signalling that...

"No one I spoke to in the loose, interdisciplinary group of scientists working on plant intelligence claims that plants have telekinetic powers or feel emotions." (emphasis added)

Now, lets look at one of the best pieces of evidence that the author presents. I would say this is the example of a Mimosa plant, which rapidly move their leaves in response to touch.

The experiment the author describes consists of dropping the mimosa 15cm, movement which causes the plant to retract its leaves. However, when one drops the plant a number of times it "learns" that it does not need to retract its leaves and so stops. This type of learning is in fact just habituation, and can be encoded by a simple long-term negative feedback mechanism leading to de-sensitisation. It in no way implies perception.

Associative learning is the real marker of the beginnings of intelligence. For that the plant would have to associate a neutral stimuli (say a smell or Light/dark) with a positive or negative reward. If the plant could then move its leaves to this neutral stimuli then one could say it had learned something and is not just de-sensitising. AND EVEN THEN, just because they can do that does not mean they have episodic memory and are able to integrate the what, where and when of experiences, which is a key marker of consciousness. The case in point would be Drosophila, which despite there ability to learn associatively they do not have episodic memory.

Anyway, the idea of plants being able to perceive pain is so nonsensical it even has it's own page debunking the idea in Skepdic.com

If you are going to post evidence in support of a theory, then you should really try to find primary evidence, or at the very least the opinion of an agreed authority.

[Raeven]

I just thought it was an interesting article. And I did read all 12 pages of it. I'm sorry if that's 10 more than you're prepared to read.

[KUSA]

Killing for biodiversity is certainly more justified than the murder of animals just to eat them, however the fact remains there are better ways to achieve this end. e.g. supporting the return of predators

I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!

[Anomalocaris]

I think we should feed jg2014 to a predator. It would solve all problems outlined in this thread.

[KUSA]

Since the predator is amoral it would be ok.

[Anomalocaris]

Since the predator is amoral it would be ok.

We can also follow JG2014's example, and forget the fundamental reason why can even be justified to impose a system of morality in the first place, and simply assert any morality for whatever reason that pleases us.

In this case, it pleases me to assert a morality that that allows me to entertain myself by watching JG2014 get eaten.

[Tripwire]

I am 16 and cannot afford a vegan diet, so I eat anything I can get as of now. When I turn 18 I hope to become one.

Hi Tripwire, That's great. My advice would be that when you do decide to become vegan that you should remember that a healthy vegan stays vegan. Just remember to eat enough calories (ie cook food with a healthy amount of olive oil for example), eat foods with fortified vitamins (like soya milk or breakfast cereals) and take a multivitamin (a cheap one from a supermarket is just as good as an expensive one). And of course plenty of fruit, vegetables, whole grains and beans

Eating vegan diet with lots of pre-prepared processed food can indeed be very expensive. Here are some ideas to eating vegan on a budget.

---

No, she said that your tactics draconian, and they are.

what tactics have I been using that are draconian?

Firstly, there's hunting pest species that require culling for the good of biodiversity - in Australia that'd be kangaroo. Although only a small portion of roo is fit for human consumption, the remainder can and is used in pet food, and the skin can be used for fur/leather products. In Canada it's seals. This culls are taken place for the good of biodiversity and not at all primarily as a food source for humans.


Killing for biodiversity is certainly more justified than the murder of animals just to eat them, however the fact remains there are better ways to achieve this end. e.g. supporting the return of predators, reducing the rate reproduction in those animals

Next we have farming, now I've argued already with you that wool is an absolutely essential product. And let's not pretend that it's not economically important too - meat and animal products like wool and other animal hairs etc are a very significant portion of our exports. But back on track we have products that are dependant on wool. Let me ask you - are your car seats wool? Did you - an ethical vegan - remove the wool and replace it with uncomfortable Vinyl??

No, I don't own a car. But if I did yes a synthetic fibre like vinyl would be fine.


[quote]Dairy is one of the most important things that we have. Especially if you are in a situation where you may not be able to eat meat.

I drink low-fat milk. Yes I enjoy full-cream milk, but I very rarely indulge. I almost always use low fat cheese on anything. As I mentioned in my diet thread, I've switched to unadulterated black coffee now, which I'm loving.

You've had your opportunity to produce evidence against dairy - and you've failed. Health professionals say dairy is very healthy, you and your vegan pals say it isn't. But your claims are frivolous and can't be backed up by contemporary medical wisdom - or by science.

One of the interesting things that strikes me in this thread is your use of outdated and bad information - this I know is used for other things like batty hens, etc, where videos recorded in the 80's in far off countries are attempted to be passed off as representative of the culture I live in - but you're doing the same thing with your claims of science.

Some of the benefits you claim of vegetarianism are long since disproved and forgotten, but you cling on to them unable/unwilling to look at objective evidence.

I have already provided evidence that a vegan diet is healthier than vegetarianism. They are both however significantly healthier than an omnivorous diet. Eating lots of dairy instead of meat is certainly going to improve health, however veganism is healthier still.



Now, as I said before, let alone all the evidence I have quoted, why would the why would the biggest professional body of nutritionists (the American Dietetic Association, although now called the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) in the US, and indeed the world, agree that a vegan and vegetarian diet is healthy and protective against a number of diseases? The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is not just a few crazies, they are recognized by the United States Department of Education as the only professional body that can accredit professional dietetic education programs! Are they all lying too? If all the evidence I, and they, have quoted is outdated, then provide some links to this updated evidence.

Thank you!

[bennyboy]

I just thought it was an interesting article. And I did read all 12 pages of it. I'm sorry if that's 10 more than you're prepared to read.

You didn't link it because you "just thought it was an interesting article," unless you got lost and ended up here by accident. I'm assuming you are arguing that since plants can also feel, vegetarians are hypocritical in refusing to participate in the suffering of animals. If so, you might want to provide a quoted section FROM the link, which you feel supports that position.

---

Killing for biodiversity is certainly more justified than the murder of animals just to eat them, however the fact remains there are better ways to achieve this end. e.g. supporting the return of predators

I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!

I have a few things to say about this. First of all, hunting by all other animals is part of the evolutionary process of the prey as well as the hunters. Second, the way in which that hunting is done has a tendency (usually) to arrive at some kind of equilibrium in an ecosystem. Humans, having learned how to manipulate the evolution of livestock, have completely nerfed them, to the point that they are no longer viable organisms. Also, where there are very bad imbalances in natural ecosystems, this is very often due to a human presence: killing of predators like wolves and foxes, or destroying habitat.

I'm not actually against hunting, in particular of species that have overrun ecosystems (like deer in the States). Eventually, all imbalances bring suffering-- through starvation, or through the destruction of foliage to the point that OTHER species lose their respective habitats. If so, reducing pests, even if they suffer when they are shot, can arguably reduce the overall suffering, even of the pest species, by ensuring that their ecosystems recover and survive.

But genetically-altered livestock, held in unnatural and unpleasant conditions, and killed to feed people who are overeating just for pleasure, is disrespectful both to the individual animals and to the millions of years of struggle that led to the species' evolution. We are deliberately CREATING a resource-wasting overpopulation of livestock-- which is especially retarded given the millions of pest animals (like deer) who are destroying many parts of the world. Just because there is suffering in the world, and some justified or even necessary, doesn't mean we should raise (and inflict suffering on) millions of cattle to overfeed millions of 300-lb fatasses. There's nothing natural or right about the current state of things. I wouldn't say that eating meat is necessarily immoral, but I would suggest that eating at McDonald's, or any restaurant which purchases meat from these mass-production facilities, IS immoral.

[KUSA]

I just thought it was an interesting article. And I did read all 12 pages of it. I'm sorry if that's 10 more than you're prepared to read.

You didn't link it because you "just thought it was an interesting article," unless you got lost and ended up here by accident. I'm assuming you are arguing that since plants can also feel, vegetarians are hypocritical in refusing to participate in the suffering of animals. If so, you might want to provide a quoted section FROM the link, which you feel supports that position.

---

I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!

I have a few things to say about this. First of all, hunting by all other animals is part of the evolutionary process of the prey as well as the hunters. Second, the way in which that hunting is done has a tendency (usually) to arrive at some kind of equilibrium in an ecosystem. Humans, having learned how to manipulate the evolution of livestock, have completely nerfed them, to the point that they are no longer viable organisms. Also, where there are very bad imbalances in natural ecosystems, this is very often due to a human presence: killing of predators like wolves and foxes, or destroying habitat.

I'm not actually against hunting, in particular of species that have overrun ecosystems (like deer in the States). Eventually, all imbalances bring suffering-- through starvation, or through the destruction of foliage to the point that OTHER species lose their respective habitats. If so, reducing pests, even if they suffer when they are shot, can arguably reduce the overall suffering, even of the pest species, by ensuring that their ecosystems recover and survive.

But genetically-altered livestock, held in unnatural and unpleasant conditions, and killed to feed people who are overeating just for pleasure, is disrespectful both to the individual animals and to the millions of years of struggle that led to the species' evolution. We are deliberately CREATING a resource-wasting overpopulation of livestock-- which is especially retarded given the millions of pest animals (like deer) who are destroying many parts of the world. Just because there is suffering in the world, and some justified or even necessary, doesn't mean we should raise (and inflict suffering on) millions of cattle to overfeed millions of 300-lb fatasses. There's nothing natural or right about the current state of things. I wouldn't say that eating meat is necessarily immoral, but I would suggest that eating at McDonald's, or any restaurant which purchases meat from these mass-production facilities, IS immoral.

So what we are doing is (gulp) unnatural? Dang I hate it when I do something unnatural.
Thank you for pointing this out with your appeal to nature.