• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Emotions? Sure.

    Like us?

    I dunno. Does irate fury at being woken up mid nap count as “like us”?

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Silly vegoon, only the cute animals I didn’t want to eat have feelings. The others are unfeeling slabs of meat that is magically created by wholesome farmers being folksy.

      • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        As a new parent the agriculture propaganda from the very start is crazy! Look at this happy farmer and his cute pig its so happy in its mudpit, what a wholesome picture!

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          ya, my sister is raising kids atm and she’s had to hunt for books that don’t associate farming with cuddly-happy—funtimes

          • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Its tough finding good media, almost anything pre 2000 is out because of some sort of bigotry and even after that it gets iffy sometimes, and if you filter for copaganda, zoo propaganda, agri propaganda and corporate propaganda there is not a lot left…

      • iusearchbtw@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Weird how every time veganism comes up everyone is suddenly deathly allergic to anything that doesn’t scream when it dies

        • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Stuff from milk, mushrooms and eggs don’t scream, so do a lot of salads and olive oil, even rice is silent.

          And don’t start with those industrial cows that only get to live because of the milk. That stuff tastes like shit. Same with those chickens in cages.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Vegans complaining about other people needlessly injecting themselves into conversations is peak copium.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Plants scream when they die, we just don’t notice it. They release all sorts of pheromone type chemicals that warn other plants that there is danger. That’s definitely a scream.

          I’m not saying eating meat is better, I’m just saying that seemingly the only truly ethical things to eat are raw minerals, and I don’t believe that’s possible, other than salt. Salt seems to be the only tasty rock.

          • iusearchbtw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Graphics cards totally scream when they die too, the smell warns their symbiotic sysadmins to turn off the power

            And don’t even get me started on how chalkboards scream when you scratch them, why do vegans not talk about this cruelty

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t eat meat, but the more we learn about plant intelligence, the less I can say with confidence that plants do not have their equivalents of things like pain and emotion. It doesn’t help that we have great difficulty defining what emotion means.

      But we know a lot about plants now that we thought were animal things. Grass “panics” or “screams” by sending out chemical signals when you cut it as a warning to others of its species that they are seriously injured and danger is coming. That’s what the smell of fresh-cut grass is. Sure, calling it a panic or a scream is anthropomorphizing it, but it’s kind of hard to describe it in other terms.

      We also have learned about “mother trees,” which will send resources to their offspring if the offspring let the mother tree know they are in desperate need of them. Which sounds very much like parenting in animal species. There’s also lots of evidence that plants can learn from experiences and retain some sort of memory of them in some capacity.

      Do I think plants have the same sort of sentience as animals and will I stop eating broccoli? Of course not. But I will still have to admit that at the end of the day, I might just be choosing to cause a different kingdom of life pain and suffering because it’s far enough away from my species that I don’t consider that to be pain and suffering.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Fallacy

          A (potentially) thinking or feeling plant has to be killed in order to eat it just like an animal has to be killed, and there’s no difference between the two.

          Did you not read what I wrote? I made it very clear that there were a lot of differences.

          And the fun part is that you’re the second person to tell me that I was trying to justify eating meat when, again, the first four words of my post are “I don’t eat meat.” I couldn’t have been more clear on that point.

          • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            no dude its about the resources, like you claim that plants can feel pain or something stupid like that, read up on it.

            Also

            But I will still have to admit that at the end of the day, I might just be choosing to cause a different kingdom of life pain and suffering because it’s far enough away from my species that I don’t consider that to be pain and suffering.

            sure sounds like think the “pain and suffering” of the two “kingdoms of life” might be equal.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I wasn’t trying to make up any sort of debate. You are the one trying to debate here. And you’re not doing it very well either.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If you’re eating meat, then you’re contributing to the death of all of those plants that had to feed the animals you’re eating. Even if you grant plants sentience, veganism is still the more ethical option.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          if you grant plants sentience, veganism is still the more ethical option.

          … for ethical systems in which sentience is a consideration.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Is “more ethical” really enough if you accept that plants can suffer? You’re still essentially saying one group of living things’ suffering is acceptable to you. Isn’t that like saying the holocaust of the Jews was bad, but the holocaust of the Roma at the same time was fine because there were fewer Roma than Jews? Does “less” matter when we’re talking quantities so massive?

          I don’t think there are easy answers to any of these questions. Not if you want to approach them from an honest philosophical level.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Is “more ethical” really enough if you accept that plants can suffer

            I don’t accept that, but even if I did, you should still act to minimize suffering as much as possible.

            Do you really believe that killing a plant is the same as killing an animal?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I literally wrote this:

              Do I think plants have the same sort of sentience as animals and will I stop eating broccoli? Of course not.

              I guess you didn’t actually read my entire post before you responded.

              • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Honestly it just seems like you’re trying to contort yourself into a knot that allows you to eat meat without feeling bad?

          • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            If our ability to modify ourselves reaches sci fi levels, allowing us to photosynthesize and fix amino acids from nitrogen in the atmosphere (or if there’s any hope of making that happen), then that likely will be the new vegan position.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you’re eating meat, then you’re contributing to the death of all of those plants that had to feed the animals you’re eating

          impossible. an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            “Yes, your honor, he did kill my wife and I did give him money. However, I gave him the money afterwards, and effects cannot occur before causes, so there’s no possible connection.”

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              surely you can see that there are going to need be more evidence. some kind of communication prior to the fact is probably going to need to be established.

              • flerp@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s called supply and demand. They know there is a demand for meat so they grow animals and feed those animals plants. Continuing to eat meat supports a system that consumes more plants than a system where humans only eat plants. You shouldn’t need your hand held for this, it’s pretty basic stuff.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  You shouldn’t need your hand held for this, it’s pretty basic stuff.

                  this is just posturing. it doesn’t support your (erroneous) claim, nor does it undermine my (obviously correct) position.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  supply and demand.

                  that’s a theory about price discovery that actually has no predictive value. it is not a magic phrase that traverses space-time

          • Floey@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            When you eat animals you give the market a financial incentive to breed and slaughter more animals, who inevitably have to eat a bunch of plants to grow. It’s not that you eating a burger kills a cow, but you eating a burger helps make it financially sound and socially acceptable to murder cows for burgers.

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re conflating very different processes here. While there is the hard problem of consciousness and we can’t falsify ideas like panpsychism consider a few things.

        If you amputate my hand and press on it it will emit nervous signals. Does anyone feel pain? If you destroy most of my brain but keep me alive, then stab me almost all the nervous activity and hormones etc associated with injury will happen. Is there any reason to believe there is any pain felt?

        I would say no in both cases, pain is not emitting nervous impulses, or something that precedes releasing endorphins and inflammatory factors etc. Pain cannot even necessarily be reliably correlated with stress markers like heart rate, and in the case of phantom limb syndrome pain can even be associated with a complete lack of signals.

        There are good evolutionary reasons to exhange information and resources, even unwittingly. Apparently some bacteria in my tummy are in conversation with my body constantly but I’m not at all aware or actively participating in that. Maintaing pain only really seems to offer advantage if you can do something about it, while it’s possible for things to exist accidentally it’s not like grass can move to places without mowers or trees shade themselves. In all animals with nervous systems the nervous systems are the vastly most expensive thing to keep alive. In fact there are a few creatures who when entering an immobile stage of life rapidly digest their own (a good explaination for both tenure and retirees!).

        Plants don’t have rapid long distance communication in their bodies, they don’t have centralised organs, they don’t even have anything approaching the levels of activity we associate with the simplest nervous systems.

        It’s probably best to think of grass “screaming” as skin cells “screaming” for resources to make more melanin when exposed to UV. Or lymph nodes “screaming” when releasing hormones to heal a wound and stuff. This is all vastly below the level of consciousness.

        Or whatever, embrace panpsychism, like the invisible dragon in my garage nobody can prove it false /shrug. Animals eat plants though and thermo law 2 is a thing so even panpsychics minimise suffering by being plant based.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          But what I am arguing is that is an anthropocentric view of what constitutes pain and suffering. We cannot assume either is not possible without a nervous system. It’s worth at least looking into the concept even though we don’t know that there would be a mechanism simply based on what we know about plants so far. I myself would put myself on the no side when it comes to whether or not plants feel pain, but I couldn’t say that it was a 100% definite no by any means and I think we may feel very differently about what it means to be a plant and what plants are capable of in 20 years.

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’ve got to operate on evidence, there’s an infinite number of things you can’t falsify and you have no criteria for choosing which to believe or not.

            In other animals we observe things consistent with pain such as long term behaviour modification in the absence of a persistent hormone. Things like avoiding places they were injured, becoming more cautious or less curious, even changes that destroy them like starving themselves to death.

            Anyone that says “only humans feel pain” is a chauvinist ignoring stuff like rats giving up the will to live.

            But trees or mosses or whatever do none of this. A tree will keep trying to grow towards a fence that damages branches in a storm, a tree never starves itself to death making thicker bark after teens carve lovehearts into it, a tree doesn’t stop reproducing after 3 droughts kill all its children and so on. Leaves might change colour in response to periods of high or low sunlight but these changes are like tanning, they don’t modify anything about how the tree trees.

            We can’t know is true, but we also can’t know I don’t have an invisible dragon in my garage. you should definitely not live your life thinking I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Why? you don’t have any evidence to suspect it’s real that is distinguishable from a random lie. We have no evidence of behaviour in trees indistinguishable from chemical signals we know are below the level of consciousness in ourselves.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              But trees or mosses or whatever do none of this. A tree will keep trying to grow towards a fence that damages branches in a storm, a tree never starves itself to death making thicker bark after teens carve lovehearts into it, a tree doesn’t stop reproducing after 3 droughts kill all its children and so on. Leaves might change colour in response to periods of high or low sunlight but these changes are like tanning, they don’t modify anything about how the tree trees.

              I don’t know why any of this means that our nebulous definitions of ‘pain’ and ‘suffering’ cannot apply to plants.

              If I stub my toe, it doesn’t modify anything about how I human. But it hurts.

              • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                It does though, you will stop walking. Clutch your foot, say ow, look at where you hit the thing, be more careful when walking near there, move the object, pad the object, maybe wear protective covers on your feet, maybe dress a wound if the nailbed was damaged etc. If your toe keeps hurting you will travel to a doctor for assessment, or splint the toe and so on.

                Unless you don’t notice, in which case you feel no pain despite the toe signalling furiously.

                Along side this a bunch of cellular processes will happen to repair the damage, but they happen even if you don’t notice (distraction/nerve damage, anaesthetic etc) and so we can notice “huh, there are 2 clusters of things happening, one is conditional and one isn’t” and that’s a clue that there’s something more going on than just a body repairing itself.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Damaged plants can send out signals to other plants, and chemicals to repel what is damaging them (to the specific area where the damage is being done) and repair their damage. Some plants will avoid growing towards areas that they have been unable to thrive in before.

                  You still seem to be talking about things from a purely human perspective. Dogs will damage their feet and not even let you know sometimes. They will get a piece of glass in their foot and they won’t stop walking on them or try to do anything about it until they literally can’t do anything about it. My dog tore her CCL and the only reason we knew anything was wrong was that she wasn’t limping and then she was a few moments later. She didn’t make a sound, she didn’t react with any sort of signal that indicated that she was aware serious damage had been done to her, she just was unable to use that leg. Are you going to argue that she felt no pain?

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        There are people working on foods for cats which aren’t based on cruelty. There already exist options, though some are sold as special diets.

        Example: https://sustainablepetfood.info/

        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132 it’s already happening.

        The work in “lab meat” products is actually going to contribute to this too.

        Note: cats don’t eat cows or pigs or even adult chickens in “nature”.

      • Floey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Obligate carnivores in nature. Why do you care if a cat is fed with fortified plant bits vs fortified animal bits? Neither product exists in nature and the cat can live a healthy life on both. Also breeding cats to be pets is completely unnatural, so why are you fine with that?

        • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Let me burn this horses skin so it is marked for the rest of its life

          dont you dare put your cat on a vegan diet!

          I believe it ties into the “if it cant be done 100% perfectly its not worth doing at all” excuse omnis have

        • meliaesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s not a “moral” obligation, it’s how their body actually processes and uses proteins and nutrients… you know, it’s probably better for me to not engage here. Stop neglecting animals based on your own beliefs.

          Go get a rabbit for a pet instead.

          • Floey@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is bullshit because pet food exists where the proteins are denatured because some animals have serious allergies. Animals can build the proteins they need from the constituent parts. There are surely proteins unique to cats, where do you think they get them, cannibalism? Are you saying veterinarians recommending such products are harming animals?

            Also who said I have a cat companion, even if you were 100% correct about what constitutes neglect it would not apply to me. But you’re obviously not engaging in good faith and just want someone to paint as a monster. What’s really monstrous is we have an industry that brutally harvests billions of sentient creatures every year just to feed ourselves and other animals.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Humans can have more complex emotions. We can be stressed about theoretical concepts that animals just are not equipped to understand. We can be excited by the prospect of future events.

        Most animal emotions are immediate. They enjoy some food they eat, they find a nice warm spot to bask in, they see a predator and run away. Most animals lack the mental capacity to think beyond the immediate.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, that could just be a fault in observation. The same line of thinking was utilized by people like Thomas Jefferson to validate his own use of slavery.

          The language we use to describe intellect and emotions are inseparable from biased interpretation by humans. Can all humans “stress about theoretical concepts”? If a human lacks the ability to do so, do they become less human, or more animalistic?

          • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Pretty hard to argue against radically different biological design between our brains. There are animals who can be more emotionally nuanced than humans, like elephants, but for pets those emotions are generally more basic and more extreme. Yes, humans can be psychopaths and sociopaths.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Pretty hard to argue against radically different biological design between our brains.

              I don’t really see the argument… For one, all mammals share fairly similar brain structures, with the main difference being the over or under development of particular regions of the brain.

              However, even if we accept the claim that they are “radically different”. A mere difference in brain structure does not preclude the ability to have complex emotions.

              Yes, humans can be psychopaths and sociopaths.

              I’m not sure if that’s really relevant, sociopathy and psychopathy are defined by the subjects inability to conform to social mores. These terms cannot definitionally be applied to animals. However, there are plenty of examples of animals being shunned by their social groups, or animals who choose to stray from their social norms.

              I’m not claiming animals share the same emotional capabilities as humans, but it’s unscientific to claim that they are incapable of complex emotions based on the evidence presumed in this thread.

              Imo there’s been a bit of an overcorrection in science when it comes to trying to curb anthropomorphizing. And a lot of that is due to people like Thomas Nagel, who have a vested interest in stripping animals of terms like consciousness.

          • archon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Pretty sure every human who understands the concept of death are stressed about it at some point in their life.

            So, those who do not understand the concept would probably not stress over it. Like someone with brain damage, or animals I guess.

            Who knows, maybe my cat is in a bad mood sometimes because she is having an existential crisis, but I kinda doubt it.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Pretty sure every human who understands the concept of death are stressed about it at some point in their life.

              Right, but how does one express their anxiety over the concept of death? And if someone does not express their anxiety in a perceivable way, does that mean they do not experience it?

              If we took away a person’s ability to vocalize their grievances, what kind of behavior of theirs would we attribute to an existential crisis? And how would we determine that type of anxiety from normal interaction with the external environment?

        • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If that’s the case, then there’s also something more complex going on - animals can certainly learn to anticipate things at specific times, like food, a dog gets excited by a doorbell because they knew that means somebody is coming, they can get stressed out by innocuous things if they associate it with bad experiences like beatings.

          Not saying you’re wrong, but it warrants further explanation, because as is it doesn’t match the simple experience of living with a dog.