I am familiar with that view and I don't agree with that conclusion

> I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the suffering of a cow, for example.

why? why is it incomparable.

the fact that you even consider "genetic relatedness" or "that plants have capacity for suffering" is an expansion that requires admitting a simpler view that many vegans have was simply wrong! there are plenty that are like "anything without a central nervous system can't suffer!" and the goal posts keep moving as they have to accept that more and more organisms avoid negative stimuli because they can predict it or don't want it.

if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. which way would be incomparable?

if plants could uproot and move out the way, they would. which way would be incomparable?

and that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened, as if the rest of us could not perceive suffering of mammals or suffering of other species. but it was only you, the anti-suffering vegans, that ever needed the validation of additional institutions to accept this already widely held perception that killing organisms for consumption is something those organisms actively react to and avoid because of sensory inputs.

and for solutions, it is arbitrary to manifest that as a dietary preference.

I draw the line at sentience (a subjective experience) and plants don’t meet the consensus of criteria. I’m not even sure some animals like bivalves do.

Also, if your next step has to land on a dog or a patch of grass it almost sounds like you are going to say it doesn’t matter because we can’t know if the grass has a subjective experience (but we know the dog has one).

the point is: you don't need to kill plants and fungi. we wait for beans, corn and wheat to almost die before we harvest it. no tree that produces fruits needs to be ripped off. a lot of vegetables can be harvested without killing the plant, if we cared. as well fungi, as the mushroom is relative to an apple is to a tree.

it's really impressive reading arguments of this level on a place like this... and even worse some justifications at the ballpark of "i can't commit to veganism, its too boring/difficult"

Vegans themselves acknowledge that veganism may not be flawless; however, this does not imply that their perspective is fundamentally incorrect. Lets say we are able to find plants would have to endure too much pain. Even in such case, veganism works because less plant shall suffer.

Vegans aren't wrong.

less plants shall suffer?

…per capita?

Livestock would consume more plants as food than they give back as food

Also, what is the flawless alternative philosophy? And is flawlessness a standard for doing anything? What belief or decision does anyone hold or choose, in any domain, that is flawless?

My reasoning is based on the opposite of solipsism. I assume that I am not the only conscious being that can suffer. I also assume based on evidence that I am a physical entity and my capacity for intelligence, consciousness, joy, and suffering is based on the makeup and complexity of my nervous system. This could be wrong, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence to support this view. Looking at other species, I assume that their capacity for and quality of experience is similar. Cows are mammals, sexual, social, emotional, relatively intelligence animals. I assume their capacity for suffering is somewhat proportional based on those traits. I have no proof of this and no one ever will unless we figure out how to communicate with cows directly (probably impossible).

Plants don't seem to be conscious, at least on the same timescale, as humans. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone that they don't have the same capacity to suffer as a human. What would be your reasoning for supporting that view?

Note that I grew up on a farm raising sheep, cows, turkeys, ducks, dogs, and cats, and have experienced first hand the domination and torture of individuals of all these species by myself, my parents, and our neighbors. Have you seen how industrial farming works?

I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that. I encourage you to break out of that mentality, although I admit many diets are based around that virtue game.

> I think part of your comment might be based on the idea that vegans are playing a social virtue game rather than being compassionate for its own sake and you feel challenged and offended by that

Not quite, I find the chosen solution to be arbitrary and that the chosen solution continues to move with new information about what suffering is. Echoed by the less verbose quip someone made earlier in the thread about needing to switch to a rock based diet.

I think several other rationales for the same dietary preferences are stronger, for example being against factory farming has nothing to do with only consuming plants it has to do with not consuming factory farmed meat.

I think several other responses to the mammalian suffering observation are stronger, for example, regulating or reducing how much of it occurs, which would have a greater impact than your dietary preference.

It’s hard for an individual to regulate or reduce factory farming. And indeed the overlap between vegans and animal rights activists is likely quite large.

But there’s also something to be said of simply opting out of a system you believe to be evil. For example, with slavery, the correct response is not to advocate to regulate or reduce how much slavery occurs while still being a slave owner. The correct response is first to not be a slave owner.

does your analogy extend to no pets as well?

I’m trying to understand the extent of your particular position, or which similarity to focus on

I don’t have any particular position, beyond hypocrisy. I’ve been vegan at times in the past, currently I’m not.

As for pet ownership, I honestly don’t know. I think it’s certainly ethically complicated but personally I don’t think it’s wrong per se. I would say there’s a massive difference between keeping a dog as a pet and keeping a tiger or monkey, though.

no field animals anymore

but house animals though

Keeping a dog could be considered worse from the perspective of forced eugenics by our ancestors against canines. Domesticated dogs are abominations, some say.

There's a clear difference, to me at least, between arbitrariness and the reasoning I've put forth. I agree that it is impossible to create an exact algorithm for choosing one's food to reduce suffering butt as new evidence is found, behaviors around food consumption _should_ change.

Related though: we haven't discussed the energy efficiency of producing meat vs plant matter, which is another important factor, unrelated to suffering.

> I grew up on a farm ...

Interesting. That seems like a clear case of "familiarity with these creatures lets me empathise with them".

Wonder if people growing up among scuba diving families (or other situations very familiar with sea life) might have a parallel version of the same thing?

[delayed]

All the cells in a organism communicate. Neurons are not special in that they communicate, but in that they do it fast. Animals move, and to do that correctly, they have a brain as fast control center. The experience of being, including suffering, is likely very similar between brained animals whose domain is movement in space. Plants live in a domain of chemical gradients in the soil and light gradients comming from the sky. They need a no-sigal (suffering) and a yes-signal (pleasure) as any other type of organism to navigate their domain properly, and the intensity of the signals needs to be appropriate, up to absolute, their live is on the stake.

> if plants could yell and howl in pain they would.

What is that based on?

> that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened

This point, and others like it, are just unfounded ad hominem attacks. Nobody here has said anything like it, and the only time I've seen something like it mentioned is when people use similar attacks.

it’s based on this paper and the signals they receive and reactions, plants do not have vocal chords though

I expounded upon the viewpoint I was familiar with, I said I’m familiar with it and wrote about it

There are no strawmans or ad hominem in doing that

The only response is whether the view interpretation was inaccurate or not

Someone can't be familiar with an ad hominem viewpoint and write about it?

If the theory of evolution is valid and it is also true that animals have been eating stuff from plants - like caterpillars eating leaves(painful) and bees pollinating(pleasurable?) - wouldn’t there be selective pressure to develop vocalisation to convey sentiment?

So, maybe trees haven’t developed these abilities to speak because they’re sturdier and feel/sense less (or the ToE is incorrect/incomplete).

the theory of evolution only selects for traits till reproduction. traits that have no affect on ability to reproduce are completely random mutations that never get weeded out.

So why aren’t plants moaning in pleasure when insects pick up their pollen?

Why does not one tree use vocalisations to attract insects? Why flowers and not, say, the death sounds of an antelope to attract a bunch of animals whose fur can be vector to transport burrs?

honest question: what's wrong with something like Waygu, then?

I don’t think it’s ethical to breed, farm, and kill sentient beings just because you don’t abuse them before you bolt them in the head. “But my slaves have a great life!” would be a similar example.

fair enough. I've only done vegetarianism and veganism for (selfish) health reasons. I can't seem to get things to grow in the ground here, probably because of all the pine stands and i can't get the ratio of lye correct to promote stuff like corn or oats to grow. Luckily trees grow fine... the rabbits, squirrels, and birds thank me every year when they get to the fruit before i can. It's also rural here, so being vegan is incredibly difficult (read: boring). I could, technically, survive on oatmeal, french/italian bread, potatos, and ketchup. But i don't have the moral fortitude to make the leap. maybe in the future.

Thanks for responding and I hope my question was worded inoffensively. I hate to sound like i am JAQ-ing off.

Where do you get your food? The market doesn't have vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, etc.?

"the market" that sells those things is over an hour round trip, so i only go every three weeks or so. There is a distinct (but unchecked) possibility that the solitary butcher shop is closer than a supermarket to my house.

I just realized i have this style conversation every time i bring up anything about food when talking with people specifically in the US, for 15 of the last 20 years of my life. The comment i originally typed mentioned a 50 mile radius around my house is either forest or farmland, with 1 metro area. AFAIK there's no farmer's market; also the most common crops are field corn (not human edible as i understand it) and cotton, then soybeans.

It is very difficult to enjoy eating if there's any dietary restrictions, self-imposed or otherwise, due to living it what i suppose most people would call a food desert. Atkins, vegetarianism, veganism, etc.

I can buy hamburger patties, chicken, bacon, cheese about 15 minutes from my house, though - and an extremely limited selection of seasonal produce, grapes, avocado, banana, apples, iceberg lettuce, sometimes cucumbers and celery and carrots. Everything else would be canned, and i'm on an eternally medically necessary low-sodium diet, so i don't eat much canned vegetables.

Food here is such a pain in the ass that sometimes i buy my friends fresh produce when i go to town so they have something to eat that isn't fried.

> field corn (not human edible as i understand it)

Heh, fermentation may open up some options there. :D

I realize my questions might have seemed argumentative. I was really curious. Thanks for explaining it (again!).

We all live on the same planet, in different worlds.

Have you tried Landrace gardening? Maybe you just need to adapt the seeds to your local conditions.

Only STUN - Sheer Total Utter Neglect (Mark Shepard); although i will try to ask the agricultural department at the local state university if they know of any. There is an experimental USDA forest about 20 minutes from my house (which contains a redwood which grew from a seed that went to space!), so someone out here is as interested as i am in growing things in this forest without pesticide application.

Try raised beds and purchase soil for them at a garden store. Then you control the mix.

On the other hand, cattle and poultry are the most successful organisms on this planet exactly because of farming. The selective pressure for tasty meat is no different than flowers developing rich smells and trees developing edible fruits.

There is a lot to be said against the inhuman assembly-line-like production of meat that has developed over the last century. But in my view, I shouldn't have to defend myself for being born an omnivore.

Did someone say you have to defend yourself? You just inserted yourself in the conversation and, following the usual reactionary rhetoric, made yourself a victim.

I don’t understand (some) people’s negative visceral reaction to vegan / plant diets.

My best guess is it’s the very small but very vocal minority who actively criticize meat eating.

The majority of vegans and vegetarians don’t really care whether other people eat meat. It’s a diet, not an ethical philosophy for a lot of people.

You seriously don't see the pattern? Sorry to make you my outlet for this rant: It's the same reactionary (as in, anti-'liberal') response to everything; it's the same pattern, rhetoric, tone, etc etc. It's completely predictable; it's been going on for years. When will people stop playing this helpless role, to play it safe, to avoid confronting the obvious, overwhelming problem?

They don't give a crap about veganism; they just are following the reactionary playbook.

You don’t have to defend yourself for being born an omnivore. You just have to defend the ethical choices you make and the consequences of those choices.

Here's my ethical defense of eating meat.

Everyone and every thing dies, and in the larger scheme of things it matters not one bit. I'll make peace agreements with others where I see a benefit, and if I can trust that the other sees enough benefit to hold up his end of the bargain. Other than that, I see no reason to not participate fully in the full range of barbaric behavior the universe allows. Don't blame the player, blame the game. There is no referee who watches over to pass judgement either way.

“I will do barbaric things so long as there are no adverse consequences to me personally” is not really an ethical defence of eating meat.

Yes it is. It's just not ethics you agree with. But that's the great thing with ethics, everyone gets to pick their own. There's no right or wrong, just opinions.

Waygu is a breed. I don't follow. Are you referring to how Kobe is treated before slaughter?

Yes, i was. i was trying to remember, but couldn't.

I don't follow farming/breeds of cows, but any kind of captivity I consider animal cruelty. How would you, as a human (a sexual social creature), like to be captive and controlled? Simple "golden rule" application here.

Where does the octopus fit in your "similar species/genetic relatedness" equation?

I have read that cephalopods are on a genetic tree that diverged from our own before the emergence of photosynthesis. It seems that we are more closely related to most plants that we are to octopuses... yet they are able to befriend humans, clearly have emotions and undoubtedly experience pain. It is even the case that they generate hormones that are nearly chemically identical to our own for similar emotional states, fight-or-flight for example.

So, octopuses are pretty similar to us and yet more distant genetic relatives than your salad!

I am not a specialist but from the little evidence I've read the octopus could be one of the most conscious species on the planet. Would not capture or eat.

You're right that this example throws a wrench in my genetic relatedness argument. Stepping back from that, the deeper question is: how obvious is it that a creature can suffer similar to my own suffering? If it's obvious, it's obviously a bad choice for domination and consumption in my book. Plants do not have this outward obvious ability to suffer imo.

You may want to include some kind of time factor into your suffering assessment.

Like, what if some "thing" has very complex behaviours as per your existing items, but their external signalling rate is so slow that it takes hours for them to start displaying their reactions?

(note - that's just an exaggerated thing to convey the idea)

I think the subjective time here is especially relevant. The post previous mentioned having a conversation with ChatGPT about the topic. ChatGPT probably had multiple human lifetimes of conversations during that one conversation. Would it think of humans the same way we think of trees? Too slow to have meaningful behaviour? Maybe on H100s not just yet.

Interesting angle. Hadn't thought of that, and it's probably good to be aware of. :)

An interesting question, but I hope not a 'gotcha' question. People don't need a perfect, universal philosophy any more than your code needs a perfect, universal algorithm. We almost always function fine and accomplish a lot with less.

There’s almost certainly no way that we are more genetically related to plants than cephalopods. All sequencing and morphology data support that animalia is a monophyletic kingdom (diverged from one ancestor).

The octopus has similar fight or flight responses as humans. Plants don’t have it. It’d be kind of cruel to have a non-moving living being constantly suffer pain or fear of being killed. Hence, the actual genetic similarity is less important than how they operate in the world.

> more distant genetic relatives than your salad!

This is ideological BS, not scientific facts. Many of this kind of posts are just pseudoscience in its most pure form.

An animal is obviously more related with another member of the same kingdom than with another member of a different kingdom. Why? Because taxonomy works exactly like that.

If you find a single animal with DNA more closely related with a plant that with another animal that would destroy the entire classification of life.

Molluscs can have, and do have, chloroplasts under its skin. We know about several species of molluscs that have it, but this is borrowed stuff. To a naive person could appear as one single species in a genetic analysis, but is an artifact. We know not to trust blindly in those analysis