Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

OP
there is a subtle energy that unites all life, in all forms
primaryperception.com...
Cleve Baxter was probably the first to propose the consciousness of plants within this field using the polygraph in the 60's to measure galvanic fluxuations of leaf surfaces when a plant subject was approached with either harmful or caring intent on the part of the experimenter.
-he called this primary perception-
+all life is connected+
~those who read, let this not be a point of division and arguementation...but a call to unification and understanding~
the life which animates you, me, him, her, animal, plant & Earth
is Eternal Infinite Universal


LOVE

Originally posted by watcher73

You posted it. You defended it. Personally Im sick of you and people like you posting things up, defending them as fact and then backing off like you had nothing to do with the post appearing next to your name.

Quit being a pussy - cat. Meow.

I had nothing to do with the article.

How many times do I have to say that this post was meant to start a discussion? Not one time did I defend "it" as fact.

-Dev

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by pepsi78

 

Can we focus on moral vegetarianism, and not political or nutritional?

-Dev

I'll repeat myself...

What about habitual vegetarian? Those born into it...

Well, first of all, this thread is about the discussion of the morality of consuming animals and plants. It has nothing to do with habitual vegetarianism.

I mean, why would you even bring it up? Are you trying to argue about everything?

-Dev

If somebody could clear this up for me - If we cannot eat plants or animals then what do we eat? Either way you look at it, what if we could eat neither? How would we survive?

For the most part I have no strong objection to eating meat, though I find the slaughter of animals to be distasteful. I do object to the inhumane treatment of animals; especially the way we have come to treat them in our mass-production food industry.

I have often thought about plants, their limited consciousness and personhood. I came to a similar conclusion; if one is to object to eating living things, one would have to starve.

Breatharians of the world, unite!

Originally posted by Paradox.
If somebody could clear this up for me - If we cannot eat plants or animals then what do we eat? Either way you look at it, what if we could eat neither? How would we survive?

You could eat whatever you want, I for one think for example that plants are not aware and that it's alright to consume plants.

Plants as well as animals both feel, sense, and respond. WE ALL(plants, animals, man, planets, ets...) have our job to do. Just because they can't run from their duties doesn't make them any less aware of their surroundings. Yes, you can change the plants make-up and responses through conditioning the plants or animals. The best result; However, is to condition yourself. Then you will "see" that plants "feel". As for proof that only comes from inside... It's up to you to believe.

A great read on this topic.... The Findhorn Garden.


on the moral side, those are personal, so my moral beliefe is that anything taken should be paid for. If i take some herb, i exchange it for something the plants enjoy. Most enjoy tobacco in the soil so it's a good one. If you have nothing, offer a prayer. Then use sparingly, meat or plant. Cause as little damage as needed to get what you need. Some tribes don't eat the cow till it is old. They drink its blood till then. Might hurt, but the cow lives to supply the village.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by eazyriderl_l]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

I'll repeat myself...

What about habitual vegetarian? Those born into it...

Well, first of all, this thread is about the discussion of the morality of consuming animals and plants. It has nothing to do with habitual vegetarianism.

I mean, why would you even bring it up? Are you trying to argue about everything?

-Dev

Because I am pretty sure you stated earlier those were the only 3 reasons for being vegetarian.

Besides you posted up this article to debate yet you continually claim its not your opinion. Did you post it up just to start an argument?

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd


Well, first of all, this thread is about the discussion of the morality of consuming animals and plants. It has nothing to do with habitual vegetarianism.

I mean, why would you even bring it up? Are you trying to argue about everything?

-Dev

No he/she is trying to avoid the issues raised by either completely changing the subject, attacking people on a personal level or simply ignoring posts which he/she struggles to refute in a knowledgeable way. I'm getting very tired of it and his/hers repeated use of the word "fail" makes me think we're dealing with an argumentative teenager.

watcher73
I ask you again watcher to please reply, in full, with evidence to counter what i have said. Also the "article" you posted appears to have been a letter not a peer reviewed article and wherever you lifted it from quote mined it. I ask you once again to reply in full, maybe check this was an article because i can only find it referred to as a letter in the journal "Nature" as a response to an article. However it is possible i am wrong so do your best to find the article.

The original quote, in context

In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in the ileum. Human faeces contain appreciable quantities of vitamin B12 or vitamin B12-like material presumably produced by bacteria in the colon, but this is unavailable to the non-coprophagic individual. However, the human small intestine also often harbours a considerable microflora and this is even more extensive in apparently healthy southern Indian subjects. We now show that at least two groups of organisms in the small bowel, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella sp., may synthesise significant amounts of the vitamin.

Now to explain this. Basically it was in response to an article that stated that the amount of vitamin B12 available from plants was minimal as it was not in a form that the body could easily absorb. They then found that the bacteria in the ileum produced a more available form of vitamin B12 however most of it got flushed out of the human system before it was absorbed.

If crops were then fertilized with this excrement and the crops were eaten, with a minimal of washing then the B12 could be absorbed. This is why they used the phrase

Human faeces contain appreciable quantities of vitamin B12 or vitamin B12-like material presumably produced by bacteria in the colon, but this is unavailable to the non-coprophagic individual.

Non-coprophagic individuals are individuals who do not consume feaces. So there we have it watcher, your point proven incorrect because you googled something and lifted a small, quote mined piece.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by Paradox.
If somebody could clear this up for me - If we cannot eat plants or animals then what do we eat? Either way you look at it, what if we could eat neither? How would we survive?

That's not the premise. It's not that we can't eat plants or, it's that we understand that life must be taken to live, whether in the form of plants or animals, or both.

I, personally, have chosen my diet based on nutritional reasons. I eat plants and animals, nust and seeds.

I don't like the idea of factory farming the way it's conducted generally, both environmentally (politically) and morally. Hunting wild game, raising pasture graised cattle and free-range chickens/eggs, eating wild caught fish; these, to me, are moraly acceptable.

I'm really ammused by the amount of defensive comments made towards the OP. Especially when all I did was ask a question. In fact, just in anyone skimmed over it and missed MY input, I'll provide it here:

Furthermore, I'd also like to deter from nutritional and political "vegan vs. omnivore" views and arguments, as this discussion should focus solely on the morality of consuming animals in its comparison to the consumption of plants, as well as the science and legitimacy of "just how alive are plants?"

So, my question is: What's the difference between consuming animals and consuming plants?

I really do hope this can be a civil discussion.

Amazing! I outlined the discussion topic, and asked a question based on the context of the article provided......do you guys even read the OP's, or do you just read the thread title?

-Dev

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Dear sir i also rely on science, i showed you that article to demonstrate that there are honest vegans who understand th science. Further i provided you with facts about how animals like cows are able to process vitamin B12 from food in far greater quantities than humans can. Your reponse is to ignore all of that and try to pick on one small thing you think can be used against me.

I ask you to reply, in full to my post and provide evidence against these facts.


1. Animals like cows have multiple stomachs as this allows them to break down the double cell walls of plant cells. Herbivores also tend to have very long intesinal tracts to give bacteria the time to break down their plant based diets and finally that certain animals actually consume their own excrement in an attempt to reprocess the food and exact the vitamins.

2. Human beings have shorter intestinal tracts much like any other omnivore. Our system is good for digesting meat and vegetables but does not excel in either area. As such our bodies have far less time for the bacteria in our large intestines to break down fibre and release vitamin B12.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I had a really long reply to this post and hit a button then it disappeared. I'm not going to do it all again so I will leave you with just this.

My cursory search for the FDA RDA of b12 gave me the number 4 micrograms. Humans can store 2-4 GRAMS. This is well over a lifetime supply. I saw later that adults are now only recommended 1.5 MICROgrams a day. Well now we can store a few lifetimes supply. Then there is this

UK official recommendations have decreased in recent years, the body's needs having been previously over-estimated. Indeed, the Department of Health recognises that some people have lower than average requirements of B12. A whole lifetime's requirement of B12 add up to a 40 milligram speck of red crystals, about one-seventh the size of an average tablet of aspirin!

Now I would appreciate it if you werent so intellectually dishonest as to keep implying that cows have the huge intestinal tracts merely to get b12, They do not. The fact is plant material is hard to break down. They already have to consume huge quantities of grass to extract the necessary nutrients, not b12, its made right there.

People can eat a tiny amount of dirt and get a whole lifetime supply of b12. On top of that bacteria synthesize it right in our guts. The same as a cow. Whether or not cows ingest their own feces is besides the point, its probably not to get b12, but to get other nutrients. The b12 is produced inside them, in probably more than sufficient quantities.

The very fact that there only a few highly publicized cases of b12 deficiency should tell you something.

reply to post by watcher73


Newb

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Furthermore, I'd also like to deter from nutritional and political "vegan vs. omnivore" views and arguments, as this discussion should focus solely on the morality of consuming animals in its comparison to the consumption of plants, as well as the science and legitimacy of "just how alive are plants?"

So, my question is: What's the difference between consuming animals and consuming plants?

I really do hope this can be a civil discussion.

I understand how you meant this to be discussed devolutionevolvd however the nutritional and political views have to be raised. When someone says that plants cannot feel and so are ok to eat they gloss over the number of animals that must be killed so that their crop based foods survive. So this has to be included in the discussion as it is not as clear cut as "plants don't feel, animals do so only eat plants".

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Furthermore, I'd also like to deter from nutritional and political "vegan vs. omnivore" views and arguments, as this discussion should focus solely on the morality of consuming animals in its comparison to the consumption of plants, as well as the science and legitimacy of "just how alive are plants?"

So, my question is: What's the difference between consuming animals and consuming plants?

I really do hope this can be a civil discussion.

Just how alive are plants? I didnt know there was a degree of aliveness.

Originally posted by watcher73


Because I am pretty sure you stated earlier those were the only 3 reasons for being vegetarian.

I said that it can be summed up into three categories. Although I'm there are many habitual vegetarians that stick to the diet because it's what they're used to, but there really is not point in discussing it because habitual vegetarians don't have motivating factors as to why they eat the diet; they just do.

Besides you posted up this article to debate yet you continually claim its not your opinion. Did you post it up just to start an argument?

Why does everything have to be an argument? I'll say it AGAIN: I posted the article as a substrate for the discussion of moral vegetarianism. Quit making it so complicated.

I don't really have an opinion on whether plants "like" to live or if they feel pain because, whether or not, I'm still going to eat plants AND animals.

YOU are the only one arguing here.

-Dev

And you never defined morality.

Which you cant do.

So you made this thread just to argue, and that is exactly what you got.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I'll author a couple more threads on the other types. It really is simple to disuss the moral issues of killing animals, and plants, to consume.

-Dev

This whole thing - every post every thread is about this planet and its resources and life.

Well what is the highest lifeform on this planet?

This planet has been through planet wide destruction - and has rebounded with more life and variety. This planet has been scorched - bombed by planet scale ending asteroids and has regenerated!

But humans in their current technology and scientific study and form have only been around for 50 years - yet "they" say that man is the problem "carbon foot prints" (someone wants to "fix" the results to amke a lot of money). I say the Sun is the problem and man has never seen what the Sun can do - since it hasn't really hit us hard since we were capable of thinking we are the center of the Universe.

I think people need to wake up - see that we are heading for major "natural" occurences and that another mini - or major ice age is approaching. We are heading into a major solar period, yet the last couple of years, there were virtually no sun spots. We might have one major burst of energy - 2012 and then all is quiet.

What causes evolution and changes inside living organisms. I know the answer, but some may not. We are about to evolve in one way or another as well as all living creatures upon Terra!

I do not claim to know what might happen, but the "real" science behind everything is manipulated to make you feel less of yourself, guilty and a burden to this planet. That is not the case. We are not the problem. The problem is outside our planet and the sooner everyone realizes that the better.

Ever seen what a maximum solar storm can do to our planet when our magnetic field is totally out of barrier range, me either. But it is coming, and the time for it is "ripe".

Some big changes are coming, but rest assured, it has nothing to do with human activity.

One need only look at the rest of our solar system to see these changes are not isolated to our planet.

I wish people were not so nieve - Happy New Year my Brothers

Avatar was a good movie - but the green enviromental control/money statement is sick

[edit on 29-12-2009 by arizonascott]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves, specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

Now, if you're a political vegetarian--based on the belief that widespread practice of a vegetarian diet would produce a sustainable agriculture and social justice--then this thread really isn't for you, though feel free to contribute to the topic at hand.

If you're a nutritional vegetarian--based on the belief that a vegetarian diet produces better health than an omnivorous diet--then this thread really isn't for you either, though feel free to contribute to the topic at hand.

But, if you're a moral vegetarian--based on the belief that a vegetarian diet reduces bloodshed-then this thread is definitely for you and the article provided will lay the foundations for the topic at hand:

Plants are alive too!

Dr. Hilker and her colleagues, as well as other research teams, have found that certain plants can sense when insect eggs have been deposited on their leaves and will act immediately to rid themselves of the incubating menace. They may sprout carpets of tumorlike neoplasms to knock the eggs off, or secrete ovicides to kill them, or sound the S O S. Reporting in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Hilker and her coworkers determined that when a female cabbage butterfly lays her eggs on a brussels sprout plant and attaches her treasures to the leaves with tiny dabs of glue, the vigilant vegetable detects the presence of a simple additive in the glue, benzyl cyanide. Cued by the additive, the plant swiftly alters the chemistry of its leaf surface to beckon female parasitic wasps. Spying the anchored bounty, the female wasps in turn inject their eggs inside, the gestating wasps feed on the gestating butterflies, and the plant’s problem is solved.

Here’s the lurid Edgar Allan Poetry of it: that benzyl cyanide tip-off had been donated to the female butterfly by the male during mating. “It’s an anti-aphrodisiac pheromone, so that the female wouldn’t mate anymore,” Dr. Hilker said. “The male is trying to ensure his paternity, but he ends up endangering his own offspring.”

Fascinating, isn't it?

I know how protective many vegetarians and vegans are of their ideologies (and some omnivores to a lesser extent) and how, eventually, this thread just may turn into a mindless battle of vegetarians vs. omnivores; however, I'd like to focus this discussion on the article provided and its contents.

Furthermore, I'd also like to deter from nutritional and political "vegan vs. omnivore" views and arguments, as this discussion should focus solely on the morality of consuming animals in its comparison to the consumption of plants, as well as the science and legitimacy of "just how alive are plants?"

So, my question is: What's the difference between consuming animals and consuming plants?

I really do hope this can be a civil discussion.

Edit to add: I was cooking burssels sprouts while writing this thread.

-Dev



[edit on 28-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Plants are alive too! No # thanks for stating the obvious.

You want a moral discussion you have to define morality. This is an impossible task. Impossible because everyones morals are their own. There is no consensus. There never will be. The whole idea is simply a fabricated human construct of some people to impose their will on others.

And yes I see you naming 3 types of vegetarians, yet ignoring the habitual type. For mnost people eating meat is simply habitual. No morality involved. You cant simply ignore the habitual vegetarian while defining only 3 types of vegetarians when 99% of meat eaters are because of habit.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I suppose mushrooms would be the go to if you can't morally eat plants or animals. Fungi you know? Mushroom soup is something I like.

Anyways except for lettuce and spinach and maybe a few other leafy or root based things, we mainly eat reproductive seeds of the plant lifeform. Put that in your moral pipe and smoke it.

Plants put out fruit because they want to be eaten so seeds can be spread, so I was taught.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by A52FWY]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by A52FWY]