Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

Originally posted by passenger

Originally posted by pepsi78
Other then chemical reactions that are set off by the plant there is nothing.
Chemical reaction does not equal pain...Who are these people anyway that invented the notion of plant pain?
I wonder.

Um, if you do a little research you’d find that human pain is just a description for a complex set of chemical reactions that occur from a stimulus (generally a destructive one). When you get hurt, the cells in the affected area start pumping out chemicals that start a chain reaction to provoke a protective response in the organism (you). Therefore, at its most fundamental level, human pain and plant pain is not so very different.

Just because humans have a different method of transmission (nerves) doesn’t mean that the basic process is not the same with, arguably, the same result. Just because we have a nervous system doesn’t make us superior. How very vegaphobic of you to make assertions to the contrary.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by passenger]


[edit on 28-12-2009 by passenger]

I agree with most of this except where you said human and plant pain arent very different.

There is no established plant pain. Theres no evidence for it. There hasnt been any empirical observation of it.

Whereas in animals we can trace the chemical reactions that cause it.


When a plant is nibbled on it senses this somehow, maybe the release of chemicals when cells are burst? That hasnt been established to my knowledge. But then the chemical reactions start to repair the damage and to repel the invader. The simple sensing of chemicals, the same as the egg example given in the article, isnt pain. If your hand was bitten by a shark, youd feel pain. Then the chemical reactions would start to repair the affected area and to repel the invader, but hitting it, or withdrawing the affected area. Either way the repair signals in plants and animals are probably close but there isnt anything analogous to animal pain.

Why should there be? Pain causes movement, generally away from whatever caused it. Plants have no such luxury, and that is what you guys keep overlooking. There is no need for pain in plants because theres no way to escape it. But they do seem to retain the other chemical reactions needed for life and defense. Even immune systems.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by watcher73]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Actually I don't think people choose to go after vegans all that much, its mostly a response when vegans try to shove it down others throats.
Like you said its a choice.
An awful lot of vegans seem closely related to bible thumpers, insisting that their way is the only way.
Since they seem to feel its ok to push people around about it, why not make the bears eat only berries?
For me this is where the real 'moral' issue lies. Its not in what you choose to eat, or not eat, its in trying to push your ideas on others.
(goes for telling vegans they should eat meat too, the road goes both ways)

Information does not equal pain, you need a brain to do that to take what is being comunicated and turn it in to pain.
Plants are just cell after cell, there is nothing there except that.

and what are we? we are just cell after cell. each cell is different and has different fuctions, but we are still just cells...

Sorry mate brain cells are different from other cells. Plants just don'
t have neurons. and brain storms. Cells in a plant simply do not form a compex nervous system for pain to happen.

Is there an expert in the house who could turn into a plant so we can see what it is like?

. . . . Anyone?

Double post removed.
==============

[edit on 28-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Information does not equal pain

Technically I think it does.

Plants are simply missing that 'kind' of information.

As I said earlier, they cant move, so there is no need for it.

In nature where there isnt a need you generally find a corresponding lack of biology, in this case, a nervous system.

Originally posted by watcher73


Do brussel sprouts like to live or are they simply following a preprogrammed code to reproduce?

Maybe they like to live, though it's uncertain at the moment. But given that we've only just discovered some amazing things about plants, I wouldn't put it past them.

Of course, you don't really know that animals aren't simply programmed to reproduce.

If you look at it, the plants are fighting for survival. Wild animals are also fighting for survival. They are both fighting to live; fighting for life. So the question is, then, why do they fight to live? Is it becuase they like to live or is it because they are programmed to live to reproduce?

Certainly not in the classical sense. All you have really pointed out is that plants are equipped with some defense against insects and other things.

And all animals are equipped with instinctual defenses to protect life, as well.

These just seem to be evolutionary responses. The word you used, "like", is a total assumption on your part. You offered up no real evidence.

The term "like" is directly from the article, I never said plants "like" to live. The term, in this context, can be defined subjectively, I guess.

I'm afraid that until you put up evidence of some sort of brain or nervous system (even if not the type we are used to seeing) then youre just grasping at straws flying off the man you set up.

I'm not trying to prove anything, therefore I need not provide evidence. I don't even know how to build a strawman.

Let's phrase it this way: If plants are struggling to survive, whether instinctually or wantingly, what is the difference between them and animals?

Call it what you like, but it's quite obvious that there is a will to survive present in animals and plants, regardless of "liking".

Remember, I don't necessarily adhere to the opinions held by the author of the article above, it merely provides a substrate for discussion.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


One major difference between plants and animals is that many plants depend on animals consuming (eating) them as part of the reproductive cycle (their seeded offspring relocated to another area covered in nutrient-rich waste).

From a moral perspective, eating a plant is morally beneficial to the plant itself and to the species.

Originally posted by Chett
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Since they seem to feel its ok to push people around about it, why not make the bears eat only berries?
For me this is where the real 'moral' issue lies. Its not in what you choose to eat, or not eat, its in trying to push your ideas on others.

So, your intelligence is equal to the average bear. You can't evolve beyond what your surroundings have taught you eh? What a copout and shortsighted approach to life. I was fed meat, and meat is good.

Evolution of our species will depend on becoming more intelligent on our consumption needs and long term goals. From conservation to recycling.

But, hey eat your meat, I don't care.
Natural selection will slowly remove the carnivores’ from the planet.

Let's phrase it this way: If plants are struggling to survive, whether instinctually or wantingly, what is the difference between them and animals?

Movement.

reply to post by Absum!


Most amusing since I have never said if I eat meat or not. You jump to some interesting conclusions and 'attack' me for something you don't even know that I do.
This is the real root of the moral issue here.

And btw the argument about plants feeling, I always assumed that they do at some level. Its why we should give thanks everytime we eat anything.

Of course, you don't really know that animals aren't simply programmed to reproduce.

People are animals and most of them like to live, as stated by them.

Besides someone else made a very good point. Lots of plant species depend on being eaten to reproduce. I know of no animal that does this. Could you imagine an animal needing to reproduce and still feeling pain? I cant. EAT ME I NEED KIDS - OW, NO STOP - OK EAT ME AGAIN - NO STOP.

The whole idea of pain in plants fails once you realize they cant move. That and the lack of anything biological that would indicate they feel any.

Originally posted by watcher73

Let's phrase it this way: If plants are struggling to survive, whether instinctually or wantingly, what is the difference between them and animals?

Movement.

plants move.

Animals move in response to need. that is they will follow food sources. if an animals primary food source migrates, the animal will follow.

now take a plant, and put a grow light over it on the side and watch as the plant turns its leaves and in cases will even bend its stalk to get more light. now move the light to the other side, the plant follows.

just because it is rooted does not mean it will not move.

Call it what you like, but it's quite obvious that there is a will to survive present in animals and plants, regardless of "liking".

Yes only there is a big diffrence.
Animals want to survive on an individual level as in a character, plants want to survive, or better said , cells in a plant want to survive, not even sure if it's instinct but mechanical as in a mechanism not controled by an entity/mind. Simply put they do what they do anyway, it's what they do not because they want to do it.

Just like a computer, it does stuff but not because it wants to do it.

There is an order in my perception.
Plants mechanical, insects instinctual, animals mindfull.

DP removed






[edit on 28-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by watcher73
I agree with most of this except where you said human and plant pain arent very different.
There is no established plant pain. Theres no evidence for it. There hasnt been any empirical observation of it.

Well, I meant pain in the broadest sense of a chemical reaction. In that sense there is empirical observation of this in action. I don’t mean that plants actually go ‘ouch’ and cry. But they do put off detectable chemical reactions in response to damaging/threatening conditions. This has been documented. In that sense, they are experiencing ‘pain’.

Originally posted by watcher73
Why should there be? Pain causes movement, generally away from whatever caused it. Plants have no such luxury, and that is what you guys keep overlooking. There is no need for pain in plants because theres no way to escape it.

Not true. Just because they aren’t jumping up and down and screaming doesn’t mean they are not reacting. Various plants will put out noxious chemicals in response to a threat. They will also alter growth patterns eg thicker bark, higher branches, etc. in response to ‘pain’. They also attempt to heal injured areas with sap or similar methods much as we produce cells to form scabs. The plants' responses might not be as fast as our responses but they are still a physical response/movement to a threatening stimulus.

reply to post by amance

Doing good for the plant by eating the 'offspring' only counts if you go dispose of the seed in the woods, sending it into a sewage system to be sterilized doesn't count.

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by watcher73

Let's phrase it this way: If plants are struggling to survive, whether instinctually or wantingly, what is the difference between them and animals?

Movement.

plants move.

Animals move in response to need. that is they will follow food sources. if an animals primary food source migrates, the animal will follow.

now take a plant, and put a grow light over it on the side and watch as the plant turns its leaves and in cases will even bend its stalk to get more light. now move the light to the other side, the plant follows.

just because it is rooted does not mean it will not move.

Thats not movement its growth.

Sorry.

Phototropism is directional growth in which the direction of growth is determined by the direction of the light source.

Originally posted by watcher73

Of course, you don't really know that animals aren't simply programmed to reproduce.

People are animals and most of them like to live, as stated by them.

Besides someone else made a very good point. Lots of plant species depend on being eaten to reproduce. I know of no animal that does this. Could you imagine an animal needing to reproduce and still feeling pain? I cant. EAT ME I NEED KIDS - OW, NO STOP - OK EAT ME AGAIN - NO STOP.

The whole idea of pain in plants fails once you realize they cant move. That and the lack of anything biological that would indicate they feel any.

what about the praying mantis?

or i suppose we are not including insects in the animal kingdom...

and i still stand by my argument that animals must be culled through predators to avoid over population. It is unfortunate for the ones that are eaten, but the rest are thankful.

I understand that for humans, we are the only ones that feed our food and raise them specifically to eat (pigs cows and so on) and this is not fitting into the population control. But deer and wild game do.

would you feel better if we as humans had to hunt our food with primitave means in order to eat it?

If you want to be a vegitarian, that is your decision, i support you 100% because the less people that eat meat means cheaper stakes at the grocer for me

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by watcher73

Let's phrase it this way: If plants are struggling to survive, whether instinctually or wantingly, what is the difference between them and animals?

Movement.

plants move.

Animals move in response to need. that is they will follow food sources. if an animals primary food source migrates, the animal will follow.

now take a plant, and put a grow light over it on the side and watch as the plant turns its leaves and in cases will even bend its stalk to get more light. now move the light to the other side, the plant follows.

just because it is rooted does not mean it will not move.

Thats not movement its growth.

Sorry.

Phototropism is directional growth in which the direction of growth is determined by the direction of the light source.

not true because the actual shape of the plant changes, not just the new growth.

that is to say, that the plant will BEND in order to get the light, not just grow in a new direction. Your quoted definition is correct, but not applicable to what i am describing.