• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 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.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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
          0
          ·
          6 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?