Slaughterhouse vs. strawberry harvest: Can plants feel pain?

[1984]

Hey everybody.

It seems that anytime a debate rises over my lifestyle choice with an omnivorous friend, the very first thing they do is get defensive and yell " But you kill plants, their alive too!". While I mostly try to shrug it off, I have not yet been able to come up with a valid response to this point.

Sure I can say " You idiot plants dont have a central nervous system, they dont feel anything", I'm not too sure If I really believe that. Plants have many mechanisms to avoid being attacked - some are poisonous, have thorns, release gases...etc.

Even fruitarians can be questioned..is not plucking a pepper from the plant kinda like taking the egg from the chicken? Anyways guys..I was wondering on your thoughts and opinions.

And how can I respond to my friends without contradicting myself?

[eve]

Plants certainly do have a different central nervous system, and despite having mechanisms such as thorns etc, they can't run away. The important point is, many more plants are killed in order to maintain animals - more than 80 percent of all grains, for example, is fed to animals. Moreover, if your friend could choose whether to eat a carrot or a cat - which would she choose?

Saying 'you're killing plants' is an old furphy.

[Billy]

Just tell them that they are killing both animals and plants: the plants are killed to feed the animals that are then killed for their consumption, so they're killing twice! Found that it usually shuts them up when I use this argument, as they can't really deny it.

See ya,
Billy

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Well, maybe I am as arrogant as a Meat-eater who believes (s)he has a 'right' to eat animals, but I believe that is why plentiful foods, such as fruit and vegetables, were created - for consumption.

I do actually think that plants have a living energy about them, but that energy varies - say, an old tree would be full of root energy, I could never destroy one. They also do a 'job' in that they help to clean the air, and also provide homes for birds, too. Collecting the apples (for example) from an apple tree (or even better, collecting windfallen fruit, as some Fruitarians make it their practise to do), will not harm the tree, but spraying it with Pesticides will, which one of the reasons I prefer organic fruit.

Surely the purpose of any food yielding plant is just that - to yield food? We are just consuming them directly, but Meat-eaters who come up with this fallacious argument are consuming plants that have already been consumed by animals, therefore causing harm to plants and animals.

If I could live happily on nothing but windfall fruit, then I would, and maybe I would have a totally clear conscience. As things stand at the moment, I chose not to eat anything with a brain or face, or anything plundered from those innocent creatures. I am not happy about many agricultural, or even horticultural, practices, which is why I am making plans to live off my own land, but, until that happens, I do what I can to cause least harm. That's what you need to explain - that, as a human it is almost impossible not to make some negative impact, but you choose to take the path of LEAST HARM.

[eve]

PFC, right now, outside my front door, the mango tree is dropping fruit like crazy. Most of the neighbours pick them up and throw them in the garbage bin! But as I am an early riser, I collect what I want first - yummmm.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Yes, Eve, the throwing away is the real offence to the tree, I am glad you appreciate her fruit!

[1984]

Have you guys ever heard of an experiment called the Secret Life Of Plants And Trees? It was conducted in the 60's and it had plants connected to lie detector tests to see if they could produce emotion. When the plant was given water it reacted positively and it showed on graph it produced...same goes with other things, when a plant was burned it reacted negatively. Then they also found out that it could tell when humans were lying or telling the truth. It's very interesting, I suggest you guys heck it out.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Yes, I have heard of this, 1984.
I don't need to check it, though, really, I`have given love and 'Rescue Remedy' to plants and seen them visibly recover.
I have to eat them, though, sorry.
If anyone can find a way of living without harming plants or animals, then I will certainly check that out!

[1984]

PinkFLuffyCloud...Hey no need to apologize, I eat them too! I just thought the study was very cool. Thanks for the great suggestions guys. Now I'm ready to face my friends with a great comback!

[Artichoke47]

I wouldn't acknowledge such idiots with a response. Don't waste your time on those fools.

[bulletproof]

*you're

[chakra]

Early societies worshipped plants and trees. They would often sacrifice a person to replace the spirit of the grain harvested. While such myth is considered superstitutious today, they would certainly have an equal difficulty with the self-assuredness of many of us.

I think it is worth study. Frasier's Golden Bough for instance, or similiar works of Joseph Campbell and Levi-Straus.

I agree it is far better to eat plants than to feed plants to animals and then slaughter them. But I won't assume it is morally higher. Perhaps less cruel and environmentally better is more accurate.

[veganfever]

If it is less cruel and more environmentally friendly than it is moraly higher, in my opinion.
Would it be ethicaly higher with certainty? I would think so.

To me word "ethical" is secular word for moral. Word "moral" has religious roots and is used by religious people but in my mind it means essentially the same. Would any scholar here agree with that statement or is it a total absurd?
Sorry for this digression but couldn't help these questions popping into my mind.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

I would say, depending on it's context, that the word 'moral' was fairly interchangable with the word 'ethical', yes, Veganfever.

I would say that eating plants is a 'morally higher' thing that eating animals, though it is not wholly without ethical complications.

I also believe that eating plants that have been grown organically, preferably by your own hand, is more morally defensible than buying/eating plants that have been sprayed with chemicals (thus damaging the eco-system), wrapped in plastic, and shipped half way across the World.

I don't laugh when the subject is raised, I know I am not above question with this, I am guilty of raping the land, just as most of us are.

I agree with Chakra, we should never be too self-assured on this one.

[Artichoke47]

It's also "they're," not "their," if we're doing spelling corrections.

[feline01]

PFC, right now, outside my front door, the mango tree is dropping fruit like crazy. Most of the neighbours pick them up and throw them in the garbage bin! But as I am an early riser, I collect what I want first - yummmm.

I find that so offensive Eve that your neighbors just throw the fruit away. Today, I watched family after family coming into the office I work (welfare) in to collect a box of food to eat for Christmas. It was all just processed, dried or canned foods that had been donated. I'm sure many of these people would have loved some fresh fruit.

[John]

Morals and ethics mean the same thing. They are Latin and Greek for "customs." So they are relative.

I believe in good and evil. Going to the store and buying a steak is a greater evil than buying a potato. I don't care if someone's customs say that buying a steak is good and that a potato suffers the same as a cow.

[eve]

I would say that eating plants is a 'morally higher' thing that eating animals, though it is not wholly without ethical complications.
I also believe that eating plants that have been grown organically, preferably by your own hand, is more morally defensible than buying/eating plants that have been sprayed with chemicals (thus damaging the eco-system), wrapped in plastic, and shipped half way across the World.

I don't laugh when the subject is raised, I know I am not above question with this, I am guilty of raping the land, just as most of us are.
I agree with Chakra, we should never be too self-assured on this one.

There's always a danger with vegans taking the high moral tone with eating - even eating plants is not good enough if the plants are not organically grown - this despite the byproducts of slaughter houses being used - blood, bone, horn, and manure used in organic growing Where does this all end?
What about being against leather, fur, silk, wool - and wearing cotton. I avoid garments made with those products, but what about the incredibly damaging cotton? Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides - and animals killed to grow cotton, and the runoff goes into the waterways for the marine life to be poisoned - when we buy cotton, non-human animals have died for the crop. Moreover the cotton is genetically engineered, so cottonseed oil is also suspect.

The point I want to make is not to be so high and mighty and 'pure' that other people doing their best would find it offputting when vegans get going.

[eve]

I find that so offensive Eve that your neighbors just throw the fruit away. Today, I watched family after family coming into the office I work (welfare) in to collect a box of food to eat for Christmas. It was all just processed, dried or canned foods that had been donated. I'm sure many of these people would have loved some fresh fruit.

You are right feline01, but there's no way that this fruit could be sent to where you live. It reminds me of when I was small, and if I, or my siblings, wasted food, my father told us about the starving Indians! What impact would my wasting some bread have on people in India who had nothing? But I was unable to respond to my father, and just ate the bread.

The point is, there are gluts, and my neighbours don't like mangoes, and they think I'm weird to pick them up and take them into my unit to eat. As for your clients who have to eat dried and canned foods - I can assure you that when I go into the supermarkets people prefer dried and canned foods because the fresh fruits are too expensive. And there are gluts everywhere - all the wasted food in the US - GE corn, soybeans, dried milk, etc. The world just doesn't organise distribution properly.

[feline01]

Eve, just to clarify:
I wasn't inferring that the fruit should be sent here. I was just speaking hypothetically. It would be nice if instead of people throwing fresh fruit away, the fruit could be donated to those in need in your area. There are hungry people all over this world. When I mentioned the dried and canned foods, I specified that this stuff was processed. The clients weren't given cans of fruit or veggies, they were given cans of sodium-laden, overly-processed soups and boxes of horrible packaged convenience foods. Many Americans eat that stuff anyway because they prefer convienence and low price over pricier and more involved food preparation.

[ridgerunner]

Fruit most assuredly does not feel pain. Picking it does not harm or kill the plant which produced it. The purpose of all fruit is to reproduce the plant that created it. It is specifically designed to be eaten! And its my guess that the plant actually "gets off" when you pick its fruit - after all, the act of reproduction is typically a pleasurable experience for all species. And you are certainly doing the plant a favor when you eat its fruit (including its seeds) - first you transport the seeds to a far away location (much more effective than the wind), then you plant it complete with a large dose of natural fertilizer (assuming you poop in the woods like our ancestors did). Eating fruit is certainly A-OK - you are not harming or killing anything. However, eating other vegetables where you must kill the plant to get the food is another story...

But comparing plants to animals is a no-brainer; when you eat animal food, you are killing not just the animal but all the plants that animal ate, too. Eating plants directly causes far less net suffering and environmental impact and requires far less natural resources.

[gertvegan]

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? You honestly equate the anguished thrashings of a cow hanging on the slaughter line with that of a stalk of corn ready to be gathered? The repetitive, compulsive swaying of an elephant chained in a circus car with emotional life of the hay with which she was fed? The tortured screams of a pig as the knife is dragged across his throat with a blade of grass as the mower hits it? You honestly do not differentiate despite all obvious indication that animal life and plant life are not equitable in terms of awareness and suffering?

How is it that you get through life? Understanding as you do that each adorable Brussels sprout on your plate has been beheaded with such wanton disregard? A house salad must be viewed as a murderous crime scene to a sensitive being such as you; a crudité plate must seem to be a veritable genocide. How is it that you’ve survived so long without fruits, vegetables and grains? If you do eat these things, how do you quell the voices in your head of all the plants you have plundered that shriek, "No! Not me!Please don’t take my life for a boring little stir-fry! Aren’t I worth more than that?!?"

So you’re either excrutiatingly sensitive or horribly sadistic. Either way, you creep me out. Next question?

www.veganstreet.com

[gertvegan]

I would have to disagree with your statement because plants lack a central nervous system and a brain, both of which are necessary in order to register pain. As you know, a painful response can be indicated by both its physical and emotional manifestation, each of which underscores the other. For example, a calf in a veal crate not only senses pain because he has been denied freedom of movement and has tender joints, but also because this restriction has kept him from his normal grazing instincts and comforts. His physical pain is compounded by his emotional pain, and vice versa. This calf possesses a central nervous system and a brain, so pain is experienced in a way scientists can chart, just as it would be with humans, and his piteous cries at being taken from his mother can be understood anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of animal behavior as emotional trauma.

Plants, however, differ from animals in significant ways. For one, as mentioned earlier, they lack the necessary physiology to register a painful response. Any being that can feel pain can also has been equipped through evolution with the ability to remove oneself from the cause of threat or pain. Furthermore, though plants have needs that must be met in order to thrive, they do not have complex social relationships and instictive needs for comfort, which, when denied, cause prolonged and identifiable suffering.

Perhaps it is possible that plants do feel pain, and we lack technology sensitive enough to prove this. If this is so, it is unfortunate, as we need plants in order to live. All beings with sentience must consume in order to survive. Meat and animal products, however, are absolutely elective and unnecessary - actually, they are detrimental - to human health. If it is true that plants feel pain, one can be comforted by the fact that they are taken at the end of their lives and, as opposed to animals, are allowed to go through their life cycle under the sky as nature designed.

Please don’t take this as an agreement that plants feel pain, though, because I don’t believe it is true. What I do know to be true, however, is that all animals - from crustacean to mammal - avoid pain and seek comfort. This is motivation enough to treat other beings that we know have the capacity to suffer with as much compassion and consideration as we can

[gertvegan]

The best way to minimize the suffering of plants is to become either a frutarian and eat only things that fall off of trees and bushes. The second best way is to become a vegan, because the animal who died for your Whopper ate a heckuva lot more plants each day than any vegan ever will.

[gertvegan]

And the Stepaniakster reply to What If Plants Feel Pain? can be read HERE. .

[feline01]

I just read her response Gert and it summed up my feelings perfectly. I particularly liked this bit:

"Meat eaters often like to goad vegans with "the plant question." It is a convenient way to deflect attention and guilt about their own violent eating habits and transfer the focus onto the person who has chosen a more peaceful, if less conventional, path. By putting the vegan on the defensive, meat eaters can feel less pressure to justify their own indefensible behavior."

[PinkFluffyCloud]

What amazes me is the thought that some Meat-eaters think that they can 'confuse' a Vegan by asking about plants, when most Vegans I have come across are among the best-read, most well-informed, and deep-thinking individuals one could ever wish to meet, and do not take decisions lightly.

[gertvegan]

Broccoli vs. Animals is also worth a little read. I'm sure it was posted before on another thread.

[negavert]

I get tired of people referencing The Secret Life of Plants; usually they don't even know the name and word of it comes from a long line of conjecture and the info they end up getting is similar to what one gets from a game of telephone.
It is important to know that the experiment has never been recreated and its surrounding science and the authors have been thoroughly discredited. That is why there have been no other studies about it since 1973.

[TheFirstBus]

My personal explanation of Veganism has changed. Its more complecated than just not wanting to kill things, plants don't feel pain animals do. Use the plants don't feel pain thing, some omnis have argued with me but then you just bring up that fact that you consume alot less than the animals going to feed masses, So your still reducing suffering.

[Korn]

It's interesting to see that some non-vegans consider eating an apple 'murder' (when they discuss with vegans).... but have you ever heard someone say that they'll go and kill an apple if they are about to pick one from an apple tree?

[eve]

I've heard a vegan say: "I could murder a choc-chip cookie" right now!

[Roxy]

LOL - was that the same person that said "What am I? A Chocolate Chip?"

[PinkFluffyCloud]

HeHe - my son (7), once asked me to explain Veganism (as opposed to Vegetarianism, the way he's been brought up). When I had finished, I added............."so it's better for the animals." (knowing how much he loves animals).
He turned to me with a straight face, and said "Yeah, just not so good for the plants."
Sheesh, what can you do?

[Geoff]

I've heard a vegan say: "I could murder a choc-chip cookie" right now!

I was biting the heads off jelly babies on the train once and caught someone giving me a very strange look!

[PinkFluffyCloud]

You sure they were *jelly* babies?

[cowpie]

Don't you just hate idiots who say things like that.....they don't even deserve an answer....

[kriz]

Or do you know any good articles which tackle this effectively?......

[MzNatural]

Here is a good post about plants taken from this thread .

[kriz]

Thank you, mznatural!

[MzNatural]

YW
Here is Jo Stepaniak's reply.

Here are some facts about fish and an article.

[Korn]

Hi Kriz, I looked at the site (I don't know why I still can't resist arguing with people who insist that we should eat fish.... .

Read "The Secret Life of Plants". Lettuce screams when you eat it, it just screams on a frequency you can't hear, so to speak...

.
I have read 'The Secret Life of Plants', but being a little naive, my feeling is that there is a meaning to everything - at least most of the time. For example, if lettuce scream, why does it scream on a frequency I can't hear? I would hear the scream of an animal if I killed it, and I would hear the suffering sounds I'd made if I'd starve myself to death to save the life of plants. I have to follow MY feelings, and in my world, 'killing' a lettuce feels very different from killing an animal.

In another thread on a similar same topic, someone wrote 'Either way, you are choosing to end a life, a life you have valued as less than yours.' The reply was: "For almost everybody [...] dividing an apple in two would feel very different from dividing an alive squirrel in two. Imagine that you have a knife in your hand, and on the floor beneath you, there is a rabbit and a carrot (you don't know any of them, don't have any 'emotional bonds' to any of them). If you loose the knife, wouldn't you instinctively hope/feel that it's better if the knife would hit the carrot instead of the rabbit? Or don't you care? Don't you feel that the 'life' of the carrot is 'less important', to use your own terms, than the life of the rabbit?"

Animals/humans, fish and birds have a lot in common. We have eyes, we can move freely around, have parents, and the pain we feel and express doesn't need electronic equipment to be recognized.

Humans don't need to kill animals, birds of fish to survive; we could possibly avoid killing plants, but then we would kill ourselves.

And there's an almost equally coherent argument to the effect that some animals -- fish, for example -- are NOT self-aware.

The question isn't if the fish is self-aware, it is (among other things) if it feels pain and if it 'wants to' become food.

* We don't need to eat fish
* The fish doesn't want to be eaten
* It's polluted by the sea it lives in
* It feels pain
* Meat/fish eaters eat what they eat due to habits from early childhood. Old habits are sometimes (but not always) hard to get rid of.

Re. fish and pain, there are lots of links to be found on internet:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3673
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/fish.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...ish_844965.htm
http://arcnews.redblackandgreen.net/articles/fish.htm
http://www.animal-lib.org.au/lists/fish/fish.shtml
http://www.fishinghurts.com/FishFeelPain.asp

As we know, some people will say that fish can't feel pain, but these people can't deny that any fish in the ocean will try hard not to become food, or that we simply don't need fish to survive... And: if there is a 50/50 percent chance that fish do feel pain, why do they choose to trust the 50% that represents the least challenge to their old habits? We all know the answer.

I will cheerfully murder a fish and eat it raw right off the deck of the boat. And hang me if I can see any reason not to.

Reason not to eat fish? The point is that there is no good reason to eat it!

You can't survive in this world without killing and eating something.

It's interesting that meat/fish eaters who describes picking a banana as 'killing a banana', often do agree that there should be laws protecting animals from really bad treatment/abuse... it's like they think 'It's OK to kill an animal, and harm it, but it's not OK to harm it too much'... But they never suggest any laws protecting bananas from being abused! I don't know if 'hamlet279' is eating frogs, but he is using frogs as an example, and I wonder what he would choose if he got stuck behind locked doors with some frogs and some fruit/vegetables. What would he eat first? What would feel about 'killing' a fig compared with killing a frog? I believe I know the answer. He says that 'You can't survive in this world without killing and eating something', but the need to eat isn't what the discussion is about, is it? It's about killing/harming, and both from an emotional and intellectual point of view, I believe that most veggies AND meat eaters will agree that picking a plant doesn't feel the same as killing an animal, bird or fish. And even if it did, why not stick to eat something that seems to be OK with being eaten?

In 9 out of 10 cases, such discussions don't lead anywhere. I don't even think the brain/mind/good arguments are important when people decide to drop animal products. If these people would have known how extremely tasteful and varied plant based food is, their only 'argument' ("I like the taste of fish/animals!") would loose its value in a split second, and their brains would find it much easier finding good arguments pro going vegan.

If these people really consider plucking a fruit 'killing' or 'murder', the only 'logical' alternative (if they are against killing) would be killing themselves. But wait, that's not 'logical' either...

I strongly believe that these people both understand and feel the difference between 'killing' a plant and killing for example a dog, and that it all has to do with habits, a learned kind of insensitivity, and illusions based on what they 'know' vs. what/who they don't 'know'. They wouldn't eat their own dog, because they 'know it' and love it, and maybe they wouldn't eat dogs at all, because they know and love dogs. They have less trouble eating animals they don't know or see. Even if a lamb and a dog are rather similar beings in many ways, they are OK with eating lambs. Fish is maybe the most 'easy' living being to eat (for them), because we/they normally don't see it; fish live in a different world than us - under the sea.

It's easier for Americans to bomb a building in Iraq if it might house some terrorists than it would be to bomb a building in Boston, the Iraqi are further away, and it's 'easier' to kill someone, innocent or not, that they don't know: they know Americans, therefore, US civilians are more important to them than Iraqi civilians. But for person a from Iraq, loosing a family member is as painful as it is for everybody else. The distance is creating an illusion. Animals, and especially fish, are 'far away'... .

I bet that if 'hamlet279' would be working with, say, training a dolphin or for some other reason spend a week with one, he wouldn't 'cheerfully murder and eat it raw right off the deck of the boat' afterwards. Or would he? Ask!

Many other strong animals have proven that it's fully possible to survive well without eating fish or other animals. They're not even interested in trying. It's true that some animals kill to survive, but I really wonder what it is that makes hamlet279 identify with these animals, and not the plant eating ones. Maybe he has got sharp claws? Check out his teeth!

[Korn]

You're welcome, Kriz...

Just don't forget that in many cases, when people (fish/meat eaters) express concern for the emotional life of a plant, the truth is they really don't care. Because - if they did, they would eat vegan food: by eating animals they consume a lot more plants - indirectly... you know, grass etc., and thereby cause a lot more plant 'killing' than if they would eat plants only. So don't be too optimistic!

[feline01]

You're right Korn, I've wasted too much time being vegan-baited that is, people coming up with ludicrous arguments as to why it is bad to be vegan. I've given up, I'll gladly talk to someone who is open-minded about veganism/AR but I won't waste my breathe on someone who wants to debate the difference between an apple and a squirrel.

[Mystic]

I heard of a vegan family, who wont eat tomatoes coz they feel pain or something. I thought it was rediculous.

[kriz]

Banana- lots of crazy families out there!!! LOL. Let's have the meat eaters argue with them instead!!!

[phillip888]

If someone informs me about slave labor in China, you wouldn't find me trying to attack it as an argument and start undermining the "messenger".

Well then, you've never had a discussion with a GOP puppet have you? Because they will argue that a citizen of chinas life is less valuable and acceptable to exploit and enslave.

Seriously though, they really are not interested in even a rational argument when they bring up plants feelings. Their intent is infinite regression (well if this than that, etc...) to continue denial. Defining lives as equal or lesser is a 'might makes right' mentality. The whole point of veganism is that a life doesn't have to be rated and weighed to be allowed to live. You have to discuss things on that level and hope they are intellectually capable of comprehending your view as well as emotionally. A person without empathy can not be swayed, as compassion is based on empathy (yes there are many people with no empathy, as there are multiple institutions that utilize fairly sophisticated tactics to create a very anti-empathic indoctrination, for example the GOP, most religion, and corporate 'training', even parents do it to their children (my own being a clear example)).


The reason I eat plants, fungus, and microorganisms is because they are cellular growth without any form of awareness. It's easy to discuss on a scientific level. If the growth patterns change on a plant imply sentience (the fundamental reason for veganism is to not cause pain and suffering in those that can perceive it), then you can berate them for abusing their keyboard, as it changes size based on the room temperature and light level and therefore must be a living feeling entity, then dismiss your own absurd keyboard argument as delusional and absurd. Not that your opponent will often stick to rational thought, as that would guarantee their failure to 'win' the discussion. No it's no different than arguing the welfare of invisible clones of santa clause. In the case of 'plants have feelings' proponents their delusion takes precedence over all else, and their mind will generate any reality necessary to create a secure basis for their argument.

[John]

I'll tell you what, if you are arguing with an omni about plants having the same capacity for pain as an animal, that omni is secretly laughing his ass off at you for being foolish enough to argue the topic. I guarantee it.

[kriz]

You're right- argument about nothing at all.

[John]

It's a distraction technique to make the vegan waste time and energy on a topic which has no bearing on the topic of animal suffering.