you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 106 points 2 years ago* (24 children)

Plants having no nervous system is being challenged with the idea that the plant itself is its central nervous system.

They react to stimulus, they emit sounds (different ones when in “pain”), and communicate with each other.

They don’t have consciousness in a way we understand

I dont mean this as a “dunk” but more of a how neat is that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago* (19 children)

    It's always funny to me how people eat up the concept of a distrubuted neural network in tech but scoff at the same idea applying to something like a tree or a fungus.

    Pando is the largest organism by area, and the Humungous Fungus is the largest by mass. The idea that those organisms don't "think" in some way is laughable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    It always seems lime some excuse in a counter response by vеgаns

    The number of times I've responded to them telling them that plants probably process pain in a different way to us has always been shot down by them

    Tell them that brains extremely simplified are just on and off responses to certain stimuli / information just like plants have specific reponsonses to stimuli and computers having 1's and 0's that respond to information

    A mycelium network could be counted as a brain

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    If you actually believe harming plants causes them pain and that that is bad, you should be vegan. Animal agriculture harms far, far more plants than any plant agriculture ever could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    But then you're still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn't that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?

    I really don't know if plants can cause pain and I think the environmental arguments for not eating meat are far more compelling than the ethical ones, but regardless, I think this is a poor argument for veganism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    But then you’re still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn’t that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?

    If you insist on animal abuse then you should do it through hunting rather than factory farming precisely because of the diminished amount of suffering caused. But it's still more suffering than would be caused by just eating plants so I'm not sure I understand your point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I'm talking about an argument for veganism though. If you are saying that it's acceptable for people to eat hunted meat, you're not saying they should be vegans. And you're encouraging a massive increase in hunting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I'm not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Okay, then I think you're completely missing my point, which is that arguing that causing less pain is good is a bad argument for veganism. Causing no pain would be the ethical argument, wouldn't it? Causing less pain would still be unethical, right?

    It's sort of like trying to convince someone committing genocide they should stop by telling them they should slow down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's not sort of like that though because the practicality of the matter is that humans have to eat to survive but they don't have to genocide to survive. Reducing suffering as much as possible being the goal rather than eliminating it completely is not a new concept in philosophy considering eliminating suffering completely is impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If it is only about reducing suffering as much as possible, would harvesting the meat from euthanized pets be acceptable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I don't really have an answer to that, it is an interesting question. For me personally I don't hold any attachment or feelings to the bodies of the deceased. When I die I'm getting one of those mushroom suits that decomposes you and quickly returns you to nature. But some people are much more attached to the bodies of the deceased whether for spiritual reasons or otherwise and I can't really speak for them. Would eating the euthanized pets cause suffering to their previous owners, I really have no answer for that, I assume there would be some people who would suffer from that and some who wouldn't mind. The quality of the meat I think would be very low though considering it would mostly be very senior animals with many health issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can't say I care. Same way I don't really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I'm not going to do it, I don't see these things as food. And I think there's a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    because humans invent things from scratch that nature has already created and optimzed, it's why we're seeing a lot of optimizations on current tech that comes from nature itself.

    It's a really weird problem to have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Go find that video of a slime mold optimizing Japan's rail system by finding oats in a maze

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    isn't this similar to or equivalent in concept to letting water pathfind through a maze for example?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No. The slime mold doesn't just solve the maze. It figures out the optimal path and grows only where it needs to reach the goal. It's a fascinating thing to watch in time-lapse. The "water in a maze" idea is that if it fills every passage, the only drain would be the exit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I dont mean this as a “dunk” but more of a how neat is that

    It's truly shameful that disclaimers like these feel necessary in this age of shitting on everyone else online. Lemmy users suck too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, but on the other hand I’m old enough to know that when I get excited about something I can talk about it in a way that “clobbers” so I like to disclaimer myself when I know I’m exhibiting that kind of behavior.

  • source
  • parent