you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 1 day ago (24 children)

I know this is kind of a joke but this is legitimately one of the reasons I went vegetarian. Felt very "icky" to build my body out of other dead bodies.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    That's also a bit of a peculiar feeling after being vegan for a while. My whole body consists out of plant matter and the occasional mushroom. I'm practically a plant at this point.

    (Obviously irrational, though. Meat, dairy, eggs etc. are also just pre-digested plants. We'd all be practically plants by that logic.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 day ago (16 children)
  • [–] 11 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

    Let's say that plants really feel pain. How do we reduce that pain to a minimum? To get 1kg beef you need roughly 50kg plant matter. So eating only plants would be much more humane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (3 children)

    Anyways, the poing on eating meat is that plants don't give you as much energy as plants, so you'll need to be as a panda, a koala or a cow to be able to survive (like, pass the vast majority of every day in your life just eating).

    Or well, at least that's in a purely natural/primitive/pre-industrial enviroment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago

    That's only for certain plants. I could get fat off a pre modern vegan diet. Mostly it'd be by overconsuming nuts, grains, and legumes. Probably mushrooms fried in olive oil as well. Like it'd take some doing because fiber sends satiation signals. But of course, I could bypass the fiber easily with beer, and it'd make having too many nuts sound perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Plants can feel pain the same way a machine can learn. Which means not at all outside of marketing.

    In reality they simply have mechanisms to react to damage. But that's not pain.

    Pain is the processing of injury in a nervous system. Plants lack the nervous system required to feel anything.

    Just like a brain dead human, sponge or bacteria plants cannot feel pain in any meaningful way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

    And what is a nervous system really? Why is it so special and different from any other chemical reaction?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

    It's more the processing that's relevant for pain. No processing, no pain.

    For instance, some humans have very specific genetic mutations that do not allow them to feel pain. The peripheral nerves still send the pain signals to the brain but it cannot process them. Therefore, no pain.

    There could be a discussion on whether very simple nervous systems (like in jellyfish) without a central component (brain) can process pain. But I'm not a biological researcher or philosopher so that's outside my Lemmy paygrade.

    And what makes them different from any other chemical reaction is a little disingenuous. Might as well ask what's the difference between burning a human on a stake and melting glass? Both are just chemical reactions involving heat from a certain perspective.

    There is simply no organ comparable to the brain in plants that would allow for plant pain. That's pretty much it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    Aren't we just like Quarks on the most basic level? So why would one arrangement of Quarks, produce feeling people and not another?

    Maybe objects feel pain, but can't remember it, or react to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • You are aware systems are more than the sums of their parts...?

    A book is more than the sum of its words.

    A painting is more than the sum of its pigments

    Music is more than the sum of its sine waves.

    This is called emergence and is a very basic principle of - well anything, really. The same building blocks arranged in different ways will result in entirely different new objects.

    If you're interested in philosophy, feel free to read a few Wikipedia articles. You're not the first one to ask about the nature of feelings and I am not qualified to have deeper discussions about this topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I mean, it's not really fair because plants don't have any of the same "parts" we do that would constitute a body as such. When I think of growing my body, I think of organs and tissues such as muscle, bone, blood, neurons, etc. These are primary components of what would be considered nutritional intake from a dead body that would be reconstructed for use in our own body. Plants do not have muscles, bones, etc. We are using basic nutrients like cats, proteins, and carbohydrates as building blocks for our own parts. As noted elsewhere it takes a fraction of the plant matter necessary to build our own muscles than it does to feed a pound of meat to them use to build muscle from that. So even by your flawed logic, it's still less plants to eat them directly than it is to eat meat grown from them.

    Additionally, the vast majority of plant products don't even require a plant to "die" to eat. Many fruits and vegetables are just the reproductive structure of the plant, not vital for the health of the plant at all. I am an avid gardener and the only plants I can think of that have to "die" for me to eat them are root vegetables. Even then if you're diligent you could save, for example, the tops of carrots or bottom of onions to regrow.

    They are completely different concepts and it's bad faith to argue otherwise.

  • source
  • parent