you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 0 points 15 hours ago (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago (2 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 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours 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