wdiaz03 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Can't wait for Soylent to be released so we can put this argument behind us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28food_substitute%29
Guest darkskyabove Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Mmmmm, Soylent. Urrgghhll! (Insert Homer Simpson noise) I can't believe this is really happening. Guess the guy thinks no one old enough to have seen the movie will be around to eat it. From the movie: "Soylent green is people, man." Well, there's the universal application of "what's for dinner" to ALL biological organisms. People can be food, too!
Guest Exceptionalist Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Knock it off. He never said it was OK to aggress against them. Stop being a pseudo-intellectual. If you can't state your case without resorting to excessively complex language, how do you expect to be taken seriously? Do you think you're the only one who can use language in an arbitrary fashion? The contingent qualifiers you have promoted are quite apparent. You have yet to address the fundamental question I proposed (you skipped right over it). Where do you draw the line? Isn't a line "contingent"? As to the second line of the above quote: What the hell does that even mean? Who's moral imperative? Yours? Doesn't nullification of assertions apply universally, therefore, all your assertions are nullified? To insert my 2 cents here, you cannot aggress against the mentally ill because they are capable of rational thinking, they only lack temporary the capacity. If that was invalid, you were allowed to kill a fainted or sleeping person at will.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 To insert my 2 cents here, you cannot aggress against the mentally ill because they are capable of rational thinking, they only lack temporary the capacity. If that was invalid, you were allowed to kill a fainted or sleeping person at will. All mammals can reason, for example choose a better course away from a predator. On the other hand the mentally ill sometimes cannot perform this kind of function.
steve_ Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 To insert my 2 cents here, you cannot aggress against the mentally ill because they are capable of rational thinking, they only lack temporary the capacity. If that was invalid, you were allowed to kill a fainted or sleeping person at will. why have you assumed they're incapable of rational thinking only temporary? Also, why does it matter if they're able to think rationally again? Perhaps they can't be blamed for not abiding by the NAP, but we can be, right?
RestoringGuy Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I think it is not universal, but it's a matter of who asserts their will to live. The deer tries to run away, a sign of survival effort. At the same time, animals also die naturally and what is the difference if they are killed in order to be our food? Consider if a hitman comes for me, but it turns out I was surely going to die of heart attack anyway in about 10 seconds. Their violation of NAP is simply not relevant to me. My imminent death is the main problem. I have a lot of patience for the animal rights people only because I think they are right about intrinsic value, and there seems to be some overlap with the non-aggression principle. But if many deer will starve to death anyway, I do not think hunting for food is essentially wrong. Since death is unavoidable, everything is just a debate about how their death is timeshifted.
Cornellius Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Briefly speaking I think the real challenge in debating Veganism is to sort through all the emotional defenses sprayed out by carnivores. Not convoluted. Just hard to get over. I think carnivorism endures on because of specifically, a blindness. The taste of a medium rare steak with worcestershire sauce overpowering the prospect of ... well, legumes and tofu. It's not even a matter of giving slaughterhouses glass walls. It is to deconstruct the practises necessary for scrambled eggs and big macs and milkshakes and shepherd's pie to be possible. Because for that sensory clutter to be possible for our lives, we need every day to take millions of animals just as sentient as our loving meowing cats, and put them through Nazi extermination camps. And just as an off-topic remark... Chef Ramsay treats his cooks like cattle.
Guest darkskyabove Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I think the real challenge in debating Veganism is to sort through all the emotional defenses sprayed out by carnivores. Not convoluted. Just hard to get over. I think carnivorism endures on because of specifically, a blindness. The taste of a medium rare steak with worcestershire sauce overpowering the prospect of ... well, legumes and tofu. It's not even a matter of giving slaughterhouses glass walls. It is to deconstruct the practises necessary for scrambled eggs and big macs and milkshakes and shepherd's pie to be possible. Because for that sensory clutter to be possible for our lives, we need every day to take millions of animals just as sentient as our loving meowing cats, and put them through Nazi extermination camps. Really. So, how to deal with the emotional responses of vegetarians? I'm not supposed to eat meat because you love your cat? That's a can of worms I'll try hard to resist spilling on the floor. As to the blindness: fallacy of composition. Taking what some think and applying it to others is not only a fallacy, it's dishonest. Not one "vegetarian" has given a sound argument. Not in this thread, or the others I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter. It's all assertions and anectdotes. And now you blame the other side for emotional attachment to their steaks? Will no one even attempt to answer my original question: Where do you draw the line on what organisms are acceptable for consumption? If you want to claim sentience, first you must define what it means, how to measure it, and exactly, which organisms have it. Once you've set your arbitrary categories, you are confronted with explaining how, if you wish to apply the NAP to a certain set of animals, deer for example, you would remain consistent unless you apply the NAP to the other animals that eat them, i.e, mountain lion. This isn't some game. People are telling other people how to act, think and feel. They need to have good reasons for the attempt. And even then, they're suspect for claiming authority over others.
wdiaz03 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Briefly speaking I think the real challenge in debating Veganism is to sort through all the emotional defenses sprayed out by carnivores. Not convoluted. Just hard to get over. I think carnivorism endures on because of specifically, a blindness. The taste of a medium rare steak with worcestershire sauce overpowering the prospect of ... well, legumes and tofu. It's not even a matter of giving slaughterhouses glass walls. It is to deconstruct the practises necessary for scrambled eggs and big macs and milkshakes and shepherd's pie to be possible. Because for that sensory clutter to be possible for our lives, we need every day to take millions of animals just as sentient as our loving meowing cats, and put them through Nazi extermination camps. And just as an off-topic remark... Chef Ramsay treats his cooks like cattle. Actually for me is more like a nutritional issue. I mostly eat meat, fish, eggs and plants. If there was a plant that could provide the level of protein and carbs than meat, fish and eggs can I'm all for it. I eat them for the protein and the low carbs...It fills me up without making me fat. Its what humans been eating for thousands of years so I'm thinking my genes know how to handle that. Farming is a fairly new concept in the scheme of things so I stay away of grains etc. I always hear that plant protein is not complete it has to be mixed and matched to complete the amino acids. And most vegans get their protein from grains breads etc. to even come close to a decent protein intake would require a large amount of carbs. which would have to be burned throughout the day or they will get stored in our belly as fat. It can probably be done but I would probably have to triple my current activity just to waste that amount of energy, Insane. And I don't trust soy, its like the dog food for the masses. http://www.emagazine.com/archive/4349
Cornellius Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Really. So, how to deal with the emotional responses of vegetarians? I'm not supposed to eat meat because you love your cat? That's a can of worms I'll try hard to resist spilling on the floor. As to the blindness: fallacy of composition. Taking what some think and applying it to others is not only a fallacy, it's dishonest. Not one "vegetarian" has given a sound argument. Not in this thread, or the others I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter. It's all assertions and anectdotes. And now you blame the other side for emotional attachment to their steaks? Will no one even attempt to answer my original question: Where do you draw the line on what organisms are acceptable for consumption? If you want to claim sentience, first you must define what it means, how to measure it, and exactly, which organisms have it. Once you've set your arbitrary categories, you are confronted with explaining how, if you wish to apply the NAP to a certain set of animals, deer for example, you would remain consistent unless you apply the NAP to the other animals that eat them, i.e, mountain lion. This isn't some game. People are telling other people how to act, think and feel. They need to have good reasons for the attempt. And even then, they're suspect for claiming authority over others. Sentience is easy to measure. What are the mental functions of the species you're studying? What is part of the experience of said organism if you put it through a "coercive" agricultural process? Does the situation communicate pain, panic, misery and sheer terror in the mind of the organism? OF COURSE, it all comes down to emotion! It's an empathy thing! Heck, screw the details! 99% of the time, ask yourself this question: Does it scream to death or shriek when someone shoots a nail in its head? Arbitrary is an adjective and "This isn't some game" isn't an argument, and both sounds like the perfect oppressive statements for you to respond to the cows' calls for help in a slaughterhouse when they're walking around in feces with bruises from steel bars and bull horns. I'm not trying to make an argument here. I just want to say that you are starting to creep me out.The state of the animal world has no bearing on the validity of secular ethics, same thing for veganism. In fact, philosophy itself is an escape from primitivism. Back to meat. You see that penguin in your profile pic? If one day the chance exists that you have a sadistic penguin fixation and want to eat penguin flesh, well then, you support its slaughter in the here and now! Actually for me is more like a nutritional issue. I mostly eat meat, fish, eggs and plants. If there was a plant that could provide the level of protein and carbs than meat, fish and eggs can I'm all for it. I eat them for the protein and the low carbs...It fills me up without making me fat. Its what humans been eating for thousands of years so I'm thinking my genes know how to handle that. Farming is a fairly new concept in the scheme of things so I stay away of grains etc. I always hear that plant protein is not complete it has to be mixed and matched to complete the amino acids. And most vegans get their protein from grains breads etc. to even come close to a decent protein intake would require a large amount of carbs. which would have to be burned throughout the day or they will get stored in our belly as fat. It can probably be done but I would probably have to triple my current activity just to waste that amount of energy, Insane. And I don't trust soy, its like the dog food for the masses. http://www.emagazine.com/archive/4349 These nutritional concerns are rock solid and rather concerning. But in my case, I'm all for the discomfort of busting my ass looking for compromises. Come on man, you're two steps away from becoming a true peace advocate! Mmmmm, Soylent. Urrgghhll! (Insert Homer Simpson noise) I can't believe this is really happening. Guess the guy thinks no one old enough to have seen the movie will be around to eat it. From the movie: "Soylent green is people, man." Well, there's the universal application of "what's for dinner" to ALL biological organisms. People can be food, too! Ahem. In terms of convenience, Soylent and its homologues has got to be the greatest invention ever in the fight against famine. Have that plus filter straws and you're all set!
LifeIsBrief Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I'm going to keep this, a bit gray, so people may not like this answer, but I think the talk of "leave emotion out of it", is an interesting choice of words. I smoke an ecig, because I used to smoke, and it was a vice that I'm trying to give up. Eating meat, is another vice I'm trying to give up, but I don't think eating traditionally farmed meat, is inherently a violation of the NAP... I think modern meat production is a violation of the NAP. I think a couple of important questions haven't been addressed in terms of whether or not it's a direct violation, much of which has to do with emotion, but not yours, or mine... The cow, or chickens. Question one - Do farmers, net create life? Can we all agree that there would be a lot less cows and chickens in the world, without farming? They'd get eaten by a larger predator, which we would then have to, and would, deal with. Question two - Can a farmer provide a happy, healthy life for a cow or chicken? I would argue that most don't, thus violating NAP. Veal is impossible to justify... but, in pure theory, a farmer can treat cows and chickens very well, until maturity. But, if farmers net create life, and provide happy lives for their herd... the final question is... Is being a young healthy cow, and wandering around free land, as good as it gets for a cow? Is he going to invent cow rugby in his 20's? Or is wandering around eating food, a really great life? I think it probably is. If you say yes to all three of these questions, it is not inherently a violation of NAP to raise, herd, and then kill a cow, provided you treat it with the respect it deserves, for a long happy life... You've done it a great kindness, in a very cruel world for cows and chickens.
Cornellius Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 If you say yes to all three of these questions, it is not inherently a violation of NAP to raise, herd, and then kill a cow, provided you treat it with the respect it deserves, for a long happy life... You've done it a great kindness, in a very cruel world for cows and chickens. This talk of net life is truly fascinating, Ikiru fan. I really haven't heard that kind of perspective before. Very eye-opening. I'm just wary of the possibility that we're already exploiting this exact utilitarian-ish (I don't know) justification for murder. For some research, I'm thrilled to mention the Werner Herzog documentary Happy People: A year in the Taiga, where a trapper compares hunting with animal raising. He speaks of dishonesty. He speaks of hypocrisy. It can't be ignored that animal raising is an assured betrayal; moreover, the barriers of the coercion may well come to the cow's consciousness and lead to neurotic cover-up behavior, a sort of maddening internalization. It might be a crime to carry animals' emotional experience from the natural realm of fear and pain into the realm of depression. Just paths to explore. Thank you man.
wdiaz03 Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 But in my case, I'm all for the discomfort of busting my ass looking for compromises. Come on man, you're two steps away from becoming a true peace advocate! Yup, I'm waiting to mutate into a scavenger so I can digest decomposing flesh with ease. Eating meat, is another vice I'm trying to give up, Why is this a vice?
Cornellius Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Yup, I'm waiting to mutate into a scavenger so I can digest decomposing flesh with ease. You could write a song called Be a Vulture. It would go "Be a vulture! Be a vulture! Be a vul be a vul be a vuvulvuvuvuvuvuvututure Be a vulture! Be a vulture!Be a vulture! Be a vulture!Be a vulture! Be a vulture!Be a vulture! Be a vulture!"
LifeIsBrief Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 I consider eating meat the way it is farmed in the modern world, to be a vice... because I believe that almost all farms now violate the NAP. I live near Los Angeles though. If I lived right near a farm, where I thought there were happy cows and chickens, I would stop thinking it was a vice. Without a connection to the meat you're eating, and without knowing how it is treated, I consider meat eating a guilty pleasure, that I should work on, because most of the meat I eat, likely violates the NAP. Basically, there's no animal so dumb, that it could remain content, without room to turn in a circle. Eating something born into misery bothers me... but I shouldn't have used the blanket "Eating meat is a vice". Also, I'm with Stef in terms of priorities. To start applying the principle to animals, when we haven't even applied it properly to people, is to put the cart before the horse. That said, for me, personally and emotionally, the way we treat animals, is starting to bother me, and thus I am working to improve the way I consume meat, as though it were a vice.
wdiaz03 Posted November 3, 2013 Posted November 3, 2013 I consider eating meat the way it is farmed in the modern world, to be a vice... because I believe that almost all farms now violate the NAP. I live near Los Angeles though. If I lived right near a farm, where I thought there were happy cows and chickens, I would stop thinking it was a vice. Without a connection to the meat you're eating, and without knowing how it is treated, I consider meat eating a guilty pleasure, that I should work on, because most of the meat I eat, likely violates the NAP. Basically, there's no animal so dumb, that it could remain content, without room to turn in a circle. Eating something born into misery bothers me... but I shouldn't have used the blanket "Eating meat is a vice". Also, I'm with Stef in terms of priorities. To start applying the principle to animals, when we haven't even applied it properly to people, is to put the cart before the horse. That said, for me, personally and emotionally, the way we treat animals, is starting to bother me, and thus I am working to improve the way I consume meat, as though it were a vice. Right, so if we where to generalize this into a principle "I will not participate/sponsor activities that violate the NAP" then public roads, schools, taxes and basically anything government provided should be avoided and all we are left if with the cabin in the woods eating berries. Yup I like the priorities idea.
Guest Exceptionalist Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Sentience is easy to measure. What are the mental functions of the species you're studying? What is part of the experience of said organism if you put it through a "coercive" agricultural process? Does the situation communicate pain, panic, misery and sheer terror in the mind of the organism? OF COURSE, it all comes down to emotion! It's an empathy thing! I think the gazelle has feelings too if she faces a lion but having feelings doesn't equal being able to rational thinking. You have at least being able to have self ownership to be included in the NAP, that implies you could respect the NAP and being able to apply the NAP. Your example only make sense if you'd say, shooting a sedated person in the head wouldn't violate the NAP, cuz it cannot feel any pain or sheer terror. Given the sedation wasn't applied involuntarily. Arbitrary is an adjective and "This isn't some game" isn't an argument, and both sounds like the perfect oppressive statements for you to respond to the cows' calls for help in a slaughterhouse when they're walking around in feces with bruises from steel bars and bull horns. Quote mining isn't funny at all, that's where the emotions chime in. Arbitrary was related to inventing some category and "This isn't a game" was related to some kinda pretentious behaviour.
LifeIsBrief Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Right, so if we where to generalize this into a principle "I will not participate/sponsor activities that violate the NAP" then public roads, schools, taxes and basically anything government provided should be avoided and all we are left if with the cabin in the woods eating berries. Yup I like the priorities idea. Just to be clear... I actually want to buy a few acres of land, build my own cabin near a small town, and pretty much avoid all of those things, by surfing the poverty line. I'm a monk. I'm completely sold on "I will not participate/sponsor activities that violate the NAP". I'd like to raise my own chickens and cows. I wouldn't try to push this view on anyone else, but yes... I'll take that all the way to its logical conclusion. Participating in this horrifying system is a vice, that I'm working on.
Cornellius Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I think the gazelle has feelings too if she faces a lion but having feelings doesn't equal being able to rational thinking. You have at least being able to have self ownership to be included in the NAP, that implies you could respect the NAP and being able to apply the NAP. Your example only make sense if you'd say, shooting a sedated person in the head wouldn't violate the NAP, cuz it cannot feel any pain or sheer terror. Given the sedation wasn't applied involuntarily. I've read that confusing paragraph twice, mind you. It really made my stomach turn. You're a fogging faux intellectual, in my opinion. I just had to mention it. It's not important right now. What matters is what you said. I'm not going to bother replying thoroughly. I was simply talking about sentience, the possibility of taking account emotions in evaluating the killing of animals. My example had to do with the VERY SIMPLE question: What is its sentience? Quote mining isn't funny at all, that's where the emotions chime in. Arbitrary was related to inventing some category and "This isn't a game" was related to some kinda pretentious behaviour. Yes, he used arbitrary, and yes, it was in the context of inventing some category. That doesn't have anything to do with anything. Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw that he had slipped in an adjective to disqualify the process of evaluating sentience. And plain and simple, squeezing in "this isn't some game" at the end was an attempt to disqualify my entire efforts in pursuing the truth in the debate of meat consumption! What point are you trying to make here? Did you want to seem smart for using the term "quote mining"? Dear sweet lord! I apologize, I was having a painful evening in the first place.
steve_ Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 To start applying the principle to animals, when we haven't even applied it properly to people, is to put the cart before the horse. By turning 'I' into 'we' it seems you've grouped yourself in with people who don't apply the NAP to people so you can find an excuse to not apply it to animals. If you're personally applying the NAP to people already, then it's time you apply to to animals, unless you're going to hide behind your idea of being a collective.
Guest Exceptionalist Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I've read that confusing paragraph twice, mind you. It really made my stomach turn. You're a fogging faux intellectual, in my opinion. I just had to mention it. It's not important right now. What matters is what you said. I'm not going to bother replying thoroughly. I was simply talking about sentience, the possibility of taking account emotions in evaluating the killing of animals. My example had to do with the VERY SIMPLE question: What is its sentience? No, the lack of emotions doesn't mean it is justified to killing something, otherwise you could kill someone who is temporarly incapable of feeling something, like a sedated or comatose person. Yes, he used arbitrary, and yes, it was in the context of inventing some category. That doesn't have anything to do with anything. Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw that he had slipped in an adjective to disqualify the process of evaluating sentience. And plain and simple, squeezing in "this isn't some game" at the end was an attempt to disqualify my entire efforts in pursuing the truth in the debate of meat consumption! ... that's why this case is abitrary. It is made up stuff in a lack of objective justification. You simply just saying we should take that into account. This isn't some game was related to your lack of rational arguments in his opinion and he justified it well. What point are you trying to make here? Did you want to seem smart for using the term "quote mining"? Dear sweet lord! I apologize, I was having a painful evening in the first place. You quoted things out of context followed by an ad hominem attack and don't attack someone if you cannot think straight. I don't answer implicit and therefor indecent questions like those in your pm.
Cornellius Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 No, the lack of emotions doesn't mean it is justified to killing something, otherwise you could kill someone who is temporarly incapable of feeling something, like a sedated or comatose person. Strawman, and in the subsequent replies, arguments from adjective and statements of personal opinion masquerating as arguments. Nothing more pretentious and pathetic. I think you should get the f--k out of here. You're pissing everyone off and I'm sick of your foul attitude. I think you're a rotting brain in a dwarf's body, looking for people who will bow down to your faux-intellectual ramblings so you can feel tall without looking into yourself. I've taken screen captures. If you reply with more of your crap, I will contact the head of this board. But I honestly think I should do that now, because you deserve to leave and never come back.
SeanBissell Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 "Plants can feel, they can smell, they can remember, and they can talk to each other, where's your moral high ground now vegetarians?"
steve_ Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 "Plants can feel, they can smell, they can remember, and they can talk to each other, where's your moral high ground now vegetarians?" Are they concious and do they feel pain? Nope? Don't care then
PatrickC Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 "Plants can feel, they can smell, they can remember, and they can talk to each other, where's your moral high ground now vegetarians?" This is where this debate always ends up and deteriorates into a game of 'gotcha's'. The above one, is one of the silliest I've heard frankly. Anyway, I know it feels like a hard pill to swallow for many an ethical vegan, but you really can only apply APA (aesthetically preffered actions) to animal welfare. Attempts at ignoring UPB with the less definitive axiom of the NAP doesn't serve philosophy at all well.APA is quite sufficient, as it still comes with responsibilities and consequencies, not entirely unlike UPB. For instance, you can ostracise those that eat meat and refuse to do business with them. If there were enough people that felt this way about animal welfare, you would see a significant re-thinking about current animal welfare practices.Of course my argument only makes sense if you understand UPB and accept it as a valid method for testing moral theories. If you don't, then I encourage you to investigate UPB and in turn APA for yourself.
SeanBissell Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 How do ya know plants aren't conscious? I'm being serious. How do we really know plants don't have consciousness? Plants respond to light, touch, sound, movement, etc. They also have a form of memory. They even appear to get stressed out when you mess with them. (The Mythbusters helped show that.) http://youtu.be/fStmk7e9lJo Just because they can't move from their spot in the ground, or communicate in "animal ways". Why don't they have consciousness?
PatrickC Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Until we can communicate with them Sean and we can share a reciprocal relationship, I'm not taking your suggestion at all seriously.
PatrickC Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 You clearly haven't been reading my posts have you.
SeanBissell Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 No I haven't, I'm new here, and you've got 1,656 posts to go though. Do you have a PDF compilation of the highlights?
PatrickC Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Ok, since you're new. Just go back and read my posts throughout this thread and then hit a link I made at the beginning. That will give you a more thorough understanding of my position, without having to trawl through my entire postings.
SeanBissell Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 I'll try and look through the thread. Thanks man
steve_ Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 How do ya know plants aren't conscious? I'm being serious. How do we really know plants don't have consciousness? Plants respond to light, touch, sound, movement, etc. They also have a form of memory. They even appear to get stressed out when you mess with them. (The Mythbusters helped show that.) http://youtu.be/fStmk7e9lJo Just because they can't move from their spot in the ground, or communicate in "animal ways". Why don't they have consciousness? For the same level of evidence that I believe you have consciousness. I can't prove that you have conciousness, but I know you're similar to me so I make the assumption.
SeanBissell Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 I agree Steve, I don't think you can prove anyone has consciousness at all. So I personally don't see why plants wouldn't either. In a large part, I think we associate consciousness with a lack of predictability. So rocks don't have consciousness because you can predict what they'll do when you manipulate them almost 100% of the time. However, you can't predict what a human will do all the time. Plants feel more "predictable" because they're stuck in the ground, and they move really really slowly.
steve_ Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 I agree Steve, I don't think you can prove anyone has consciousness at all. So I personally don't see why plants wouldn't either. Well, where do you think conciousness comes from? I believe it's a feature of the brain, and as plants do not have brains... Also, if you really take this seriously then I'm not sure why walking over newborn babies/chicks is any worse than walking on grass. In a large part, I think we associate consciousness with a lack of predictability. So rocks don't have consciousness because you can predict what they'll do when you manipulate them almost 100% of the time. However, you can't predict what a human will do all the time. Plants feel more "predictable" because they're stuck in the ground, and they move really really slowly. I believe humans are predictable, too. Perhaps not to us, but logically I think they can be predicted.
Recommended Posts