Vegans and PETA-philes, how do you feel about the extinction of pet species?

Well, considering that it was human domestication of wild species that made these other species, one could argue that it would be a return to a more natural state.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. Considering that humans have also create cities and towns and many of these animals that are pet and/or food animals can survive without human help. Dogs are actually very close to wolves genetically and can interbreed with wolves. I think many of these pet/food animals would be able to survive without direct human help but would die without indirect human help.

I also like to think of pet animals but not necessarily food animals as having a kind of symbiotic relationship with humans which is actually quite natural. When humans first started domesticating wolves, the exchange was much more basic. I supply the food, you supply the protection. Nowadays, humans supply food, shelter and entertainment for dogs and dogs supply love and entertainment for us. Different breeds of dog were bred for different purposes which furthered the symbiosis.

I think humans letting pet animals die out by “setting them free” would be like a shark disallowing sucker fish to hang on and eat the scraps. It just wouldn’t make sense for either pet animals or humans to do so.

Hmm…not sure on the anti-domestication front (as it raises a lotta what-if’s + variables) but it would definitely be an interesting thought experiment to consider not eating any animals ever again taken as a movement by all the people populating earth. Aside from the economical complications & mess, I would be curious as to the physical effects of having all this breeding + running rampant going on. Would natural predator-prey relationships work? How would homeostasis occur? Would it lead to a plague of some sort?

I’m a vegan for ethical reasons, though all the fringe benefits make it even more worth my while.

<——- I’m not against having pets. There is such a small percentage of vegans –and also small of PETA followers—who believe we should not have pets that I don’t really think you’ll find anyone here who can answer your question wholly from that perspective. With that in mind, I will answer your question with the best of my ability. (Though I don’t follow PETA, I am offended by you wrapping vegans in with a derogatory name for an animal activist group meant to sound like a child predator.)

Animals living in factory farm facilities are not treated well. If I were treated as such, I would prefer not to have been born, rather than born into a life of suffering. Side note: Children do not see these animals. I have no problem with having “billions” fewer lives of pain.

I have no problem with people who live in a symbiotic relationship with animals, such as milking your cow and taking fresh eggs from your chicken. Personally, I could never slaughter an animal that I knew felt pain and I had a “relationship” with, with exception to the animal being in constant pain if it were to live. I do not have the capacity for a farm, so I do not have the ability to live symbiotically with animals. I’d prefer people purchase local and organic meat/dairy/eggs to eliminate the issue of factory farming (and it is best for you anyway). I have personally decided I did not want to contribute to any of it, as I believe I have a choice to live free from contributing unnecessary harm to other sentient beings or not. I also realize this isn’t necessarily feasible for everyone around the world.

People are the problem; we always have been as a result of our constant disruption to ecosystems in order to build. I’m not saying I want to live back as hunters and gatherers, but that we don’t have a respect for the intricate web that works itself out and exists as life.

So many fallacies. Facepalm. Will return when I’m better.

Sidenote: domestic cats are one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, cause of migratory songbird die-off.

That’s why I keep my cats indoors.

It’ll never happen.

@Taciturnu I think it’s pretty clear that within a generation, it will be possible for the world to live meat free if it chooses. The raising of muscle cells via cloning in vats reduces the “organic overhead” from that of live animals. It’s coming. Yes, I’m sure there will be hold outs just as there were when the world began switching to frozen food, and voice mail, and indoor plumbing. But clinging to the eating of once living meat will be the aberration and then it won’t matter at all. And so clinging to the argument that “it won’t happen so it doesn’t matter” is dishonest.

@6rant6 I never said once, that “it won’t happen so it doesn’t matter.” What is “it” that I would have referred to, anyway? Clearly, you did not take away from my answer what I intended you to.

…and I’m sure the intensive energy use of cloning meat in vats won’t contribute at all to the rapid environmental degradation, and therefore kill off countless animals by depriving them of habitat…

Cloning is a whole another thread + topic of its own probably.

”I’m just struck by the idea that the people who place animals at the pinnacle of importance would create a world without them.”

That is not what animal rights activists want or propose. I don’t know where you got that idea but it’s wrong.

As to domesticated animals, I think only the most radical animal rights activists place animals at the “pinnacle of importance” and espouse an ideology that would have us rid of pets. And any animal rights activist who would advocate the we abandon domesticated animals at this point is and idiot and cares more about his or her ideology than about animals. We domesticate cats and dogs and other animals thousands and thousands of years ago. They are no longer wild life. In my opinion, domesticating animals is taking on the responsibility of pet ownership writ large. It is we who domesticated them and made them dependent on us and now we are responsible for them.

I don’t understand this question and think it might need to be reworded and better thought-out.

As a minor suggestion to those of the “that doesn’t represent my thoughts about animal rights” persuasion, consider the possibility that you aren’t the target of the question. Read it as a question addressed to one set of people (vegans, PETA members, and perhaps animal lovers in general by implication) regarding a differently defined set of people (the subset of animal lovers who espouse the beliefs noted in the details) with the understanding that there will be some overlap (since the latter set may be a proper subset of the former set).

I make this suggestion because I am a non-vegetarian (though I am a flexitarian) who is part of the first set on its largest interpretation (I care about the treatment of animals and support laws protecting them) who shares the OP’s skepticism regarding the doctrinal consistency of a certain subset of putative animal lovers. PETA, for instance, is happy to euthanize animals by the thousands.

Now, Ingrid Newkirk doesn’t believe that any living creature has a right to life, so she may be free of the most obvious inconsistency here. But this goes on without objection even from those PETA spokespeople who consistently proclaim that even ants have a right to life. So if nothing else, there are tensions that need to be worked out in the views of some animal lovers. And that is exactly what the OP says.

Species cannot suffer. Breeds cannot suffer. Individual animals can suffer.

Therefore, if we do lose domestic animal breeds because we are no longer breeding them for food, no living being suffers. An animal that is never bred or born suffers nothing. Therefore, I fail to see the ethical problem here.

@crisw The putative ethical problem comes in because members of the subset of people in question often hold that species are intrinsically valuable. A more utilitarian approach like yours, however, still has to have an answer to Derek Parfit’s mere addition paradox and the so-called “repugnant conclusion” that is supposed to follow from it.

@SavoirFaire

Don’t call me a utilitarian- them’s fighting words! :>)

I am much closer to a deontologist; my favorite philosopher is Tom Regan, who hotly opposes utilitarianism for, I feel, all the right reasons.

As far as the mere addition paradox, it seems to only apply to a utilitarian ethic, not a rights-based one.

There in lies the rub @crisw. How do you prevent, for example, domesticated cats, as their circumstances exist today, from breeding and bearing new offspring? You make it sound like it’s merely an issue of attrition. Oh well, we no longer breed animals for food, we no longer let them procreate, hence, once we are done with all that business we no longer have any responsibility“An animal that is never bred or born suffers nothing.” Is that really the way it would play out for domestic cats for example? I do really know how much you care about animals, I do, I know that you would never, ever propose any ideology that would result in the suffering of animals so please explain this one more clearly to me. I don’t believe mere benign attrition will be enough to allow us to be done with the “social contract” that we have made with some of our domestic animals, the cat, perhaps e.g.

What the hell are you talking about? Parrots are like the planet’s wisemen. Like owls. They don’t need us.

But otherwise, I think I see what you mean, although I’m sure Pit bulls, or whatever they were before, never asked to rip one another to shreds for some fucker’s bag of gold.

@lillycoyote

Of course, I am speaking in a rarefied atmosphere. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that we will just stop breeding animals. In the case of food animals, there may be slow attrition as people eat less meat- the breeding of these animals is strictly controlled to provide a commodity.

I also do not believe that once we stop breeding we lose responsibility. In fact, I feel the opposite- if a bredeer brings an animal into the world, then the breeder owes that animal a good and full life.

As far as pets go, I am not anti-pet and I am pro-responsible breeder. I am much more familiar with dogs and the dog breeding world than cats. As far as dogs go, I believe that no breeder should breed unless he or she has more homes waiting than puppies expected, that no dog should be bred unless it has passed extensive health, temperament and conformation testing, that all puppies must be placed responsibly (and never, never through commercial trade such as pet stores) and that all breeders must take back any animals that they have bred if they lose their homes. I also believe that any dogs that are not worked or shown or used in a reputable breeding program should be neutered. If all of this were done, there would be no unwanted dogs. Although these principles are the norm in many countries, sadly, in the good ol’ freedom-lovin’ US they are not, and we kill millions of dogs every year.

@lillycoyote My premise wasn’t that the position of animal activists is to get rid of animals. My premise was that some people want to end the ownership/consumption of animals. If that happens, do you not agree that animals – many, not all – will disappear from the planet?

And just to be perfectly clear, people, I’m not saying your position is to end ownership/consumption of animals. I was asking a question of people who feel that way.

If you feel that way, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I am asking how you feel about the inevitable decline in our relationship with animals. That’s all.

@crisw My apologies for calling you a utilitarian! It’s just that your opening line was so close to a famous quote from Bentham and the rest of your response sounded like a mental state view of well-being. This is hard to reconcile with a deontological basis for animal rights. That’s why I raised the mere addition paradox. Deontology has a different problem: the question of how something could be wrong even if every sentient being wanted it to happen.

@6rant6

I don’t know if it’s clear that our relationship with animals would “decline” because of the elimination of consumption and domestication.

The dog is the most clear example. Without a formal ownership structure, there’s no reason to believe that dogs as a species would end up (1) disappearing or (2) leaving man’s side. There has been a good deal of research regarding the cooperative nature of the evolution of dogs and man together. (the article in the link is fairly speculative – but it’s a fun examination of the idea). But it’s not far fetched that man and dog have developed in the manner they have naturally (outside the breeding that grew from domestication) and that the relationship would continue post-domestication.

There’s a similar symbiosis with many of the park species in cities and park-goers. It’s likely that animals bred solely for food would end up dying out – but as @crisw points out, this may be the best thing. The individual members of the breed/species would die – if they do so without being bred artificially and don’t end up doing it naturally, there’s nothing inherently cruel in that. Further, breeding in the end almost always being inbreeding. The amount of inherited genetic disorders you’ll find in pure-bred dogs is astounding.

So promoting an agenda that is anti-domestication generally doesn’t mean that it entails an anti-animal component at all. Getting rid of breeding doesn’t by necessity end a species (with many it will); but the end of a species such as cows used in CAFOs may end up increasing the genetic diversity by freeing environments yolked to providing for those cows so others can take advantage. We also can’t forget that there is severe deforestation that is the result of cattle and other farming causing or speeding along extinctions in places like South America at an alarming rate.

@crisw

I still have a problem with your apparent anti-utilitarianism as the rights-based methodology
that Regan seems to be going for is delimited by the “least harm principle” – requiring we determine the road that causes the least harm overall, and we then are bringing utilitarian concepts into the mix!.

I have no problem eating meat nor having pets what bothers me is the way some places treat the animals. I see nothing at all wrong with raising animals for food. Like has been mentioned most of the millions that have been breed for that purpose would not have been breed otherwise. I see nothing wrong with making coats of animals breed for that purpose. Man has always used animals for food and for skins to shelter our bodies from the cold. I do have problems with the treatment of animals. I have raised rabbits for food and the fur and those that I raised would not been raised without my purpose. I never mistreated them and took good care of them. I am a big animal lover and am against the ill treatment of all animals. Those that are breed for sport and for killing each other and hurting each other should be done away with.

@iamthemob

Not sure how much of Regan you have actually read. In The Case for Animal Rights Regan goes into great detail as to why the least harm principle is not aggregative. As an example, if pricking someone with a needle is less harmful than stabbing someone with a butcher knife, then if asked which act is more harmful, it’s stabbing with the butcher knife- even if it’s just one person getting stabbed and 1,000,000 getting pricked with a needle.

@SavoirFaire

“Deontology has a different problem: the question of how something could be wrong even if every sentient being wanted it to happen.”

Good question, but I am having a hard time coming up with an example where this would apply and the act would not be wrong. What would be such an example? As @iamthemob mentions, the least harm principle is also important here- I don’t think I am a pure deontologist, just closer to deontology than utilitarianism.

@Summum

If it is possible to eat without killing a sentient thing, isn’t the choice to eat the sentient thing a less moral choice?

If it is possible to clothe ourselves without killing as well, isn’t wearing fur a less moral choice?

If raising domesticated animals has severe genetic and environmental impacts, isn’t that a poor moral choice?

@crisw

It doesn’t have to be aggregative to be utilitarian. It’s still assessing whether one way of life produces more harm than another. That requires taking into account the how many harmed, the type of thing harmed, and the gravity of the harm.

I think we’re on the same page now, though, after your comment to @SavoirFaire. My objection was to what I perceived as arguing against there being any necessary utilitarian aspects to your position.

@iamthemob

“It doesn’t have to be aggregative to be utilitarian”

But it’s the aggregative nature of utilitarianism that causes, in my mind, problems with classical utilitarianism. As a famous example, if you have a rich spinster aunt who is a generally unpleasant person, disliked by everyone, who has left all her vast fortune to you in her will, utilitarian theory would hold that killing her would be permissible as long as no one will miss her and you use the money to, say, fund an orphanage.

@crisw

Let’s not critique utilitarianism. A perfect moral philosophy requires perfect knowledge – it ain’t going to happen. There’s a famous example of how, taken to logical ends and ignoring all cofactors outside the subjects of the example, every single philosophy, ideology, economic theory, etc. is totally wrong in some way.

@crisw First, I have a problem with your needle/butcher knife case. It might fit our intuitions when limited to trivial examples like that, but what about rape and murder? Pick whichever one you think is more harmful. Is it really the case that one act of that type is still more harmful than 1,000,000 acts of the other type? If so, why should I care about your metric? And if I have no reason to care about your metric, it cannot be the basis of any functioning morality.

Second, the question I raised about deontology only needs to be unanswerable in principle. Since it goes to the theoretical underpinnings of the view, there need not be any actual examples (just as the critiques of utilitarianism do not require there to be any actual utility monsters, any actual experience machines, or any actual unpleasant spinster aunts).

Regardless, here is one possible case. Jim is on a game show along the lines of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and has reached a question where he needs to use his equivalent of the “phone a friend.” The difference is that the two cannot confer or talk. The friend can only give a letter (corresponding to one of the four answers).

Sam is Jim’s designated friend, and Jim will trust whatever answer Sam gives to him. But there’s a catch. One of the questions on this game show must be answered incorrectly to advance. Which one is not revealed, but a clue is given at the beginning of the program. Sam has figured out that it is this question, but Jim is quite sure it’s not. Indeed, Jim believes he is quite good at figuring out the clues, and he has made Sam promise to give him the correct answer to the question if he insists that it’s not the one that has to be answered falsely.

So when he dials Sam, Jim says the following: “I am positive this is not the question that is supposed to be answered false, so please give me the correct answer to the question. Remember, you promised me you’d do as I asked.” Sam is absolutely positive this is the trick question. He also knows that Jim will give whatever answer he is told to give by Sam. Furthermore, Sam knows that—despite the promise—Jim would want him to lie in this case. The audience wants a winner, so they would also want him to lie. And the creators/hosts of the show are benevolent, so they also want Sam to lie if it means Jim wins.

Therefore, we have a case where everyone wants Sam to lie. It’s not quite every sentient being, but it’s every relevant sentient being for the case (plus, this is an example problem). But if lying is wrong on a deontological ethics—and Kant’s argument against the right to lie from benevolent motives seems to at least hold for deontologists, even if it wouldn’t hold for anyone else—then Sam should not lie. And that’s a problem.

Species have come and gone for eons, long before human beings arrived on earth. When all living things have vanished from earth, it will have nothing to do with what humans did or did not do. The notion that humans can direct species survival or extinction is pure hubris. I suggest you worry about making sure your kids are educated, or something equally important.

@josie I get what you’re saying, but you’re overstating the case. There are only a few pandas left in the world, and we know where each one is. It is quite within our power to directly make them extinct. Human beings, in fact, have a rather large effect on the world. The problem is, we tend to think we have about 100 times the effect we actually do have. (That’s a conservative estimate.)

I’ve met thousands of animals rights and animal welfare activists since 1988.

And out of all of them… the only one I’ve ever met who is against pet companionship was a 17 year old anarchist punk who probably was still working out his opinions in life at the time.

I think it’s a myth that animal-rights people are against living with pets, generally speaking… so long as those pets are not caged.

I don’t think eating of an animal is a moral issue how you treat that animal is. Like when the people offered up burnt offereings they would pick the best of their flock to sacrifice for the offering and it is within the heart/mind where the morality resides.

@Summum – I don’t really see how you’re conceptually separating out eating an animal from an aspect of how you treat it. Because you’re eating it, you required that it be killed, sliced up, and delivered to you.

Personally, I think this is part of the problem with a globalized and corporate-centered economy – we have no connection with the things we consume (literally and in a commercial sense), and so we really have no ideas of the externalities we’re contributing to. Although you did not see the animal getting killed, by contributing to the market for it’s meat it was killed.

That’s one problem – another is that it’s profoundly concerning to hear phrases like yours that claim that morality is “in the heart/mind.” It couches morality as a purely objective thing. Although there are many grey areas about whether or not certain acts might be considered moral in the end, arguing that it’s wholly objective means there is no moral responsibility for an individual unless that person believes so. That’s the most extreme form of moral relativism.

They picked the best of their flock to kill because they thought it’s smell would please a force they’d never seen. We don’t do that any more because it is cruel for no perceivable result. We don’t say that it was moral for them to slaughter the animals because they thought it was…we say we know better.

@iamthemob I understand your thoughts in the matter but don’t agree. May I ask you is a plant any less of a being than an animal is? Are plants alive and when we eat them does it kill them? We are higher beings than both the plants and the animals which gives us a responsibility to try and respect other forms of life. Is a Lion that kills to eat being moral? What a Lion does is not take more than is necessary for its existance as did most of the native cultures that strive to live in nature and harmony. Man’s morality is in question and the treatment of other species is the issue. Not that we eat them or raise them for our means but the method in which this takes place. When an animal is litterally in torture for us to consume then there is a problem. I had to kill my rabbits to eat them and it was a very hard thing for me to do. I did it with as little pain as possible and respected the life it was giving. In turn I care for my garden and enjoy the bounty from its substance as well.

@Summum

Many times we can harvest from the plant without actually killing it. On the times we do kill the plant to eat it, it does not feel pain. That is a very real difference between plants and animals. Furthermore, many plants rely on animals to eat them in order to spread their seeds. (Obviously, that doesn’t happen as much with humans and advancements like running water.)

I do agree we need to have respect for all forms of life, but I think we need to recognize a difference between a sentient being and one that is not. We can’t compare the two like they are the same.

Edit: Also, the lion does not have a choice in being carnivorous or not, whereas we have a choice to be omnivorous or herbivorous. The lion also does not have the capacity to reason and be moral, which is what makes us a more evolved species.

@Taciturnu I hope you don’t think I’m comparing them as if they are the same. But I would say they both live and they both die. Do you know for sure that a plant cannot feel pain? Have you looked at some of the studies on plants? I saw a program where just the thoughts of a person could cause a plant to react. They had hooked a plant up to a device much like a lie detector and had a person think terrible thoughts about hurting the plant. The scale on the graph showed a big difference when he was thinking bad things vs good things. I’m not saying they are the same but in the animal kingdom is it immoral to kill and eat other animals? We are animals and should respect that. That is all I am saying. It is not immoral to kill and eat animals but it is a moral issue if we abuse them.

@Summum -

(1) We must eat something – the life cycle of course requires that in order to live we must consume something. Plants are sessile (for the most part) and haven’t demonstrated consciousness, so if we have to eat something, it is a better choice than something which can experience, as we know for a fact, fear and pain. So, weighing the options (and taking nothing else into account), it is a better moral choice to eat plants and not animals if possible.

(2) We are, as far as we know, the only creatures with brains capable of processing a concept of morality as we have both (a) restraint mechanisms on instinctual drives, and (b) an ability to conceive of future consequences of our actions in an abstract manner. As a lion cannot do this, it cannot be moral or immoral. However, since we can, we have a duty to consider the moral nature of our decisions regardless of whether others do.

(3) Where we completely agree is that there is a profound problem with the sustainability of our consumption…whether it be plant or animal. So, looking back at (1), it’s very possible that you eating your rabbits was a more moral choice as it is a completely sustainable and limited way of interacting with the environment, where most who are vegetarian if not purchasing local and small might be impacting the environment in a much more harmful way, contributing to untold pollution.

However, removing all the externalities and assuming we get to a sustainable system, we have gotten to a point where we can live very well without eating meat. Then the better moral choice is to not raise meat for food.

Very good point regarding your personal experience. However, it doesn’t change when we are considering solely the issue of a better moral decision, the eating of an animal cannot seem to be the better choice, and it cannot be a moral one as there is a better one, regardless of whether the animal is killed humanely.

@Summum
I have seen similar studies. However, since science has shown thus far that you need a central nervous system to transmit the feeling of pain to a brain, I do not think plants are capable of feeling pain. I think this it is more so the transmission of energy, since that has also been proven in Quantum Physics.

The statement of being moral or not is purely subjective, as I disagree with the statement. Personally, I do not feel that my status as a human being, capable of reasoning and moral judgement, gives me permission to cause pain to another being if I can eat without doing so. Again, in the wild, animals are not capable of moral reasoning (or any reasoning, as they act out of survival and conditioning), and therefore can not make a moral judgement call to not be carnivorous or onmivorous.

@Taciturnu and @iamthemob great points and I would agree with both of you but I don’t find it immoral to eat meat but that is my belief system. I agree with you both on the symantics of the issue. I have been thinking about becoming a vegaterian and think it would be a healthier life style so maybe this will prompt me to do so. Thanks for your input it helps me better look at the moral issue in discussion. I tell you I quit raising rabbits because it was too hard to end their lifes. I just couldn’t do it anymore but any meat we eat someone has taken the life of the animal. Thanks agian.

@Summum – Anytime. ;-) Thanks for bringing in the sustainability issue.

And I wish you well on the vegetarian front. We all, every now and again, need to check our belief system to make sure we’re living how we think we should be…and not accidentally practicing the opposite of what we preach.

Except for me. ’-)

1. Pets aren’t a species.
2. If I stopped eating meat…it doesn’t meat everyone stopped eating meat, how would that ever happen?
3. In many instances, it is because there is such a high demand for meat, these animals are created just for out consumption and would never be here otherwise.

As a meat eater who is anti-domestication (but not super strictly) I understand that there is an intrinsic difference between domestication and co-evolution, like @iamthemob mentioned with the dogs. Pets generally fall into this category, since many of them have adapted to work alongside humans, each of us fulfilling some job for the other.

And when we say that plants can’t feel pain or be sentient because they don’t have central nervous systems, despite research suggesting contrary, it’s a poor argument. Even completely overlooking the vast amount of experiential data (while not empirical, it should be considered), it is only an assertion that isn’t backed up. If plants were to develop a way to feel and think, it would be different from the way animals do it, just as plants breath without lungs. From my understanding, there’s a ton a chemical communication that goes on between plants.

Indigenous scholar and philosopher Vine Deloria Jr. stated that the primary difference between Western and indigenous environmental speech is that for the former, talking to nature is a metaphor but for the latter it is real communication.

@incendiary_dan – I don’t understand, though, how the argument regarding plants potentially feeling pain or having some form of consciousness that would be different from ours plays into this. These are sensations that we do find in animals, and we know we react to each other with a distinct awareness of the presence of the other as not us. We don’t get any of that from plants.

I’m just wondering what that is meant to refer back to….

@iamthemob I was simply responding to the conversation above, in which the ethics of killing for food and causing pain was discussed, including whether or not plants feel pain. And you are completely wrong about having similar evidence for plants as we do for animals. Plenty of studies have pointed to plants communicating, including hostility between pants. Oaks, for instance, secrete different chemicals depending on the species around it, and are known particularly for defending their areas. It’s one of the reasons that only certain things grow under and around oaks.

@incendiary_dan – “with a distinct awareness of the presence of the other as not us.” That’s not clear with oaks, and every living thing has defense mechanisms that are based on the environment.

I’m saying that we have to eat something. We clearly see evidence of sentience in many animals. We do not have clear evidence of it regarding, if not all, the vast, vast majority of plants. We also know that if we attempt to harm these animals they will react to prevent such harm. Plants do not do this – if they do have mechanisms to defend themselves…they are almost exclusively indiscriminate. Therefore, if we are to choose what we should consume, barring all other concerns, it is the morally correct choice to not eat animals, and instead eat plants.

Is there something about that argument that you find objectionable?

The argument as a whole is alright, but your facts are wrong. Once again, you show a simple lack of knowledge on the subject. Many plants do react defensively. Some secrete chemicals in certain circumstances that are harmful to a predator. In many cases, this is done before any sort of harm begins, suggesting awareness of a sorts. I highly suggest reading “The Secret Life of Plants”. (Edit: Also, Derrick Jensen’s “A Language Older Than Words”)

And of course, you haven’t addressed the fact that, as I mentioned, there are veritable troves of experiential evidence in the field. All too often such evidence is overlooked, at least when it doesn’t support what someone wants it to support. Hence my reference to Dr. Deloria.

Of course, I don’t think sentience is the correct ethical compass to choose by, but rather ecological balance. Otherwise, much more pain and suffering comes from it.

This all getting quite tangential, now.

I do believe that plants are aware to some degree. For instance why have many come to believe if you talk to your plants then they do better. The study that I talked about showed that just thought from humans was perceived by the plants and they did react not in the way we do but the graph that was hooked up to them registered a response. Pain is another issue but we don’t have enough evidence to say they do not feel pain. We can say they don’t feel it the way we do because they don’t have a nervous system. But I am in agreement that due to current knowledge if you were trying to be the most moral then eating plants is the way to go.

@incendiary_dan – I chose my language very carefully – not all, the vast majority. And reactions to predators that are in their environment is fine – but it only shows that they’ve adapted to their environment. And they are alove, so we know that they interact with it.

I don’t know why you’re making it seem like I’m discounting possibilities of a more intricate relationship plants may have with the environment. But, the choice is clear with our current knowledge.

@iamthemob But you’re lacking on current knowledge. And you’re overlooking critical aspects of what I’ve said to suit your purposes, e.g. the fact that many of the plants react before any contact.

What I object to is the fact that you’re understating what is known about plant sentience.

You may be right. But if there were enough evidence to say that plants were on par with animals in a way that would confuse the moral question…I would have heard about it. We ALL would have.

@iamthemob I respectfully disagree (and now we’re getting a tangent of a tangent, which is very silly). Wherever there are invested interests, news will be obscured. Look at all the global warming doubters. Lots of evidence is out there that isn’t talked about because it goes against powerful interests, our culture’s very premises, or both.

@incendiary_dan There are so many things like that I can’t begin to list them. Look at our current power/transportation sources and how they have been controlled by oil. There are so many included in that there is the Medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry and on and on and on.

I don’t think meat eaters should talk about plants unless they don’t eat meat and plants. It’s all about harm reduction people, not absolutes.

That’s a pretty shallow view of what “I espouse” as a vegan… my views are a little deeper than “no domesticated animals” – other points have already been well made, but in addition the end of meat farming would change many existing social structures… your concern of never seeing farmed or milled animals is fallacious because you would see more of natural species in your local area… the same argument could be made for not cleaning up trash as well in cities, so the rats can have more chances to procreate or to leave standing water about so mosquitoes can have a better chance of being experienced by our children.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Why? I’m failing to see the logic of that argument.

@incendiary_dan It’s about a continuum, to me. I am only assuming here but meat eaters tend to be omnivores meaning they eat meat and plants (I’m putting animal suffering above plant suffering here because plants don’t have a nervous system as we define it in animals). Therefore, what is the point of them bringing up the suffering of plants if they contribute to both the suffering of plants and animals (especially if they believe plants suffer too).

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Because perhaps the idea of killing sentients isn’t the correct ethical measure, particularly if suffering is had by both plants and animals. I point to my link concerning ecological balance above, in which I argue that sustaining biodiversity and thriving ecosystems is more important, since it serves to benefit plants and animals (humans incuded). This is true whether or not plants are sentient. Many plant-only diets are terrible for the earth, almost as bad as factory farming (in big part because factory farming and plant only diets are based on monocrop agriculture).

@incendiary_dan I don’t think it’s correct or incorrect. I think it’s simply one of many.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Certainly. So why discount worthwhile information?

@incendiary_dan Have I done so?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Seems that way to me. In saying omnivores shouldn’t talk about plant suffering because they presumably cause that as well, you’ve tried to limit a fairly robust and productive conversation to fit your parameters, and therefore narrow it down in such a way as to effectively silence the contributions of those who disagree, whether intentionally or not. I can’t remember what the name for that logical fallacy is, but maybe I’ll remember by the time I get back home.

Besides, if we’re talking simply about causing less suffering directly (rather than through ecological consequences and such), if plants and animals both suffer, it’s much more humane to kill animals for food. You get much more food out of animals. :P

And I really hope that for once someone at least skims a link I post. I think I do well at keeping the sound/noise ratio bearable.

@incendiary_dan Forgive me for being cynical but I really haven’t met anyone using the whole ‘but plants suffer too’ argument while actually giving a shit about suffering of either animals or plants. Besides, people can talk about anything they want and I’ll engage them if I think they’re genuine about this particular matter. Besides, when I generally deal with this interaction, it’s not about dialogue or contributions – it’s usually when, for no reason, someone is bitching about my being a vegan without me even initiating conversation. And finally, I really don’t think you get more food out of animals than you do out of plants.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Seriously, I’m beginning to hear such cries of persecution from Vegans that I’m beginning to suspect it’s true.

That is not my axe. I don’t see veganism as an affront, or even a bad choice. There’s no doubt that under other social circumstances I would be just as happy without animals feeding me. And if people have an ethical issue with me eating meat, I admit the issue is not clear to me.

Anyway, my original question was not intended as a condemnation of anyone, but a real question about how people felt about having fewer animals around. For myself, I experience sadness for never seeing a dodo or a flock of passenger pigeons. I see my dogs and cats as an integral part of my happiness. And yes, I like to see herds of cattle as I drive on country roads.

Not saying that in a world without them people would miss them – I can imagine all kinds of things that would seem necessary if I had them, but since I don’t I get along just fine without.

Just wondering about it.

@6rant6 I’m a vegan for many reasons, not the least of which is my love of animals.So I share a lot of your sadness and emotions. And I would never say I’m persecuted as a vegan.

@6rant6 – Dogs will likely stick around to us…they’re pretty much attached to us. Cat’s don’t really pay attention to us anyway – and a lot of “domesticated” cats are pretty much on their own anyway. And there’s no reason to think that cows would just disappear – hell, they are meant to eat grass. What will happen is that most will fall to sustainable level and develop under undirected influences.

What you’re neglecting is the very real probability that the cultivation of land for the specific use of domesticated animals (along with other unsustainable practices) has very likely reduced biodiversity. So although we see a lot more cows, if we hadn’t reigned in the land for them we might have seen a lot of other different animals.

@iamthemob I am sure we have reduced biodiversity in all our endeavors. I’m sure people who keep kennels kill everything else that might have lived there. Purina, I suspect, has hundreds of square miles under cultivation and it’s kept “Varmit free”.

Does that mean that you won’t feel sad if your little part of the world has less biodiversity still? If there are cows, where will you see them? I know there are fantastic species in the forests of Borneo, but frankly I’d miss greyhounds or golden retrievers more than all of them rolled up.

@6rant6 – Things change. It’s the nature of them. I miss lots of things that are no longer around. But whether or not it makes me sad isn’t the issue – it’s whether or not the change is natural of for the better…or at least in an attempt to be better that should be.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, insomuch as the internet is “meeting”, you’ve now met a meat-eating animal welfare activist who cares about both plants and animals (and indeed, talks to them), and genuinely discusses both plant and animal sentience with concern to the better treatment of animals (and plants). Nice to meet ‘ya. :)

And another nice to meet you both.

@incendiary_dan There’s a first time for everything. :)

@incendiary_dan In what way can something suffer if it is not sentient? It seems sentience is a prerequisite for suffering, since suffering is a conscious state. Or are you defining one of the terms (either “suffering” or “sentience”) differently? If so, I worry that your argument may rest on an equivocation. Because while I am sympathetic to Bentham’s claim that “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” with regards to whether or not it makes sense to include things in our moral reasoning, that sympathy only extends to those falling under (what I take to be) an ordinary understanding of the term.

@SavoirFaire I don’t understand your question, since it is my assertion that plants are both sentient and suffer.

@incendiary_dan The first sentence of this response that you made to @Simone_De_Beauvoir implies that plants and animals are not both sentient. Regardless, I am mostly wondering how you define sentience such that plants have it. Responsiveness to the environment is not typically understood as sufficient for having sentience. Do you take plants to have conscious experiences, or are you working with a very broad notion of sentience, suffering, or both?

@SavoirFaire No it doesn’t. You inferred, I did not imply. It suggests that whether or not they are is perhaps less important of a measure of ethical consideration. In that comment, I made no claim either way, though in several others I did take the position that plants are sentient.

@incendiary_dan I read the sentence, and thought that could be gotten out of it. I didn’t infer it, however, since I wasn’t sure. That’s why I asked. We can continue arguing the semantics if you’d like, but that’s up to you. The first sentence of my previous response was not the substance of it, however, which is why I moved on from the issue. Any response to my actual question?

@SavoirFaire Yea, semantics get boring pretty quick. :)

And no, I don’t have an answer, since without the premise of me having stated plants suffer without being sentient, I feel it’s kinda useless. It might not have been the bulk of the substance, but it was the lynch-pin that held it together.

Anyway, I’ve stated my premises, namely that all plants and animals have some degree of sentience and the potential to suffer, and that I think ecological preservation is a much better route to decrease suffering no matter who is sentient and suffers (what with creatures of all sorts needing habitat, and all). I don’t think I can get any more specific than the link to the essay I post, which took me days to write and edit and such.

@incendiary_dan The question applies even if you think plants are sentient because it had absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the post (thus the word “regardless” preceding it). It was a request for your definitions, not a request for a re-statement of your premise.

Isn’t the identification of “reactive to environment” and “Sentient” a horrible idea?

Certainly microbes react to their environment – the mobile ones anyway. Are we to stop washing our hands for fear of condemning billions of innocent bacteria to death by cess pool?

Hell, you can attach a copper strip to an aluminum one and expose it to heat and have it bend toward or away from the heat. It’s reactive to it’s environment. But sentient?

Whether animals are sentient is a matter of debate and definition. Plants are not sentient. I’m taking a stand and rooting here. That doesn’t mean that plants aren’t deserving of consideration, respect and even adoration. But they do not possess self-awareness, are not sentient.

“Suffer” seems an emotive word like “Beauty” and as such, I don’t see how we can agree whether we see it or not. Consequently, it’s easy to start an argument by saying, “Snails suffer” or “Pine trees suffer” or “Metal strips bonded together suffer,” but I don’t see it. It’s easy to start an argument but impossible to resolve one by saying things, “Suffer.”

[REDACTED] (by the CIA)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, I think @incendiary_dan is not taking stands here so much as interpreting his previous posts for our edufucation. So I thought I might take one.