All vegans and vegetarians have heard it: "But what about the plants? What about their feelings? They feel pain, too. Don't you feel bad for the carrots? You are killing them, you know."
Sorry, but the above represent the dumbest set of excuses I've ever heard as to why some people claim eating animals is morally equivalent to eating plants. Tellingly, these people's concern for plant feelings has not reared its head over eating a baked potato with steak, or seeing capers in chicken piccata. No, it's arisen because the conversation has turned to cruelty toward the animals we eat, something that's difficult to swallow.
If you're one of those plant feelings people, it's time we had a chat.
Remember elementary school biology? Even a cursory review tells us that plants and animals are different. Significantly different. For example: Plants have neither brains nor nervous systems with which to feel pain. Does this mean that we can say with absolute certainty that plants cannot have a consciousness or feel pain? I suppose we can never be 100 percent certain... but here's what we do know -- for sure -- the animals we eat are conscious. And they do most certainly feel pain. And loneliness. And fear. Just like your dog. Your cat. And you.
Also, when you trim a tree or a hedge, the plant regenerates. And what about all those leaves changing color and falling off in autumn? Are we to believe that inside, while wintering, the trees are screaming in pain and horror?
Alas, these points don't matter to the plants-have-feelings crowd. To them, plants and animals are the same by the simple virtue that they're both alive... a statement they exclaim with the gusto of adherents to a new, all-absolving religion. But if that most basic similarity were truly the only moral arbiter, there'd be no difference between picking a flower and cold-blooded murder; between genocide and mowing your lawn. You're just killing something that's alive, right?
However, pointing out the fatal flaws of the argument isn't the end here. Oh, no. The vehement plant-defender now turns to the horrible environmental devastation caused by growing plants for food. And while that's not an irrelevant issue, using it here fails again. Because what do you think the animals you are eating were eating -- air? In fact, animal agriculture uses far more land, water -- and yes -- plants, than all the plants cultivated for human consumption.
So now the angry meat-eater turns to their final argument, the one that always comes when everything else has failed: complaining about the ridiculous moralizing and self-righteousness of the irritating vegans, who keep bothering them with facts. I swear sometimes arguing with these people feels like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian about the evidence for evolution, except that sadly many of the people foaming at the mouth about plant feelings are meat-loving liberals.
So, in closing, if you think that eating animals is morally the same as eating plants, you're dreaming. And as Winston Churchill once said: "Facts are better than dreams."
In defense of meat | The Argument
How to Win An Argument With a Meat-Eater - Vegsource.com
Debate Argument: Moral Argument: Meat Eating | Debate.org
Swiss Ethicists Consider Plants' Feelings : TreeHugger
Recent studies have proven plants have feelings, too - The Daily ...
![5 Days of War [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51J0djjEZ7L._SL160_.jpg)
By dry weight acai berries have as much protein as eggs and the amino acid profile are almost identical for both. Gac fruit has 70 times the lycopene that are in tomatoes, another fruit. An MD had an article on Huffington Post about how cherries were better than aspirin for reducing pain. Olive oil comes from a fruit. I have heard that a bottle of fermented and aged grape juice can cost thousands of dollars.
Georgia is famous for their peaches. Virgina is known for their peanuts. Florida is known for their oranges. Citris fruit is on the Arizona state flag. What state is known for a vegetable? New Jersey is known for their tomatoes but that is also a fruit. California is known for their wine. A company selling only mangosteen juice, Xango, has become a billion dollar company. http://bit.ly/bGcKcG People even call their children, the fruit of their loins. So I say eat more fruit.
The level of disconnect between what food is and where it comes from is mind-boggling, and vegan vs. non-vegan has little to do with it.
I can see talking about people who know about factory farming but push those issues out of their mind because making better choices is just "too inconvenient". But the violence of industrial plant agriculture is just as deliberate as the violence of industrial animal agriculture. Are you going to call a person's moral character into question for buying cheap industrially produced tomatoes, lettuce, bread? Why the arbitrary distinction between the violence and destruction of industrial meat production and the violence and destruction of industrial grain and vegetable production?
I do think there's such a thing as a kinder diet. Perhaps the kindest of all, all things considered, would consist of meat from large fully pastured rotationally grazed ruminants and non-industrially produced organic fruits and vegetables. These are certainly issues to think about. But calling into question the ethical values of anyone who eats even the most humanely raised meat, while giving yourself a free pass for eating just . . . whatever, as long as it's not of animal origin, is not only astoundingly simple-minded, but - yes - very, very rude.
'Debby' reminds me of someone else in her penchant for 'emails' and nicknames.
I clicked on Debby's user page and there does not seem to be anything there.
Just sayin'.
There are so many serious issues that are implicated in the debate between vegans and non-vegans, not the least of which involve concerns about food security, particularly in the most "at risk" parts of the world, and sustainable versus industrialized agriculture, that it borders on offensive that Huff Post continues to publish fatuous, junior-high-level articles like this one, instead something more serious and substantive.
What do fundamentalists do? They blow things up and burn them down when they don't agree, because as with vegans and other fundamentalists, they believe that their way is the only acceptable way. That's what fundamentalism is. What is the FBI's number one domestic terrorist threat? Vegan activists, blowing things up and burning them down in the name of their fundamentalist cause.
If you have ever witnessed both a vegan demonstration and a right wing right to life demonstration, the similarities are truly eerie. Both are filled with graphic shock pictures and people claiming to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. No wonder the FBI's number one domestic terrorist threat is vegan fundamentalists, and the number two threat is right wing religious fundamentalists.
And speaking of denying evolution... Evidence for eating meat dates back more than 3.5 million years!
As a vegan, I point out that the act of killing helpless animals, after they have languished in the most deplorable of conditions, is not a compassionate act. I have never told anyone they are immoral. As most people like to think of themselves as compassionate and caring people, a statement like that is bound to make them uncomfortable. Some, a very few, will take that to heart and the result is a change in lifestyle. The majority will choose to believe otherwise, while rationalizing the contradiction away in their own minds. I could not rationalize nor excuse and I took it to heart as do the majority of vegans and we made changes so that our mental image of ourselves and our actions matched. And we talk about it, just like you talk about things that are centermost in your lives whether it be your families, or your hobbies, or your latest personal adventure.....are you fundamentalists too?
Generalizing all vegans as people who blow things up is nonsensical, just as me suggesting that all men with dark hair molest children (which I am not doing by the way) and I'm sure you know that. So why do you do it? To sensationalize a discussion and to what end? I think there is already enough tension here.
By the way, not all animals that are slaughtered for meant are killed "after they have languished in the most deplorable of conditions." This is an argument against "factory farms" and other bad practices, not against using animals for food per se. Why don't you just cop to the fact that you think eating animals is wrong, regardless of the conditions they lived in up to the point of slaughter, instead of using "factory farms," "feed lots," and any other bad animal husbandry practices you can think of as a stalking horse for your REAL position, which is that killing animals for food is categorically wrong?
Actually, the FIRST comparison was made by the author of the article, who said that arguing with "meat-eaters" is like arguing with fundamentalists Christians.
People that have never stepped foot on a sustainable farm often don't understand that nature works through complex webs of dynamic interrelationships, not oversimplified, reductionistic binary polemics like "meat bad, vegetables good," which are part of the problem, not the solution.
Consciousness is not some neat and tidy thing that can by divvied up by naive feel-good delusions such as veganism. For a primer, you should read Jeremy Narby's Intelligence in nature. Not all intelligence is human intelligence, and it is expressed differently by different life forms. It is speciesism of the worst sort to project pollyannish notions of what is cute and cuddly onto what does and does not represent legitimate intelligence.
In reality, virtually all of the commercially grown plant foods in the world are either grown with animal inputs (organic ag) or toxic and completely unsustainable chemical inputs that are largely derived from petrochemicals (industrial ag). Agriculture without animals would be an environmental nightmare. And as a recent report concluded, biodiverse farming (that means animals) is the ONLY way to feed the poorest areas of the world and effectively control pollution.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet This article references a statement by the United Nations Environmental Program, wherein they state:
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.
It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."
Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: "Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels."
And for those who think that Brazil has not last valuable forest due to cattle ranching, you have not looked into it. Between 1966 and 1975, approximately 38% of the forest cleared was for cattle grazing. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html and in the years since, that number has increased substantially. According to the last link, cattle ranching is the leading cause of land clearing in the Amazon. Considering that the need for the Amazon rainforest is global (weather patterns, rainfall), the fact that the Amazon rainforest is disappearing is not inconsequential. And suggesting that grazing cattle on land is not detrimental to that land is to ignore the statement in the preceding paragraph. Granted, if you have a very few number of animals on very large areas, that are seperated and so rotational grazing can be practised, the problems are not as severe. But with the number of animals that are killed every year to satisfy a growing appetite for meat around the world, that form of farming is not practical. The human population continues to grow and the available, healthy land is diminishing daily. That is the reality and to continually argue in favor of the little family farm as being able to supply the millions of tons of meat for the world is to participate in a fantasy.
In any event, over 70% of the food produced in the world is, in fact, produced by "little family farms" that incorporate livestock as sources of food. And you want to eliminate that and have everybody become a vegan because you've read about the negative impacts of certain poorly managed agricultural practices? Are you also going to argue for the elimination of all grain production because the bad practices of the wheat farmers in the U.S. in the early 20th century caused the Dust Bowl? I'm afraid if you want to be consistent, you're going to have to take up the anti-grain crusade, too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/30/climatechange.carbonemissions
"It is not simply that there is considerable dispute over the extent to which cattle ranching is a driver of deforestation in Amazonia, rather than a convenient way of clearing and securing real estate. Rainforest beef is, in the FAO's words, an "atypical" industry that provides barely 1% of the world's meat and dairy produce."
In other words, the cattle may not be the reason why the Amazon is being cleared. The cattle may be nothing more than a means to an end. And let's not forget that logging caused irreversible damage to these lands long before the cattle arrive.
cont....
Apparently you didn't bother to watch the Allan Savory lecture I pointed you to. Well-managed rotational grazing actually INCREASES vegetation cover over time, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, is most effective on arid and semi-arid lands, as Savory learned as a result of his decades of work in sub-Saharan Africa, and I suspect he knows more about the subject than you do, with your "mad Googling skillz." You might consider at least taking a glance at some of the information on this site: www.savoryinstitute.com/ And if you think cattle grazing invariably has the negative impacts you describe (on the basis of your internet searching), then you've never seen the land where various friends of mine graze cattle in up-state New York, and West Virginia, and the Sierra foothills and West Marin County in California.
on a quick read,
several of the very studies he's quoting contradict his interpretive "comments",
almost embarrassing.
http://www.greenfudge.org/2009/12/01/plants-display-sentience-and-social-behavior/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090619171244.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news109944832.html
Furthermore, could such a lack of an open mind to plant sentience be considered "speciesist"?
As to animals being a part of sustainable farming - I'd say that coupling polyculture (i.e. leguminous plants with grasses, rotation etc.) and composting plant waste would be a good first step for natural fertilisers. Animal presence made sense when animals were used instead of machines to do the hard labour, might as well use their waste, but I'm not sure that it's indispensable... As to the articles about plant sentience - I've read quite a few of those. I can fully appreciate plant complexity - however, even a unicellular organism expresses some sort of tropism (phototropy for example). Whether a plant's response is a collective tropic response of several cells or a genuine 'sentience' is hard to know.
Peace begets peace - if I don't want to harm animals, why would I harm a human being with different views? There are extremes everywhere and the vegan community is no exception. But hey, if we listen to the omnivores talk about plant sentience and how good meat tastes, lend us an ear and a mouth - you might actually enjoy your next vegan meal and hear a different
--------------------------
A vegan, of all people, comparing someone else to a fundamentalist Christian? The irony of that is delicious indeed.
1)The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
2)Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
3)The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members
4)The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
5)The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group
6) The group is preoccupied with making money.
"If you're one of those plant feelings people, it's time we had a chat."
And if you're one of those "animals have feelings", it's time for you to stop anthropomorphizing. It's really annoying.
You just committed anthropomorphism...
One: In a serious discussion, omnivores don't ever talk about plants having feelings too.
Two: It is a false equivalency to say that animals raised for food eat more plants than humans eat as animals are often given leftovers from human food production (such as oil from soy) or eat plants we cannot eat, such as grass. That argument holds for land use too as pasture is most often completely unsuitable for agriculture. Also, the water wars are usually between farmers and those who want water for streams and rivers. Those who raise animals are not involved.
Lastly, vegans persist in making CAFO's the central part of their argument even when omnivores who get involved in the discussion either raise their own meat animals, purchase local, grass fed meat or have drastically lessened their consumption to minimize their impact while vegans go merrily along eating bananas that cause a huge amount of habitat destruction and never seem to mind industrial agriculture to grow the soy for their tofu.
We wait with breath bated to see how the screening goes with this post.
are you assuming that anyone who eats meat is paid to do so, or just that anyone who supports eating meat is paid by the meat industry to post pro-meat comments on HuffPost?
Either way, that is a completely ridiculous argument, and an obvious display of I've-got-nothing-useful-to-say.
Is that what you do? Try to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you by attacking - not their arguments - but their character and motives?
That's as loopy and useless as asserting that plants have feelings.
2. It is a fact that a 1000 pound cow requires more calories than a 160 pound human. This link will give you a clearer understanding of what goes into the feed of contemporary food animals. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html
3. CAFO's are the central and most important way that food animals are raised. In view of a growing number of meat eating people, there is no other way to keep providing the over 200 lbs. per individual that is currently marketed. Someone is buying the millions of animals that come out of those facilities every year and ignoring that fact makes no sense, except that one might want to protect a failing argument. Also, the majority of bananas are purchased by meat eaters, as there are approximately only 1% of the population who are vegan at any given time. As well, I would suggest that you begin checking out the number of everyday supermarket products that contain soy of some sort. Since most vegans are label readers and hence don't purchase a lot of the stuff that the ordinary shopper does, it seems to me that you as a meat eater, are more likely to be the cause for the excessive production of soy, than vegans.
Most of my concern, particularly, has to do with the assumption that you can go vegan and save the world when in reality if everyone were to become vegan the world would be a disaster.
Vegetarians and vegans are the ones who constantly bring up CAFO's even though those of us who are serious either raise our own meat, buy from small farmers or have reduced consumption to minimize our impact.
I avoid CAFO meat for the same reason I avoid produce from industrial farming and that is, that I do not want to support these practices.
While more bananas are purchased by omnivores because there are more of them, vegans can hardly take the high ground in their concern about animals if they buy any bananas at all because of habitat destruction.
Conscientious eaters read labels no matter what they eat. I avoid soy because I don't want to support GMO's and because of widespread thyroid issues in my family.
The latest reports from the UN indicate that the only way to feed a growing population is through agroecology which includes raising meat animals.
Calories are fine but there is more to it than just calories. It depends on where those calories come from and ruminants can eat things I cannot eat, such as grass.