i think this topic has about run its course in terms of productiveness, and has mostly devolved into people complaining about being held to (objectively correct) vegan ethics. locking
Was that ever up for debate? I mean, what do people believe happens when one takes a creature adapted to breathing through water out of said water?
they don’t want to think about it, or they directly think that all animals doesn’t feel pain (or that the pain they suffer it’s not important because they are just animals and “we as humans, are above them”.
As a kid I liked to go fishing with my step father, and we (or at least I) never thought about what the fish felt, as they were so different to us, and they taught us that this was normal and fun.
It was years later that I really thought about it.
People also believe that goldfish have no memory, and insects don’t think or even aren’t alive. You’ll notice the common thread of these exonerating us for our tiny bowls and our swatting.
It’s like the modern version of “animals don’t have a soul”.
Some fishing magazines downplay what the fish experience before being murdered.
‘It’s OK kids, they’re made out of styrofoam. They can’t actually feel any pain’
The 2 trillion figure is the minimum: it could be more than 6 trillion every year, and the elephant in the room is that more than half of those are factory farmed - which means humans are responsible for torturing them their entire lives.
“for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka” - Isaac Bashevis Singer
being farmed isn’t torture.
I beg to differ.
https://awionline.org/content/inhumane-practices-factory-farms
Maypull is not worth talking to. They’re defending the cruel multi-billion dollar animal agriculture system no matter the cost to the animals, the environment and the workers.
torture means that pain/distressed are caused intentionally. like beating someone so they give up information. that’s not the case in farming. sometimes, animals are caused pain or distress, but the point of the activity is not to cause it. if a farmer could raise their livestock and never cause them any pain or distress for the same cost, i’m sure they would. the pain is incidental, not intentional. it’s not torture. qed.
trolling or just willfully ignorant?
why not both?
yeah, killing the animals so you can consume their flesh, after all their lives being in a enclosed space designed to maximise the profits, isn’t bad or torture for the animals. the bad things happening to them from that life is just a byproduct of wanting to use their corpses for other things, so it can be considered torture, right?
it doesn’t matter what is the explicit or direct intent, they are being abused, mistreated and tortured, just for personal and human gain.
you can torture other people physically, emotionally or psychologicaly without it being the direct intent for your actions, but the torture will still be there.
torture is intentional. the pain and distress caused by farming is only incidental.
Ah, technically correct, the best kind.
Okay, equivalent in unpleasantness to prolonged torture.
Depends massively on the farm and the practices.
Being a cow on a pasture looks okay most of the time. Factory farms should not exist.
TL;DR, they physiology is pretty similar to someone filling your lungs with a saline solution, but slower because they’re cold blooded.
When you consider this, that most plastic comes from fishing, and that modern day slavery is heavily present in it (no police on a boat, and hard to escape) I actually have more respect for meat eaters than pescitarians. Don’t eat seafood, folks.
Apologies for the thumbnail as it’s hard to look at.
Broccoli screams, you just can’t hear it.
OP has provided scientific evidence, feel free to do the same to support your claim - I’d wager this is gonna be hard.
And apologies if there was a /s I missed somewhere, I’m quite sensitive about this topic.
It’s pretty well known that plants don’t just passively endure damage—they communicate chemically with each other through the air or root systems.
Here are two examples:
Acacia Trees
When attacked, the tree releases ethylene gas into the air. Nearby acacia trees detect this gas and respond by increasing tannin production in their leaves, making them bitter and potentially toxic to herbivores. This chemical warning system helps protect not just one tree, but others nearby as well.
Tomato Plants
When attacked by pests like caterpillars, tomato plants release VOCs (such as methyl jasmonate). Nearby tomato plants “smell” this and preemptively activate their own defenses, such as producing chemicals that deter insects or attract predatory wasps.
Almost all people would agree that’s not the same thing as the subjective experience of pain, though. By that measure a smoke detector is actually screaming when it’s power is interrupted.
Plants don’t have organs for movement or information processing, because those are too energy intensive and wouldn’t help much. Their other tissues respond to stimuli, but the data rate is orders of magnitude slower than an animal in the same environment.
I’m not sure why these signals would need to reach any significant complexity, but if they did it would be a truly alien mind that expands with the plant’s growth about as fast as it thinks. And it’s kind of beside the point. Stealing from !Teppichbrand@feddit.org:
Plants have feelings too
No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli. If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…
Removed by mod
Come on, you can do better.
On the wikipedia page you linked, there is exactly zero occurrence of the word “pain”.
The only part that could remotely be linked to your previous argument does not indicate pain at all.The GLVs responsible for the smell of freshly cut grass play a role in plant communication and plant defence against herbivory, functioning as a distress signal warning other plants of imminent danger and, in some instances, as a way to attract predators of grass-eating insects.
This paragraph is a less sensational and more serious reformulation of the source material, an opinion piece stating the following without a single scientific reference
Trauma, that’s what. It’s the smell of chemical defenses and first aid. The fresh, “green” scent of a just-mowed lawn is the lawn trying to save itself from the injury you just inflicted.
This piece was posted in May 2012 on mentalfloss.com, so not really a scientific study.
Also, nothing in there speaks of the brocoli, which you first referred to.
Edit: spelling, formatting
You’re going to have a difficult time cutting through others’ cognitive dissonance. Humor, distancing, false-equivalence, and sarcasm… Are all refuge from the discomfort of being indifferent at best, or outright complicit. If people could start accepting it’s just sad.
I wish more people were mature enough to look at truth straight in the face.
Nothing in either comment speaks about pain either, just screams. I only posted the wikipedia link because it referenced the numerous articles about this well established phenomenon. I didn’t realize I was defending a doctoral thesis here. Y’all are fucking toxic.
Dude doesn’t even look at usernames. 🤡
Ah so stepping on kittens is the same thing as stepping on grass. Great logic…
this isn’t what they said
Plants have feelings too
No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli. If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…Prove it. They do not have any sound-producing organs, nor any structured nervous system to coordinate a non-hormonal response to anything.
Fuck it. I’m becoming an autotroph.
Or you can just eat a plant-based diet that’s actually viable.
How would you ethically kill fish? For animals you could raise them to be old and live decent lives in a free range area and kill them with a stunner, but what about fishes?
Also, what are some good alternatives to fishes for your diet?
Can you ethically kill your dog when they want to live?
You can make fish alternatives with carrots, tofu, jackfruit, seitan, oyster king mushrooms, chickpeas, tempeh, anti choke.
https://proveg.com/uk/fish-alternatives-10-vegan-substitutes-to-fish-caviar-and-other-seafood/
there is no evidence non-human animals understand personal mortality. we can’t say they want to live, since there’s no evidence they understand that they themselves are living or could die.
Oh yes let’s ignore the fact that fish intentionally avoid being eaten in the ocean. I smell concern trolling, intentionally making false claims as if they were “the absolute truth.”
if you can point me to an animal behavioral-cognition study that shows any non-human animal understands personal mortality, i’d love to read it. all the studies i have found that get close to talking about it go out of their way to point out they don’t have evidence of it.
you can’t kill ethically a fish, cow, pig, dog, etc.
sometimes there are “humane” times you have to kill, for some reason, another animal, because they are really suffering and it’s impossible to bring them to health. anything else, is unnecessary.
There are a lot of alternatives for a plant based diet, and being healthy, you have to be informed to know what to eat, and with which thing combine it (rice and beans, together, are a complete protein). there is tofu, seitan, different types of grains and legumes that are protein complete or that you can complete between them
you can’t kill ethically a fish, cow, pig, dog, etc.
i think it’s amoral
Just like it’s amoral to kill ethically a dog and a cat.
in most circumstances, probably.
Can we solve human suffering first? Not saying this isn’t important… just that it’s kind of hypocritical to shift the focus away from the “hard” stuff, to something “easier”.
This is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason to do both. And honestly, people who advocate for animal welfare tend to also be more outspoken against human suffering.
people who advocate for animal welfare tend to also be more outspoken against human suffering
If I got a cent for every time I’ve heard an animal advocate say “I love animals, I hate people”… I’d have a couple bucks already. This thread seems to count towards that.
This isn’t a zero-sum game you can help people and the animals at the same time. You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention from dog abuse so don’t do it with the fish.
Please leave this thread and post articles about human suffering rather than attacking articles that advocate for the better treatment of the animals.
This isn’t a zero-sum game you can help people and the animals at the same time.
Prove it.
Show me how you get the resources to do both. Animalists are high on saving whales, kitties, puppies, etc. while letting their neighbors die home alone, or worse… when not directly saying “I love animals, I hate people”.
Please leave this thread and post articles about human suffering
No, I think I’m right where I should be. I don’t doompost either.
Let’s address the issue of fishing, by having everyone go plant based. Give some transitionary period so that the infrastructure keeps up. Suddenly, we are putting out far less greenhouse emissions and have loads more land and resources available to tackle other issues, because plant based diets use a fraction of the land and resources to support, and generate far lower emissions.
The climate situation stops enshittening at the rate it is, and we can allocate the freed up resources and land to “more important” issues, like (directly back into) climate change, homelessness, and world hunger.
We save fish and cows and chickens and pigs and etc from living tortured lives (yes, there will be a massive drop in livestock population as we stop breeding them to live in factories).
I love animals. I love people. This is a false dichotomy.
Well we do live in a capitalist society and capital is a zero sum game so it is a zero sum game just slightly more abstract.
Any critique of capitalism that ignores this aspect of exploitation is bullshit.
OK, but can we solve everyone elses before we even think about yours and anyone related to you?
Haha I love this response. Force this person to grow their own food because the farmers have more important people to feed.
You “love” the idea to “force” people to suffer, because they aren’t your chosen ones?
Are you sure?
