• SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    either all plant matter and all animal matter are consious or they are all not.

    Plants do not have brains or nervous systems, they are not conscious.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/

    I am aiming for a vegan lifestyle, but it is difficult to escape hidden milk and eggs in unexpected places. I hope everyone can agree that factory farming is needlessly cruel and should not be supported. I am happy with any steps taken to reduce suffering in the world. I think too many people view it as all-or-nothing, and they can’t do all so they do nothing. But every choice we make affects the world we share; any individual can make a difference, even a small one, and they add up.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Plants do not have brains or nervous systems, they are not conscious.

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/

      you know, empirical data was also used to determine that Africans and women didn’t have consciousness and were just mindless beasts.

      perhaps in another 60-100 years we’ll have a better understanding of sentience and will determine that plants, being a different organism, lacks a brain or nervous system but has something comparable.

      point is, just because you know something today doesn’t mean it’s factually the truth.

      instead of basing decisions on your diet entirely from an emotional reaction, perhaps it’s best to determine your diet based on hard facts of nutritional value and environmental impact.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      As I stated before: you’re inserting your own hubris of what consious means as if we agree.

      I don’t agree with your definition of consciousness.

      This means we cannot have an honest conversation on what that means as we already disagree with what consiousness means.

      This does not mean I disagree plant based is valid on the other arguments. Just not this one.

      As i said: it is unethical to even suggest it’s a matter of judgement on ethics as you’ve already down graded something in order just to be comfortable to judge someone else on their ethics. A complete discard of plants from the equation is egotistical of yourself to even go there.

      you revealled you are already unequipped with ethics to be arguing ethics.

      You are you’re own paradox of lack of ethics.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          read that study. it does not prove plants aren’t conscious. it casts doubt on the existing claims that they are.

          in the conclusion, they explicitly allow for the possibility that it may be proven that plants are conscious.

          • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            it does not prove plants aren’t conscious

            Because a negative can’t be proven.

            it casts doubt on the existing claims that they are.

            Because evidence does not support those claims.

            Theists use this same fallacious logic to pretend it’s acceptable to worship bronze age death gods.

            Let’s all use our brains, please.

          • Smoogs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            good catch. also the end of this so-called study has a bunch of bunk too:

            Data availability

            Not applicable.

            Compliance with ethical standards

            Conflict of interest

            The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

            Ethics approval

            Not applicable.

            Consent to participate

            All authors consent.

            Code availability

            Not applicable.

            i cant imagine how this thing got printed. it looks like something rfk junior spat out.

            All that is missing is working out topless in some blue jeans with raw milk in a hot tub and kid rock smaking himself in the face failing a mic drop.

          • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            in the conclusion, they explicitly allow for the possibility that it may be proven that plants are conscious.

            Do they? Please provide a quote, I’m not seeing anything like that in the conclusion.

            Here’s the other thing: even if you are correct (which is not likely based on evidence), consuming plants instead of meat still reduces suffering. Eating plants directly is more efficient than eating animals that eat plants.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              even if you are correct (which is not likely based on evidence), consuming plants instead of meat still reduces suffering. Eating plants directly is more efficient than eating animals that eat plants.

              this has nothing to do with what I e been saying at all, and I am correct, as you explained in your other comment

                  • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    This doesn’t prove your claim, which you have failed to substantiate at all.

                    As I said, it’s the same cancerous, selfish inability to acknowledge what is most likely true that theists exhibit.

                    Do you believe a purple unicorn lives on the moon? I don’t. We have never observed a unicorn of any color, on earth or on the moon. Similarly, we have never observed plant consciousness, despite many attempts. Does that prove there is not a purple unicorn on the moon? No. But if you tell me there is without evidence, without knowing yourself, you’re lying to me. Lies cost lives.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              In conclusion, we feel we must speak forcefully: plant neurobiologists have become serial speculationists. The ratio of speculation to data in their oeuvre is astronomically high. If they want to form a sensible hypothesis and then test it with real experiments, that is fine, but the prolific speculating and fantasizing need to stop.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  they’re allowing that it still could be proven, but objecting to the theories they showed in this paper

                  • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    they’re allowing that it still could be proven

                    Plants have no brains with which to think. We don’t accept claims without sufficient evidence. Please stop distorting reality. That is a deadly habit.