• SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
    32·
    2 days 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
      23·
      2 days 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
            32·
            2 days 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
      33·
      2 days 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.