Why does most of modern society continue to justify eating meat? The philosophical arguments against eating meat are very strong.
Why do human tastebuds outweigh the prevention of animal suffering? What does /his/ think? Especially in modern societies, where achieving a vegetarian diet is not only viable, but perhaps even life-lengthening.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
theguardian.com
dailymail.co.uk
animal-ethics.org
pri.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
tastes good
chicken parmesan is literally the best thing on the planet
Right, I know.
Why does your feedback from your tastebuds outweigh the immense suffering that animals go through to achieve that?
Non-human suffering doesn't matter.
if we weren't eating them the majority of farm animals would have to be put down anyways
>Why does most of modern society continue to justify unregulated child factories in india
>Why does most of modern society continue to justify starvation of millions of people
>Why does most of modern society continue to justify toruture and murder practices in the law
Threre's a lot of shit we're doing that is pretty fucked up. I just find it really strange how people are almost never outraged by the above mentioned examples, but every fucking day there's a new YOU EAT MEAT UR WORSE DAN HITLER.
Why do vegans act like this?
If stopping your consumption of meat has even a very small chance of reducing the meat industry's production rates, aren't you morally obligated to do so?
for example, if you are driving a child, are you not morally obligated to buckle them up, despite the very slight risk of their harm?
Why does it not matter?
way to sidestep my post completely. They would all get put down in a heartbeat if people stopped eating meat. Also, I only eat free range animals, so they don't exactly suffer.
You are right about all of those practices. However, just because they all are relevant doesn't mean it's a justifiable excuse to continue eating meat, right?
That's like saying, because bank robberies occur, therefore it's okay to steal.
because thats how nature works. don't get too lofty, animal, lest you forget what you are
give me one (1) reason I should give a shit
Okay, you have a point upon my rereading your post (Am drunk).
however, my response would be to that:
1. it's extremely unlikely we would all adopt vegetarianism at once.
2. it would still prevent future generations of animals from suffering.
Sure, but that wasn't my point. I just think its werid that vegans are so desperatly trying to empose their virtues upon others, more so than any christians or any human rights group
>it's extremely likely we would all adopt vegetarianism at once
>it would prevent future generations of animals from suffering
your posts literally contradict each other. If its unlikely for us to adopt vegetariansm, its unlikely that the meat industry will take a significant hit. And who are you to say that a free-range existence for animals is a worse fate than them existing at all?
Environmentally speaking, if we didn't utilize cows for their meat and dairy products, the majority would have to be put down, considering that the 1.5 billion cows on earth produce enough methane to cause the same amount of damage to the atmosphere as 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Were it not for humane, sustainable animal husbandry, almost no livestock would exist within a few decades.
Humans are meant to eat meat. It's why we've advanced past other great apes, who eat mostly plantlife with few exceptions.
A carnivore does not feel sorry for it's prey. Even domesticated animals like dogs and ferrets don't show guilt after killing and eating mice or squirrels. Why should I have to hold myself to a higher standard than an animal when the entire moral argument is that animals are equal to us and don't deserve cruel treatment?
That said I dislike the meat industry and the methods they use. Buy from your local farm, or hunt for yourself, I say.
youtube.com
Are we going to force animals to become vegan too? I mean we are already forcing a humanity upon them, and we could certainly prevent a lot of death if we wanted to. If animals suddenly are worth something, it's immoral to not, lets say, cut off the claws of a wolf and remove their teeth, since we know their dangerous and we can do something about it.
Don't know if you see my point though...
Superior gainz. Grain-fed horses are stronger than the grass-fed. Horse-fed humans are stronger than the soy-fed.
Of course all burger addicted obese people need to be gassed for a society that believes in this principle to be consistent though. Veganism or body-fascism, the middle ground makes no damn sense.
>Why do human tastebuds outweigh the prevention of animal suffering?
Taste buds have mass. Unjustified abstract concepts don't.
The weak should fear the strong
damn he fucked off quick
because I don't care
>Why should I have to hold myself to a higher standard than an animal when the entire moral argument is that animals are equal to us and don't deserve cruel treatment?
If you can't see the problem with this reasoning then you're legitimately a fucking idiot. But I bet if you think for two seconds you'll be able to. You're not stupid, but you are being lazy.
>when the entire moral argument is that animals are equal to us and don't deserve cruel treatment?
>animals are equal to us and don't deserve cruel treatment?
>something has to be equal to us to not deserve cruel treatment
To paraphrase Bentham, the moral question for vegetarians isn't "can animals reason" (aka are they equal to us) but "can they suffer?"
I'm not even a fucking vegetarian myself - I was one once, but gave it up - but so many of the arguments in favor of meat-eating are so obviously fallacious.
Again, think for more than .2 seconds and maybe you'll see the problem with this.
But, here's the thing. You can preform animal husbandry and make it so that the animals don't suffer at all. Is eating meat OK then?
Vegans should be working towards making artificial meat. Not "vegan plant meat", which is not meat. I mean actual meat that is just made by some machine.
Then I don't think there would be anywere near the same amount of opposition to veganism
I taste meat every day, but I don't see animals suffer. Why would I feel the suffering of something I don't even know exists? I could expose myself to that suffering but that doesn't help my situation.
It's very simple really
>But, here's the thing. You can preform animal husbandry and make it so that the animals don't suffer at all. Is eating meat OK then?
Sidestepping the question of whether that's even possible, to say nothing of remotely practical on a large scale, that would certainly make me (and most vegetarians) much, much more OK with it, yes.
There's still a moral argument that can be made against unnecessarily taking any SENTIENT life (and no, before somebody fucking brings it up, plants aren't sentient, and tomatoes don't scream when you cut them). So don't get laser-focused on that word, "suffer", I used it because I was quoting Bentham; the point is that most people, including virtually all ethical vegetarians, do not believe that something needs to be "equal to humans" or "capable of reasoned thought" for us to have moral obligations to it.
Cows don't scream when you captive bolt pistol them in the head either
>unnecessarily taking sentient life
The thing is that most domesticated animals would have to be put down if we weren't using them for food. Cows, for example, produce the equivalent of 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide in methane emissions per year. Whether animal husbandry happened or not, animals would die. At least this way their suffering is for something.
You'll find most ethical vegans do support this. Sometimes with sizable chunks of money. Years ago, PETA, for instance (whom I dislike, just like most of you, but that's beside the point) offered $1 million in prize money to the first organization or team that managed to produce commercially viable amounts of vat-grown meat. I couldn't tell you without searching whether anyone has collected the prize yet.
>Vegans should be working towards making artificial meat.
They are. Chances are we'll be eating grown burgers in 2030.
Cows don't publish critiques of Kant either.
>Chicken
>Not veal
I may be part nig nog, but I honestly prefer chicken to veal.
>implying most animals in western slaughter houses aren't gassed en masse and that they suffer in any way.
It's Auschwitz-Baconau in those places.
I'm sure this was a great point in your head.
Yes, legally the meat industry has to take certain steps to minimize suffering when they slaughter the animals, which doesn't mean there isn't still a whole fucking bunch of unnecessary suffering going on that isn't regulated-against. To say nothing of the taking of sentient life, which was obviously my point.
>The thing is that most domesticated animals would have to be put down if we weren't using them for food.
Of course. And, I mean, hell, why waste the meat? If we ended the dairy/meat industries tomorrow, I doubt many vegans would begrudge you one last hurrah. Some of them might even join in.
And then afterwards, no MORE animals would be bred to be kept in cramped and inhumane conditions and killed well before reaching the ends of their natural lifespans.
And to reiterate one more time, I EAT MEAT. Every day. I just don't come up with bullshit rationalizations for why it's A-OK. It's unnecessary, I don't need to do it for my health or because it's "natural" or because I came up with some other bullshit philosophical justification. I do it because being a vegetarian is a pain in the ass, and meat is tasty, and at the end of the day I want to enjoy eating meat more than I want to be a perfect human being. And that's OK. Nobody's a perfect human being. Everybody picks their battles. You don't have to pick this one either. Seriously, it's OK.
>The philosophical arguments against eating meat are very strong.
They really aren't.
I don't know about american and third world regulations, but most places in europe have regulations that basicly minimizes suffering to the extent that its possible. Farms that are up to date have their farmers clean the barn every day so animals don't rot in there. They get washed regeluary, they get non shitty food, they have automatic milking machines that cows usually love. Unless it's one of those american mile long farms with 1 million cattles in them, there is usually provided decent living space indide.
I would also like to add that the main reason animals spend a lot of time inside is because of winter. The animals would die if they stayed out in the winter. Durring summer most sane farmers let their animals be outside most of the time. In fact, most farmers aren't ruthless psycopaths like vegans often make them out to be. Most actually have some compassion towards their animals.
>If stopping your consumption of meat has even a very small chance of reducing the meat industry's production rates, aren't you morally obligated to do so?
No.
Of course it differs somewhat country-by-country, but in general, animal welfare regulations are laxer in America than in Europe. Let's not even talk about the third world.
All of that is somewhat beside the point (though I certainly support robust animal welfare legislation, and of course it makes me feel *more* comfortable eating meat) -
>most places in europe have regulations that basicly minimizes suffering to the extent that its possible
I'd replace the word "possible" with "practical." And even if you somehow, magically, eradicated every necessary cost-saving measure and spared no expense in giving the animals as comfortable a life as possible (or at least as comfortable a life as they would get in nature) you'd still have to kill them eventually. Take lives, unnecessarily. Not because it's necessary to keep people healthy (it's quite possible to stay healthy on a completely vegetarian diet, even a vegan one, it's just not much fun). Because people like the taste of meat. There's no way to get around that; even at its best, the meat industry breeds sentient beings for the purpose of killing them, because people like how they taste.
>The philosophical arguments against eating meat are very strong.
Lay them out in plain terms so they can be properly evaluated.
>All of that is somewhat beside the point
No, it's not. Animals in these (euro regulated) farms are treated better than how nature would have trated them. It is litteraly the best any cattle could hope for. Again, most of these animald would DIE in the winter, or starve, or get eaten alive.
The only agument you have is that it's humans doing the killing. But it's killing with as little suffering as any could hope for. Even most humans die in more painfull ways compared to cattle that are put down by bolt guns.
Good. Where can I go fund them
they're animals, it is their job in life
I bet you're a libertarian.
And you think those (domesticated) animals would be released to roam the pastures if you and your five vegan friends stopped eating meat?
>Again, most of these animald would DIE in the winter, or starve, or get eaten alive.
None of which is preventable. In a remotely practical way, anyway. The deaths that occur due to the meat industry are completely within our power to prevent. Because, of course, we cause them.
Now, maybe you don't share the view that killing a sentient creature is wrong if you can avoid it. If so, then fair enough, I suppose.
But if that's your view, then say that. Don't skate around it by spinning horseshit about how eating meat is fine because we need meat to stay healthy (which is false); how eating meat is right because eating meat was a large part of what caused humans to develop intelligence (which is true, but irrelevant); how it's fine because plants suffer just as much as animals when you kill them (which is incredibly fucking false); or because most of those animals would have suffered and died in nature anyway, when the animals you're talking about never would have existed (in nature or otherwise) except for us.
You do know that the smell of cut grass is actually a signal of distress?
Grass can feel things too.
Eat a rock.
No, seriously, i don't care. Humans are omnivores and there are certain amino acids and nutrients we require to be health and fit that we just can't get from plants.
This thread is unironically spooked to death.
>its better that almost no cows or chickens exist in the whole entire world than that we eat them for meat
Boy, thats getting a little close to PETA putting down pets just because, isn't it?
Following this logic,shouldn't we drive to extinction all animals that are in the middle of food chains and thus likely to die violent and painful deaths?
>maybe you don't share the view that killing a sentient creature is wrong if you can avoid it.
I'm not sure what the argument for this view would be. I can see the wrong in causing a creature to suffer. That much is very plain. But I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with the simple act of harvesting life. The wrong in killing comes from the robbing of something's right to it's own life. But when it's a life which you've created, nurtured, sheltered from all pain and saw to it that it was fulfilled and experienced everything it is capable of, I dont see anything bad in summarily and painlessly ending its existence. It's pure bliss, through and through. Ideally that's all ranchers would do in this world is create bliss. Birth cows, give them a happy life, and when the time is right, end it and provide others with delicious and nutritious meat. Where is the harm, where is the moral foul in this?
>muh suffering
Objectively, the only way to ultimately prevent suffering is to genocide everything.
Human suffering doesn't really matter all that much either desu.
>it's okay for organisms to feel pain because they don't react and aren't cute
This is your mind on veganism.
>Be American
>Get shot
>Don't mind because objectively, the only way to ultimately prevent suffering is to genocide everything
>we need meat to stay healthy
Yep, unless you like taking artificial supplements.
>because plants suffer just as much as animals when you kill them
Objectively true, saying things are false doesn't make it so. Plants have been shown to react to pain, just because it isn't visual doesn't make you any more just in killing only them.
The solution is not to end factory farming and institute humane slaughtering practices and nonsense like that, the solution is to pour all our productivity into increasing our nuclear stockpiles and glassing this hellworld until no creature will ever get to suffer again, granting Nirvana to every being trapped on it.
Because most dont have misplaced empathy toward livestock.
Plants don't "feel" they don't have a nervous system, they do "react" though.
>If stopping your consumption of meat has even a very small chance of reducing the meat industry's production rates
You're right to point out that it's a very small chance because what is most likely happening is vegans very slightly lower meat prices, allowing more third-worlders to afford meat more often. That's assuming first-worlders already eat as much meat as they can stomach.
Did a mod finally stop the vegan autism on /ck/ or is this a /his/ thread of an autist using humanities as an excuse?
It's from /his/. I'm surprised the mods actually did something for once.
Ever wonder where a "humanities" thread goes when it gets archived? It actually comes here
I'll eat whatever the fuck I want, soy boy.
Get on social media and red pill normies on the reality of Hollywood:
Hollywood publicly promoted Pedophilia for decades. They have been getting away with this shit for years but the Spacey scandal is the start of (((their))) downfall.
Shirley Temple was abused for years in the entertainment industry and is the earliest example of a child being exploited by Pedophiles in entertainment.:
youtu.be
Playboy publicy sold child pornography. Possibly involved in a child prostitution ring in the 70s.
theguardian.com
girly men are afraid they'll get made fun of for eating plants
>But when it's a life which you've created, nurtured, sheltered from all pain and saw to it that it was fulfilled and experienced everything it is capable of, I dont see anything bad in summarily and painlessly ending its existence.
Then we've hit a pretty fundamental philosophical divide here. And I'm not saying there's no point in arguing across it, but it'd take considerably more energy than I feel like putting into this thread, especially when I'm defending a group (vegetarians) that I'm no longer even a part of. The conversation's getting pretty abstract; while I think many vegans do have qualms about unnecessary killing, they're MORE concerned with inhumane conditions on factory farms, etc.
To be clear, while I do think the arguments against any unnecessary killing (of sentient life) are sound, PERSONALLY, I care much more about suffering. I'd be more than satisfied with passing significantly more robust animal welfare legislation. Just the way I don't aspire to be a perfect person (just a decent one), I don't aspire to create a perfect world - just a decent one.
>Objectively true, saying things are false doesn't make it so. Plants have been shown to react to pain, just because it isn't visual doesn't make you any more just in killing only them.
No, no, they haven't. Stop reading pop sci shit.
The general consensus is that most arthropods can't feel pain, to say nothing of plants, which don't have central nervous systems. Reacting to stimulus isn't the same as being cognizant of it.
>thread moved to Sup Forums
Oh, wonderful. To preempt the shitposting, I'm covering up my flag because otherwise I'll just get memed at, not because I'm actually a huge tree hugger.
kys Sweden
animal-ethics.org
"It could be that beings other than animals possess different physical structures that fulfill the same function as a centralized nervous system. Thus, a system organized in an equally complex fashion could result in a sentient organism. This is, in principle, entirely possible. However, among all organisms in our biosphere, none of the non-animals such as plants, fungi, protists, bacteria and archaea has such a structure. None of them has a mechanism for transmission of information similar to that present in animals with centralized nervous systems."
This.
But also--it's healthiest to eat lots of plants and small amounts of very healthy, free range meat. Not to support horrible, cruel factory farming and the abuse of animals, not to mention sick practices like halal and kosher slaughter. So, >Also, I only eat free range animals, so they don't exactly suffer.
I agree with this person. The real suffering isn't a quick demise, it's all the evil shit we do to them leading up to that. Everyone dies sooner or later but for god's sake, let animals live happy lives until the end. Just as we all should have.
Responsible vegan chefs/cookbook writers like Aussie Ellie Bullen also include in their books information about how to be a nutritionally healthy vegan, when supplementation is a good idea etc. It takes effort to get full nutrition as a vegan, not so much as a vegetarian which is why I incline more that way, with occasional dairy, eggs, chicken or fish added in as I have trouble digesting many common plant proteins (like nuts/beans) which vegans/vegetarians tend to use instead of animal protein.
Mods stop
Did you ... actually read the paragraph you quoted? I'm serious. Did you completely miss that everything after "however" completely undercuts the point you're trying to make? That the whole article is entirely on my side? That the whole WEBSITE is on my side?
Or are you trying to agree with me? I'm honestly confused.
I'm an American, I just travel a lot. I've been variously called cuck, roach, chink and yeah, SWEDEN YES, depending on where I happen to be this month (Right now I'd be called chink or English teacher.)
It's not even offensive, just really tedious. You people need new memes.
>live the easy life
>killed instantly at the end
ohhh sooooooo horrible
They would be so much better off in nature amirite
Animal cruelty is an overblown meme. You just see the cruelty more because nobody infiltrates slaughterhouses and farms where everything is running as it should for very obvious reasons.
Veganism is caused by juvenile ignorance and naivete on several levels.
You could say the same about animals, that they're just reacting to stimuli.
beta cucks like you would never have gotten laid pre industrial revolution. chicks dig hunters. dont be a bitch
*notices ur knife*
OwO what's this?
Animals are subhuman
Vegans would probably do best working to convert the rest of the world to supporting humane treatment of animals, including those used for food, and for leather and fur harvesting to be limited to food animals, and for the abolishment of cruel slaughter practices like halal, kosher, etc.
Imho they need to drop the shaming and blaming practices and accept that some people will never willingly endorse veganism. It's just not for everybody, guys. Or at least, if you want to lead people there, do it cleverly and slowly. Start with the stuff I listed above. Introduce people to GOOD meat alternatives and substitutes, not yucky crap with weird, unappealing names like "tofurkey." Tempt people with beautiful, tasty-looking food like the Aussie vegan chef I mentioned above, Ellie Bullen. Her Instagram feed will literally make you want to try vegan food because it LOOKS awesome, not like yucky hippie shit from 1970.
And accept that some people will only ever do partial vegetarianism--just drop the zealotry and be glad if you can get people off their beef addiction, and to stop eating meat products like veal or pate whose production is intrinsically inhumane. Get people to support efforts to clean up the ocean and eat more fish. Teach them how to prepare veggies in ways that are both easy and tasty. Teach them there's more to veggies than yet another bowl of bland steamed broccoli. And for fuck's sake stop sperging about foods like eggs and dairy, or wearing wool--NO, the free range, healthy production of dairy and eggs is NOT cruel to animals, and NO, shearing wool or producing lanolin from it (best moisturizer ever) does not kill sheep. FFS. Shut the fanatics up and you'll advance your cause greatly.
And like that.
Tell that to the Nazi alphas who love Hitler. You know, Hitler the vegetarian. Sorry couldn't resist
fukken kekd
I agree with you. This is my most liberal belief. If I were not a hypocrite and and piece of shit I'd quit eating meat. I should at least quit eating mammals.
I don't have to justify anything you brainlet. There is no argument you could use against my consumption of meat due to animal suffering that could not be better used as a justification to kill every living thing on the planet Earth.
>Suffering is bad!
All living things suffer. How many animals live without pain and then die peacefully without fear or regret? Virtually none. Life is brutish and violent, and then it ends. That is nature. Things breed so that their offspring can suffer and then die, and the cycle repeats itself. The only constant to life is that it ends, and it rarely ends pleasantly.
If you actually believed that the mere fact that the animals we tend in enormous flocks suffer and die is bad, than a fortiori, there is no reason why we shouldn't have already set off a nuke every three miles across the entire surface of the Earth to terminate this concentration camp we call a planet.
>Death is bad unless it is natural!
Unless you are actually a Catholic Priest and mean to tell me that the human animal is distinct from the beast of the field, I do not see what is unnatural about our corralling and devouring of chickens.
>We shouldn't eat animals because it isn't necessary!
Shouldn't! There's a word I like hearing. What does that mean exactly? Are you saying "I don't think we should," or are you saying "there's an objective moral standard that I believe all behavior should be held to and it condemns the eating of animal flesh?"
Is this a case you are willing to make philosophically, or did you merely construct the foundations of your belief system on sand?
Uncle Adolf only ate plants.
>Shut the fanatics up and you'll advance your cause greatly.
Most vegetarians aren't fanatics, dude. Really. I hate to be the guy whinging about "muh vocal minority" but most vegetarians never fucking talk about it - I mean like never. You CAN'T talk about it unless you have a pretty thick skin, because of all the people who just aren't able to leave it alone. You can see dozens of them in every vegetarianism thread that pops up on this board. The people who assume that every vegetarian is a member of PETA or at best is just quietly judging them. There are a lot more people like that than there are vegetarians, militant or otherwise.
And believe me, most ethical vegetarians are ecstatic at even partial victories, like banning battery cages. Few are actually trying to get everybody to stop eating meat. Yeah, there are some of those, but they simply are not representative.
>comes to board where people dont consider most of homo sapiens subspecies fully human
>shills for animals
Nope fuckboy. Perhaps you don see it from your soy-saturated artificial environment, but entire nature consists of killing and eating, and i see no reason why human should be exception.
bants
I think of you useless vegans and your faggy beliefs every time I shoot a cow in the face. I have yet to meet one of you that actually knows the animals and how they live beyond a few visits to a farm at most. I have cows that are pets, but when they need put down I have no problem volunteering.
jainist faget
Meat is tasty, that's really all the masses care about.
Do you know why our teeth are not similar to herbivores?
Because we're not fucking herbivores. We're omnivores. That's how we've been long enough for evolution to change our teeth to adapt. It's nature.
Based on vegan ideology we should also exterminate frogs globally because they eat insects, why should a frog's taste buds trump an insect' s pain and suffering as it gets eaten alive?
>to say nothing of plants, which don't have central nervous systems. Reacting to stimulus isn't the same as being cognizant of it.
You need to do some research. See links below. PLEASE NOTE: I don't have a problem with veganism done well, or with vegetarianism, or with limiting meat intake to humane/free range sources as I do. I just don't like preaching and zealotry; it's counter-productive if nothing else. Plus it's annoying as fuck. The plant stuff is genuinely interesting though, and research in this area goes back decades.
My opinion is that in order to live on this planet, especially at the top of the food chain as we are, we have to accept that living things will die to feed us. I feel guilty when I forget to water my fucking potted plants, ffs. I KNOW they suffer thereby. But it is what it is, people just gotta grow the fuck up and live with it. And everyone will need to find their own way to best do that. If veganism suits you and you can do it without getting sick, fine. And so forth.
youtube.com
(The Secret Life of Plants, 1978)
youtube.com
(What Do Plants Talk About)
^this
>muh animal suffering
Got to be the most vain, self-induced pain in the world. Vegetarians are shitheads, I've not ever spoken or heard about one which isn't twelve feet up their own arsehole.
I get it, animal welfare. So does half of the fucking western world, difference is we also acknowledge that a majority of the world is fucked up. But if we pretend that taking some bullshit little step to "Prevent suffering" is significant enough to stop animals from suffering world wide (Just take a trip to China, you'll love it) we're deluding ourselves heavily, and just causing self-inflicted pain.
Go be a cry-baby activist elsewhere.
...
I swear to god you people don't even read your own links. From the first paragraph of the wiki article you linked:
>Paranormal claims in regard to plant perception are considered to be pseudoscience by many in the scientific community.[1][2][5][6]
Nothing you linked is new to me - believe me, people have been trotting out the same pop sci articles and videos for decades (often completely unprovoked, when they learn that I used to be a vegetarian). None of it's relevant. All of it is INTERESTING, but the hard truth is, the fact that plants can respond to stimulus (which isn't exactly novel information) and can even sometimes 'communicate' and 'remember' in a limited fashion doesn't imply anything about their sentience.
Sentience/consciousness is a pretty floofy area of research to begin with, and a lot of researchers reject it as a valid avenue for scientific inquiry outright, because it's so hard make claims that are testable and falsifiable, but the general consensus is that it's tied to having a central nervous system. Plants don't have one. You can link articles (mostly written by non-scientists, as people with actual scientific credentials are incredibly leery of making any claims about consciousness at all), it won't change the fact that, despite their popular appeal, you'll find very, very few actual researchers espousing the idea that plants are "conscious" or "sentient."
The guy (Michael Pollan) quoted so extensively in the first article, by the by, is a journalist, not a scientist.
>He says for the longest time, even mentioning the idea that plants could be intelligent was a quick way to being labeled "a whacko." But no more, which might be comforting to people who have long talked to their plants or played music for them.
A guy who most scientists would frankly describe as a whacko saying "we're not whackos anymore!" is not very convincing.
>year of the rooster
>not having healthy ol' snack
>Why does most of modern society continue to justify eating meat?
Because it is quite tasty.
I take it you've never personally killed what you have eaten.
I want to fuck that dragon
It's cheaper than alternative vegan/vegetarian diets, that's it, most of the public don't think about it, but that still doesn't make it right, obviously.
Meat-eaters are willfully ignorant to facts, there's no escape of the knuckle-draggers in society, we must dismantle animal production from the inside, through laws, through propaganda.
The animal holocaust can't continue in a fair society.