User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-21 at 3:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL I think we should already be on the same page, but you would rather split ganglia. My point was that they have a completely different system, so we can't compare human/animal systems to the systems insects have.
Well insects are categorically animals, so yes, their central nervous systems are exactly like that of an animal. I'm glad that you are at least admitting that insects have central nervous systems and going back on your obviously false statement earlier, although it's pretty funny how you think avoiding saying it clearly somehow is saving face.
With the CNS in insects established, you now say it's "completely different". Well it's obviously not completely different since it still consists of neurons and is still connected to the animals peripheral nervous system, it still operates through electro-chemical "message sending". So I have two questions: Specifically what is different, and why does that difference render insects incapable of suffering? -
2018-06-21 at 4:24 AM UTC
-
2018-06-21 at 5:10 AM UTC
-
2018-06-21 at 5:16 AM UTCInsects do not have a central nervous system in the strictest sense, they merely have a brain and a ventral nerve cord. The ventral nerve cord is very rudimentary. Comparing it to the central nervous system of, say a dog, or a human, is like comparing a Honda Civic to a Lamborghini. That is how the insect can not feel the same way the dog or the human feels, just as the Honda Civic cannot accelerate to 200mph; it just doesn't have the capability.
-
2018-06-21 at 5:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Insects do not have a central nervous system in the strictest sense, they merely have a brain and a ventral nerve cord. The ventral nerve cord is very rudimentary. Comparing it to the central nervous system of, say a dog, or a human, is like comparing a Honda Civic to a Lamborghini. That is how the insect can not feel the same way the dog or the human feels, just as the Honda Civic cannot accelerate to 200mph; it just doesn't have the capability.
thats a bad analogy.
were talking about sensors and sensories here, not performance.
sure a honda civic with its 55mpg fuel consumption wont perform and accelerate as fast as a lumbo would,
but its engine senses the lack of engine oil just as good as a lumbo would.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-21 at 5:34 AM UTClummmburgggroni
-
2018-06-21 at 6:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader thats a bad analogy.
were talking about sensors and sensories here, not performance.
sure a honda civic with its 55mpg fuel consumption wont perform and accelerate as fast as a lumbo would,
but its engine senses the lack of engine oil just as good as a lumbo would.
The Lamborghini would have much more robust and delicate sensor systems. The Honda Civic, almost non-existent, or effectively non-existent. -
2018-06-21 at 6:12 AM UTCpretty sure Hnnngder actually has significantly more electronics such as sensors and ECU modules than Lommmbergherber
the price tag comes from brand and mechanical craftsmanship -
2018-06-21 at 6:13 AM UTCOh ffs I hope you all get e. coliThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-21 at 6:14 AM UTCC Difff surprise
-
2018-06-21 at 8:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Insects do not have a central nervous system in the strictest sense, they merely have a brain and a ventral nerve cord.
I don't know what you think the "strict sense" of having a CNS is, but it's not a distinction any entomologist or neurologist acknowledges. It's a fictional distinction you made up because you seem to have a mental block against ever learning something new.
The CNS of insects is much simpler than that of humans, no doubt, but this neither means it stops being a CNS nor that insects are incapable of experiencing pain. How much sophistication do you think is required in a nervous system to support the sensation of pain? How did you find out that it was that amount, and not some other? -
2018-06-21 at 11:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny something something universal grammar some anarcho syndicalism
I do think it's ok to eat plants and that plants, to the best of our knowledge, are not morally considerable. The reason they're not morally considerable and some animals are is not because I choose which things are and aren't morally considerably, but rather because morally considerable things have the ability to experience well being or suffering while plants don't seem to.
More and more research shows that plants are intelligent, can sense touch, react when they are damaged, etc... If sometime in the future it is revealed to you that all forms of life can experience well being and suffering, will you still eat food? -
2018-06-21 at 12:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe More and more research shows that plants are intelligent, can sense touch, react when they are damaged, etc… If sometime in the future it is revealed to you that all forms of life can experience well being and suffering, will you still eat food?
I believe Lanny is avoiding the uncomfortable question here. -
2018-06-21 at 12:05 PM UTCAlthough you can generate food without killing living, nonhuman beings.
-
2018-06-21 at 12:34 PM UTC
-
2018-06-21 at 4:50 PM UTC
-
2018-06-21 at 5:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe More and more research shows that plants are intelligent, can sense touch, react when they are damaged, etc… If sometime in the future it is revealed to you that all forms of life can experience well being and suffering, will you still eat food?
Originally posted by Captain I believe Lanny is avoiding the uncomfortable question here.
I'm not. People who argue plants have hedonic faculties generally state in the general form of "plants can react to stimulus, so they must be able to feel pain!" which I think is a really flimsy argument. In general I think this is a camp that takes some real and interesting findings in biology and draws wholly invalid conclusions from them. But Obbe did put it in the most interesting way the question can be framed, as a hypothetical.
So if we found that all life is capable of well being or suffering, which I've put forward as the criterion for moral considerability, then we need to ask what the distribution and degree of considerability is among species. If plants have a very slight hedonic faculty but humans a much greater one, then it may be justifiable to inflict the amount of suffering required for our well being on plants. For what it's worth I think this argument applies to animals too: the lives of humans are certainly more considerable than those of chickens and I would never say that a starving person is doing something wrong for eating a chicken, it's simply that when we have a choice between eating an animal, which is somewhat less morally considerable than us, and a plant, which I think is totally morally unconsiderable, then we do something wrong by harming the animal.
So what if plants end being capable the same or greater depth of feeling than animals? I think the situation is really pretty far fetched, but if it was the case then I guess most of us would be obligated to die since I doubt we could sustain a very large population on fruit or whatever other sources of calories are available to us without killing anything.
Originally posted by -SpectraL Agreed.
Lol, you're the one dodging my questions buddyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-21 at 6:15 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-21 at 6:17 PM UTCwhat if you give the animal some dope and cut its leg off and it wakes up and is happy again and you sell the leg to buy more animals to dope more animals up to cut more legs off to sell more animal legs to make more happy animals and so on
-
2018-06-21 at 6:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm not. People who argue plants have hedonic faculties generally state in the general form of "plants can react to stimulus, so they must be able to feel pain!" which I think is a really flimsy argument. In general I think this is a camp that takes some real and interesting findings in biology and draws wholly invalid conclusions from them. But Obbe did put it in the most interesting way the question can be framed, as a hypothetical.
So if we found that all life is capable of well being or suffering, which I've put forward as the criterion for moral considerability, then we need to ask what the distribution and degree of considerability is among species. If plants have a very slight hedonic faculty but humans a much greater one, then it may be justifiable to inflict the amount of suffering required for our well being on plants. For what it's worth I think this argument applies to animals too: the lives of humans are certainly more considerable than those of chickens and I would never say that a starving person is doing something wrong for eating a chicken, it's simply that when we have a choice between eating an animal, which is somewhat less morally considerable than us, and a plant, which I think is totally morally unconsiderable, then we do something wrong by harming the animal.
So what if plants end being capable the same or greater depth of feeling than animals? I think the situation is really pretty far fetched, but if it was the case then I guess most of us would be obligated to die since I doubt we could sustain a very large population on fruit or whatever other sources of calories are available to us without killing anything.
or you can just say plants dont have central nervous systems.
