Live data from Hacker News

What if plants were animals like any other?

booksandideas.net

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#41

I'm never really sure what the point of things like this are. I've grown enough plants in my life to understand they're at least 'aware' in some way when bad things happen to them. But in the end, it's a basic biological fact, unless a form of life can photosynthesize, it likely consumes some form of matter that was likely from something living. Extremophiles that eat sulphur and minerals and such aside, the majority…

> Life involves suffering of some kind for every living thing on this planet. It's another one of those inescapable facts. So when plants consciously grow edible parts to themselves in exchange for seed dispersal, are they suffering? Do they suffer when they drop leaves every autumn?

>So when plants consciously grow edible parts to themselves in exchange for seed dispersal,

Depends on the plant and the kind of life cycle they have, in some cases, yes they slowly die after.

Even if they don't, think of human pregnancy and childbirth. Human mothers suffer a fair amount even during pregnancy as their nutrients are shared between their young and they grow inside them.

When plants produce fruits and seeds, they stop vegetative growth for the duration of this, the send any available nutrients to the seeds and fruit, thereby depriving the rest of the plant of needed nutrients. Post fruit production, it typically takes at least a season before vegetative growth begins.

>Do they suffer when they drop leaves every autumn?

Yes, they go dormant and can't feed themselves or grow. Sometimes overwintering trees or plants will die from the stress.

When I say suffering, I mostly mean, show visible signs of either stress or delayed growth, or other things plants typically 'suffer' from when mistreated or grown in poor conditions.

Whether it's the same as an animal suffering, I don't know and I doubt anyone could know or if it even matters. Animals and plants are fundamentally different, the way they display their 'suffering' is not really comparable. What we see as suffering in animals comes from our own experiences with suffering. We have no possible way to empathize or experience plant suffering so we have no actual way to ever truly understand how they may or may not 'feel' the same way we ever will with animals.

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#42
post #27

I'm never really sure what the point of things like this are. I've grown enough plants in my life to understand they're at least 'aware' in some way when bad things happen to them. But in the end, it's a basic biological fact, unless a form of life can photosynthesize, it likely consumes some form of matter that was likely from something living. Extremophiles that eat sulphur and minerals and such aside, the majority…

> Trying to pretend we can erase any and all suffering we may cause ever is a fruitless effort. I wouldn't be so sure. Eduard Hartmann came up with a solution in the 19th century. https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-th...

That sort of implies trying to blow up the universe wouldn't be a fruitless effort in and of itself. You'd have better luck just waiting for the heat death of the universe at that point I think.

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#43
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care either, I draw the line between human and non-human. Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human can get angry can cause me trouble.

Why do you draw the line there? And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?

>Why do you draw the line there

Simply personal preference.

>And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?

Yes

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#45
post #38

I'm never really sure what the point of things like this are. I've grown enough plants in my life to understand they're at least 'aware' in some way when bad things happen to them. But in the end, it's a basic biological fact, unless a form of life can photosynthesize, it likely consumes some form of matter that was likely from something living. Extremophiles that eat sulphur and minerals and such aside, the majority…

Fair. In the end, we'll find "well, _everything_ is suffering!" and be forced to just embrace it or pretend we never asked. However, I do see the unpacking/evaluation of assumptions inherent in the debate as valuable … "why is ending a life that can experience suffering the way humans do more ethical than a life that doesn't?" and "what does it say about us that we want to prevent animals from suffering?" and so on …

Absolutely, I still think it's important to deeply meditate on suffering and to ask ethical questions like the ones you've pointed out. The alternative is to be sort of nihilistic, shrugging the creation of suffering off as inevitable and to keep on causing unnecessary harm.

I mean, an entire religion was formed around insights around suffering, so clearly people have been thinking about this for a long time!

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#46
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just eating the unborn children, then? Is that better than eating an adult? (tongue in cheek, obviously)

Seeds are evolved to survive being eaten and deposited with extra fertilizer some distance away. Breeding sterile fruit for convenience might be considered bad form in the plant world.

I think it should be consensual. Let's just ask the plants. And we must remember that affirmative positive consent is the only sort that matters.

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#47
Vegans would be in trouble. I'm eating almost only fruits and legumes, but the "animal pain" argument is a bit ridiculous (there are way better arguments like health and environment) above all with this article. Plants also have senses like touch, they feel gravity (else they wouldn't grow vertically, even in the dark)

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#48

I've yet to get a satisfying answer to why it matters - life is suffering. Is there any organism that can survive without the expense of something else? construction kills animals, eating animals kills animals, using computers promotes industry which kills animals. what activity can a human participate in that doesn't kill animals? of course, one can say fewer animals could be killed by doing [other things], but that…

> life is suffering

Not sure why I'm sharing this, but I saw a hawk kill a squirrel yesterday. It was standing on top of the squirrel (still alive) on my neighbor's lawn.

Three other squirrels were screeching and they made futile charges at the hawk to try to free the other squirrel.

The amount of distress / suffering / chaos was far more disturbing than I would have expected to see on a suburban lawn. I even considered intervening and trying to scare the hawk away.

But the hawk's gotta eat, too.

Plus, it probably would've kicked my ass.

*edits for better phrasing.

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#49

I've yet to get a satisfying answer to why it matters - life is suffering. Is there any organism that can survive without the expense of something else? construction kills animals, eating animals kills animals, using computers promotes industry which kills animals. what activity can a human participate in that doesn't kill animals? of course, one can say fewer animals could be killed by doing [other things], but that…

In theory wouldn't that cover any organism that subsists directly on a non-living energy source (forgot if there's a word for that). Plants with the sun, deep-sea life with thermal vents. If you go full sci-fi, I imagine a human could survive without the expense of another living thing if we could synthesize all the nutrients etc that a human needs.

As to why it matters in a philosophical sense, I'd say it doesn't. Everything's just matter and energy. But it matters to some people so they try to reduce their impact, just like violence matters to most people so most people try to avoid injuring or maiming people, even if it doesn't matter in the end.

Re: What if plants were animals like any other?

#50
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. In the end, we'll find "well, _everything_ is suffering!" and be forced to just embrace it or pretend we never asked. However, I do see the unpacking/evaluation of assumptions inherent in the debate as valuable … "why is ending a life that can experience suffering the way humans do more ethical than a life that doesn't?" and "what does it say about us that we want to prevent animals from suffering?" and so on …

Absolutely, I still think it's important to deeply meditate on suffering and to ask ethical questions like the ones you've pointed out. The alternative is to be sort of nihilistic, shrugging the creation of suffering off as inevitable and to keep on causing unnecessary harm. I mean, an entire religion was formed around insights around suffering, so clearly people have been thinking about this for a long time!

I think you and the parent poster missed the intention behind what I was saying. Not that we should have a nihilistic approach, but that the baseline for these conversations should be to assume suffering is a universal part of life and we should be focussing on how to minimize the amount of direct suffering each of us cause in our day to day life, rather than worrying about which suffers more, plants or animals.

It's not comparable, they're two entirely different forms of life, suffice to say, they both suffer, discussions around how people can directly if not reduce suffering mitigate it.

Telling people to only eat vegetables because suffering animals or it's cool eat meat because suffering plants is an utterly pointless topic of debate.

A more useful topic for debate if we're going to talk about such things would be maybe something like mitigating the suffering on both plants and animals through industrialized agriculture by returning to small scale production of both. Or something like that anyway.

The article as framed just didn't really talk in any useful way about the issue.

Which, if you are serious about ending suffering, a plant or animal grown in a small scale way where it can be looked after properly is going to suffer significantly less, even if it inevitably will die to feed somebody.

Post reply on HN