Beyond Carnism and towards Rational, Authentic Food Choices

Excellent questions Adder. I might look into that. Perhaps I would be more honest(with myself) in saying I believe(not know) they feel it on a level we can not(so far been unable) quantify. It is a deep rooted belief backed up by non-quantifiable and unreliable(as far as anyone outside of myself is concerned) experiences and an instinct I consciously feel.

Perhaps if I take the time to understand plant life more in depth(an a scientific level) I can dissuade my guilt as my chainsaw rips into an oak 3 times older than me. Perhaps my eyes won't get misty. Perhaps I'll stop "imagining" the sorrow and hurt such is "not likely" to be feeling. I might come up with "science says I'm not causing this tree pain" and I'll feel better.


But I'm not there yet.

I apologize if that came of as...snippy.

Was not my intent.

in animal life pain serves a funtion and has a result - we burn our fingers we pull our hands back

plants move much more slowly and interact with their environment from a different M.O. than we do

it may be that we do not have the data to conclude that they have an experience analogous to our pain but i do not feel that the data is sufficient to determine that they do not

i personally belive that they have sentience, and from that allow that they may have pain

I wonder the same things, and ascribe the potential for it in plants to spirit, in the meantime. It was one of the things I did very early on in my spiritual quest - meditation on a plant. It's 'instinct' or programming to survive and grow is very relateable, and starving it to death (of water, part of the process) was painful to watch after putting so much mental focus on its growth. I was very pseudo-scientific in my application of spirituality in those days
:S

Akkarin wrote:
Her views are not sentiocentrist. If by sentiocentrist you mean "things that are self-aware" then nearly all animals don't qualify- certainly not birds or fish.

i define self aware as "aware of oneself as being alive and as being distinct from other living things"

crows have more than thrity words

distinct specific calls that have a preexisting context and mean the same thing every time

the idea that animals are "superior" to plants is imo just as arrogant and indefensible as the idea that humans are superior to all the other animals that roam the earth

all life is alive

it doesnt mean we cant eat it

but it does imply that we should ackowledge it from a more meaningful level than surface assumptions which exist as a result of the assumption of human superiority

we are superior only by our own standards and from within our own contexts

rugadd wrote: Perhaps I would be more honest(with myself) in saying I believe(not know) they feel it on a level we can not(so far been unable) quantify.

If we pretend for a moment that it will take more than simple science to explain everything in the universe, almost every animist culture agrees that (on a spiritual level) plants do feel pain when hurt, and fear when threatened, without the proper respect or rites.

steamboat28 wrote:

rugadd wrote: Perhaps I would be more honest(with myself) in saying I believe(not know) they feel it on a level we can not(so far been unable) quantify.

If we pretend for a moment that it will take more than simple science to explain everything in the universe, almost every animist culture agrees that (on a spiritual level) plants do feel pain when hurt, and fear when threatened, without the proper respect or rites.

To be fair animism almost makes scientific sense: science is never right, but "righter" every day. Animism is basic theorization of observed phenomenon:
Observation: Take too much fish from the river and the river won't give you any again
Theory: The river is angry with you, the river is therefore some sort of being of greater complexity than you

Speaking of which, animism, from latin "animus" which is also the root of "animal", meant life, not just life made out of meat. If that's not a sign of sentiocentrism in biology, I don't know what is

Sorry for not replying sooner but:

steamboat28 wrote: Can you provide some scientific backing for the idea that plants have nothing analogous to pain receptors?

Thank you to Adder for the video. Even if one cannot say for absolute certainty that plants to not experience pain and suffering, we do know for absolute certainty that animals feel pain and suffering. So if one wants to reduce pain and suffering we can either choose between maybe not doing anything or definitely doing something.

ren wrote: No. When you (used to) get child benefit, it was the same amount for all, as in that respect all children were equal. The same with the NHS. What you describe in your £10 example is not equality at all, but discrimination on economic grounds.

If giving more money to those in need is "discrimination on economic grounds" then I'm absolutely fine with it. Should we not give poor and disadvantaged people more assistance when they are clearly in need of it?

ren wrote: Equality is an absolute concept, as seen in, let's say the entire universe, laws of physics, maths, etc (it even has it's own symbol on the keyboard). What you are referring to is fairness, a human concept that varies between humans and which is entirely subjective anyway, meaning it is not rational. And having seen how other animals feed, I'd say violently slaughtering animals for the purpose of eating them without the slightest care for their well-being is very authentic.

Actually the symbol o0n the keyboard is "equals" not "equality", equality includes but is not limited to the alleviation of such problems as social inequality and economic inequality. Depending upon how you wish to phrase it equality is synonymous with fairness. But this is a semantic argument.

ren wrote: (ah and suffering is something specific to nervous systems, you are therefore discriminating on those grounds. Other lifeforms also react to external stimuli but it isn't called pain or pleasure because, well, these concepts apply specifically to lifeforms with a nervous system)

As above "if one wants to reduce pain and suffering we can either choose between maybe not doing anything or definitely doing something". To reduce suffering I will discriminate in my treatment of things based on whether they have the capacity to suffer? Well obviously...

This is entirely absent of the point that if one wants to reduce total suffering then eating plants is still better because of sheer quantity. We have a choice between eating plants or eating plants + (eating the plants animals eat) + eating animals. It takes plants to feed animals so even if plants do feel pain etc then eating animals still benefits them.

Your argument on discrimination seems to be missing the point of what discrimination is and when/where it is expected/applicable. If you want to reduce pain then obviously you stop doing what it is that causes pain (eating animals), yes that is 'discriminating' on the grounds that they have a nervous system but that argument is akin to saying a heterosexual person "discriminates" against men when choosing a sexual partner. It might be true if you are choosing to word it in those particular terms (which I do not think is appropriate), but just because it's true doesn't mean we need to tell heterosexual men to stop discriminating against guys when wanting to have sex...

The problem I have with this idea of carnism as justification for not eating meat (because "they" planted an idea in my head) does not hold for me. Agreed this is what big business does, but cultures have been eating meat long before the factory farms. Factory farms is not the only place to purchase meat either.

Rational authentic food choices are not "beyond carnism". Rathional authentic food choices may or not include meat. Rational authentic foods choices are made by nutritional and biology research AND trial and error within one's own body.

The words "authentic" and the practice of honoring all sentient beings comes out of certain religions that one cannot reach their Authentic Self if they eat animals. I respect that, yet do not hold that belief.

Mareeka wrote: Rational authentic food choices are not "beyond carnism". Rathional authentic food choices may or not include meat. Rational authentic foods choices are made by nutritional and biology research AND trial and error within one's own body.

I agree, this is why I'm framing the argument about reducing pain and suffering. Ryujin for example was correct to point out that eating meat can be completely "humane" and largely pain-free for the animals involved. But what the author was really attacking was the "general" consumption of meat which includes the use of factory farming and the deplorable conditions in which this practice is commonplace. Her real point was about raising awareness of this issue and how there is a better alternative (which can include hunting, but which I do not think she brought up as an example).

To be honest I'm not sure where the term "Authentic" comes in, perhaps she chose that in terms of being authentic to our beliefs of not wanting to hurt people/other beings. Certainly just because something is "natural-authentic" is not enough of a justification for doing anything in my view.