ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

kamaleon wrote:

Faunus wrote:It would be helpful if Kamaleon at least hinted of what s/he knows and understands about the topic s/he posted so discussion could begin. I am not on an animal rights forum to teach Botany 101.

Faunus

This is not about my personal knowledge or understanding. What I say is that this is no more about botany than neurology, so if you claim that people have to have minimal knowledge of botany, I claim that in that case they must have some minimal knowledge on neurology too.

If what you say is "that this is no more about botany than neurology", could you please let me know what the intention of your thread is?

This could become unnecessarily entangling (and time-consuming) without an answer.

Thank you.

I don't understand what do you mean by my intention, I don't even really know what my intention is to be honest...

Faunus wrote:There is a danger when some people see the terms "brain-like", "neurotransmitter-like molecule", "diffuse brain", "synapse-like cell to cell communication", etc. who are not educated in basic botany. Again, inappropriate projection may occur.

The only thing I say is that if you're gonna say that one has to have some basic knowledge about botany to discuss this subject, then I'm saying that we need basic knowledge of neurology too, for the exact same reasons. What is it that bothers you with my objection?

If we are talking about a subject that crosses over different subjects, we have to have basic knowledge about those different subjects, it seems quite logical to me?

In any case, Faunus has provided a number of links that ought to give us a sense of the basics, and hopefully of whether the claims are sound. Maybe we should go read some of them before getting bogged down in discussing what we should know. Let's just get to the "knowing" part!

kamaleon wrote:How do you differentiate "distress" from "pain" then? I'm curious.

I really have a lot of trouble when people claim non-sentient beings as worthful of "respect". I do not respect plants per se, I do not see how someone can claim that. Sure, plants, as a lot of different things, such as inanimate beings, can be objects of some moral consideration. But not intrinsically. They can have an instrumental value, but the position that all life should be respected is, in my humble opinion, inconsistent and imprecise.

If you consider that sentience is not the minimal criteria to grant a being interests, what do you consider to be THE thing that would make a being have interests?

As you say, there is no problem when using terms on a common-sense level, but there is one when people mix everything up and don't realise the difference between common-sense, science and / or philosophy.

Kamaleon, I use the term "distress" in plants as opposed to "pain" because they obviously do not have the senses, brains, and nervous systems of higher animals. "Distress" is also the appropriate term for "a ship or airplane requiring immediate assistance, as when on fire in transit" according to the dictionary. Unlike an inanimate object, a plant has its own biological receptors (plant senses) and biochemically responds to the best of its ability to favourable or unfavourable environmental and/or cultural stress factors. Many plant species are known to be able to differentiate between an invasion by mycoplasmas, viruses, harmful bacteria, fungi, etc. - as opposed to attacks by insects. This is just one of numerous examples where they demonstrate a level of intelligence and (hormonal) sentience. I never said that sentience is not the minimal criteria to grant a being interests. (Where did you get this)? Perhaps you simply do not understand hormonal sentience, but it is a manifestation of sentience nevertheless.

My use of the term "respect" for plants means "to show regard or consideration for", as well as "to refrain from interfering with" plants. More than that on a personal and professional level, demonstrating my respect for the 5,000+ species under my care at work plus 200 at home requires understanding of their anatomy and physiology, and the numerous differing environments from all over the planet where they come from - if they are to thrive. They do. In practical terms, this means knowing the appropriate rate, ratio, and frequency of fertiliser application, their preferred temperature ranges, soil pH and composition, rest periods, light requirements, etc. Culturing plants also means simultaneously knowing the needs of numerous microorganisms in the potting media or soil that are critical to a plant's survival - and respecting it. These various Kingdoms of life are interdependent; it is not a "this Kingdom versus that Kingdom deserves respect" attitude. Otherwise this is the mindset that is destroying earth's ecosystems and resulting in the rapid extinction of species from all of life's Kingdoms at an unprecedented rate.

Studying basic biology has certainly been effective with many adolescents I know who are fascinated by it in high school. They told me in conversation that this knowledge brought them a greater sense of appreciation and respect for the animals and plants. However, you said, "I do not respect plants per se, I do not see how someone can claim that". This makes me question you knowledge and understanding of the basic biology, so I am still in the dark about your reasons for posting this thread.

Faunus

Faunus wrote:Studying basic biology has certainly been effective with many adolescents I know who are fascinated by it in high school. They told me in conversation that this knowledge brought them a greater sense of appreciation and respect for the animals and plants. However, you said, "I do not respect plants per se, I do not see how someone can claim that". This makes me question you knowledge and understanding of the basic biology, so I am still in the dark about your reasons for posting this thread.

Dear Faunus, I really don't see your interest on knowing my level of knowledge of basic biology. Actually, what kind of answer are you waiting for - shall I rate my level of knowledge on a 1-10 scale? Shall I present diplomas to you? I don't understand your question about my intentions for posting this thread either. I'm interested on the subject, is that enough for me to post a thread here? Where exactly are you trying to get? Why are my intentions so important?
Listen - don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound arrogant. Please don't take it badly - but why all these questions?

Faunus wrote:Kamaleon, I use the term "distress" in plants as opposed to "pain" because they obviously do not have the senses, brains, and nervous systems of higher animals. "Distress" is also the appropriate term for "a ship or airplane requiring immediate assistance, as when on fire in transit" according to the dictionary.

Ok, fair enough. I don't know the academic meaning of pain or distress so I won't be able to follow a discussion about those terms.

Unlike an inanimate object, a plant has its own biological receptors (plant senses) and biochemically responds to the best of its ability to favourable or unfavourable environmental and/or cultural stress factors.

Why unlike an inanimate object? Some highly complex machines can have receptors (though obviously not biological), and respond to external stimuli too. I'm not questioning if plants are sensitive, I'm trying to understand how you claim they're sentient.
If I get it right - you claim that inanimate beings (like ships or airplanes - I know it's not your definition but a dictionary one, but it seems that you agree with that definition) can suffer distress, but when you mention plants as experiencing distress, then that's a proof of sentience? Or maybe I didn't understand your point.

I never said that sentience is not the minimal criteria to grant a being interests. (Where did you get this)?

Ok, nevermind about that, I can't be bothered to go through the reasoning that made me think you didn't think sentience was the criteria, Sorry about that.

Perhaps you simply do not understand hormonal sentience, but it is a manifestation of sentience nevertheless.

I definetly don't. How much acceptance does this notion have in the scientific community? Not that I'm saying that it has to have, I'm just wondering how much of it actually complies to the scientific paradigma. As we all know, things evolve, so does the scientific paradigma, I'm just curious to know how much of it is actually considered to be serious.

My use of the term "respect" for plants means "to show regard or consideration for", as well as "to refrain from interfering with" plants. More than that on a personal and professional level, demonstrating my respect for the 5,000+ species under my care at work plus 200 at home requires understanding of their anatomy and physiology, and the numerous differing environments from all over the planet where they come from - if they are to thrive. They do. In practical terms, this means knowing the appropriate rate, ratio, and frequency of fertiliser application, their preferred temperature ranges, soil pH and composition, rest periods, light requirements, etc. Culturing plants also means simultaneously knowing the needs of numerous microorganisms in the potting media or soil that are critical to a plant's survival - and respecting it.

I really don't see how one's knowledge of plant needs in order to make them grow in an optimal way implies that one should see them as moral objects. I'm not sure we're talking about the same "respect" here.

Now, I'd like to ask you something. I'm not trying to get you to contradict yourself at all, but because you mention you strive to treat plants with respect: Do you think we should treat plants as individuals, do you think we shouldn't eat them? I'm curious.

These various Kingdoms of life are interdependent; it is not a "this Kingdom versus that Kingdom deserves respect" attitude.

Yes they are interdependant, but that doesn't mean that a living being has interests just because it's alive, or that it should be considered a moral object per se.

Otherwise this is the mindset that is destroying earth's ecosystems and resulting in the rapid extinction of species from all of life's Kingdoms at an unprecedented rate.

I don't necessarily agree. That's not the reason why the earth is being destroyed at all. The reason is that people don't behave morally. (technically, that's not very correct, most human beings behave morally, it's just a wrong form of morality but I'd rather not go into that right now). But that doesn't mean that all "life's Kingdoms" have intrinsic value!

One can consider plants, ecosystems, the environment as something we can have a moral regard of - in the sense that they are useful for sentient beings, and that their life, their interests cannot be pursued without them. In that sense, there is instrumental value in it, but not intrinsic. I'm very sorry, it's getting a bit late now and I'm having a bit of trouble expressing myself, I promise to do better next time.