It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do vegetarians/vegans differentiate between plants and animals?

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hoonsince89

Thanks for your comment. That is the speciesism I've assumed is driving a lot of vegans, the notion that plants are somehow a lower life form and animals being superior.

For me life starts with single-celled organisms. Everything else is just a more complex variant of the former.

I see a spirit, or let's say consciousness, as an emergent property. Make something complex enough and it will start talking to you at some point. I don't see what would make animals somehow special here.


Thus my confusion about people favoring animals over plants.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I'm a vegetarian ,The one reason that I don't eat meat is suffering, I don't believe that carrots suffer the same amount an animal would before it's put on my plate. Simple as that.

Eating meat isn't wrong, just causing something to suffer is!



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nodwander

So you wouldn't object meat from animals that didn't suffer? There are plenty methods to achieve brain death without causing any physical and emotional stress.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   


In my opinion all matter has counsiousness however there are different levels of counsiousness in plants and animals. Animals are more advanced in the chain of evolution and have brains similar to our own, where as plants have counsiousness which is not as developed. Things like rocks and metals also have counsiousness of an even lesser degree in my opinion. So the counsiousness and identity or ego developed by the being needs to be able to exert its will to exist and evolve into life be considered alive. There are degrees of life as seen in plants and animals, animals being superior in ego and further evolved in a variety of ways very similar to humans.

So think of the consciousness of an inanimate object like the thermostat which Michio Kaku mentions. He believes that even a lowly thermostat has one unit of consciousness. That is, it senses the temperature around it and goes up and down. And then we have a flower which Dr Kaku speaks of or a plant as we are dealing with in our thread. A plant has maybe ten units of consciousness. It has to understand the temperature, the weather, humidity, where gravity is pointing. And then finally we go to the reptilian brain which I call level 1 consciousness and reptiles basically have a very good understanding of their position in space, especially because they have to lunge out and grab prey. Then we have level 2 consciousness, the monkey consciousness. The consciousness of emotions, social hierarchies, where are we in relationship to the tribe. And then where are we as humans.

As humans we are at level 3. We run simulations into the future. Animals apparently don't do this.

So why do we see a difference because there are differences in evolution, and plants are at the lowest level of consumable counsiousness which we could survive on, meaning the least amount of suffering need to sustain ourselves, at thier level there is limited ego and suffering in comparison to animals, and the reason we eat plants rather than animals is to have less suffering, be more humane and take a higher moral path.

If we should find another way to sustain ourselves like on sunlight like superman or 3d print food at the atomic level then I wouldnt mind abstaining from eating plants as well because they also have a right to life.

edit on 1-2-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So do you know for a proven fact that these levels actually exist? If not, then it is mere conjecture on your part isn't it? And if so, it is merely your own justification for your perception of morality that you seem to hold over others that do not believe the same as you.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me, as I am not putting any moral judgement at all on eating to sustain life. However, you seem to hang this morality question above us all, like it is a proven fact....when, I believe it is not a fact...only opinion.

Am I right here?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



So do you know for a proven fact that these levels actually exist? If not, then it is mere conjecture on your part isn't it? And if so, it is merely your own justification for your perception of morality that you seem to hold over others that do not believe the same as you.



Personally, it doesn't matter to me, as I am not putting any moral judgement at all on eating to sustain life. However, you seem to hang this morality question above us all, like it is a proven fact....when, I believe it is not a fact...only opinion.



Am I right here?



Did you watch the vid?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Are actual scientific facts presented within the video that proves these levels of consciousness exists? If not, then it is irrelevant to my question now isn't it?


ETA: To clarify my position regarding the video, yes I did watch it, and here is what I heard him say clearly, "about 20,000 or so papers written about consciousness...and no consensus..." ergo.. No proven facts. So this idea from Dr. Kaku is interesting in itself, yes. However, one of about 20,000 ideas, at a minimum.

As I said, my question to you still stands...regardless of the video.

PS: Were you planning on plagiarizing the entire video content here as your own opinion?



edit on 2/1/2015 by Krakatoa because: added clarifications



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



So do you know for a proven fact that these levels actually exist? If not, then it is mere conjecture on your part isn't it? And if so, it is merely your own justification for your perception of morality that you seem to hold over others that do not believe the same as you.



Personally, it doesn't matter to me, as I am not putting any moral judgement at all on eating to sustain life. However, you seem to hang this morality question above us all, like it is a proven fact....when, I believe it is not a fact...only opinion.



Am I right here?



Ok you say I hold my morals over others wrong I dont period.

Take my posts as my opinion not as fact.

There may be facts to back up the types of counsiousness I mentioned in my post but that would take some looking around in nueroscience, so if you wanna do that go ahead, you may find them to be very factual, but dont count on me doing that for you.

If morals dont matter to you when you eat thats your life, follow your bliss, yes morals do matter to me, I prefer to not promote suffering when I can help it.

If I can nudge people in a more progressive direction I take it that I have done a good thing, if I spread evil then I take it I did a bad thing. I prefer to do good over evil if possible, but I may do a mix of both in my lifetime. I am trying to improve myself one step at a time.

I am not perfect nor do I hold myself to a higher standard than anyone else, I am what I am, I want to be better, I wish ther was a better way but I do my half arsed best in some things and am terrible at some others. I wish there was less suffering in the world, and I dont think I am the only one.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

And who asked you to nudge anyone in any direction? That is the problem with religious leaning people. They feel they are obligated to "save" everyone, when in fact, I don;t need saving and never asked for it from you or anyone else. So, please spare me your platitudes.

As soon as you stated in the title of YOUR own thread (here) "The Immorality Of Eating Meat.." you already made a statement that eating meat is immoral. That is holding your morality above others whether you admit to it or not. Had it been titled as a question such as, "Is Eating Meat Immoral..." then my opinion of you would be different.

I hope you understand.......it is not you or anyone else's "duty" to "nudge" anyone in any direction as if you were humanities shepherd and we were your sheep.


edit on 2/1/2015 by Krakatoa because: Fixed spelling and other fat-finger errors



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Nodwander

That's a fair statement... I can respect that. However, what if there was proof that vegetables did feel pain and suffering on the same level as animals when killed. I am honestly curious how you would decide what to eat after that? At that point, the only non-suffering option I can think of is to take pills containing the raw chemical compounds our bodies need in order to survive.

But, IMO, surviving is not living.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



If we should find another way to sustain ourselves like on sunlight ...

Like plants?


I see the point you are trying to make. But the differentiation you introduce is a human construct. Who are we to decide which lifeforms are more worthy?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Because plants grow from mother Earth, they grow so we can feed ourselves (otherwise we don't have food at all). Animals, well who knows what their backstory is. Wheter they are created by Gods or not they have a different level of consiousness. Like a said in a comparable thread. Eating meat or plants is not bad per se, just do it with respect. Don't overuse it. Like happens in society nowadays when animals are numbered to be slaughtered.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   


You can't win, even when we live off of only energy way in the future people will complain we're destroying photons or atoms to sustain our own lives....
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Not true as energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is just transferred from one form to another.
The rest of your post is spot on though.


My personal take on it is the same goes with life, it can neither be created or destroyed, it is just transferred from one form to another. After all what we define as life, is that thing which animates the physical/material it manifests in. But is not the physical material itself.
Quality of life, now that's another matter, but its something all life should aim to grant all other life.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius




I see a spirit, or let's say consciousness, as an emergent property. Make something complex enough and it will start talking to you at some point.


Hmm, I have it the other way round, that is, consciousness or spirit or whatever you wish to call it, has to possess a physical body for it to be alive. If it were the case of something being complex enough for it to start talking as you put it, then why hasn't technology manifested consciousness yet? Maybe you believe its just a matter of time, and I'm sure AI certainly is. But will it become sentient? Intelligence is not the same thing. In fact all living things including us are biological programs. Also it has been proven that most of what we consider our independent decision making is in fact made by are unconscious minds, before 'we' are conscience minds are even aware of it.
So what makes us different from computers then? Well that we are aware, and that awareness appears to be a prerequisite of life itself. Its what life is essentially...

I hope I've made some sense I've busted my brain cell trying to explain this!




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I've never had a plant run away from me or actively try to defend itself. Actually, some plants want to be eaten; it's how they are propagated. You can even eat the fruit of a plant without damaging the plant. There is no animal that has a part you can take that will grow back. (Which would be nourishing, if I were going to eat hair or fingernails I guess I'd eat my own)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elisa24
Because plants grow from mother Earth, they grow so we can feed ourselves (otherwise we don't have food at all). Animals, well who knows what their backstory is. Wheter they are created by Gods or not


If a god created all the animals, then they created the plants too. Agree?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: centhwevir1979



There is no animal that has a part you can take that will grow back.


Lizards tails.
Salamanders can regrow limbs.
Spiders can regrow legs.
Starfish regrow limbs.
Sea cucumbers can be cut into several pieces and each will grow into a new sea cucumber.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The quote left out some of what I wrote. Which one of those is a viable food source if the alternative was to eat a plant diet? I'm not going to burn the calories to catch a lizard only to eat its tail.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

It's really very straightforward.



Plants? No faces.

Animals? Faces.


Eating plants because they do not have a face is not unlike shooting someone in the back, in my book.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: moebius

It's really very straightforward.



Plants? No faces.

Animals? Faces.


Eating plants because they do not have a face is not unlike shooting someone in the back, in my book.


I dunno,

potatoes have "eyes"
corn has "ears"
lots of veggies have "skin"

Sounds like our ancestors were trying to anthropomorphize our plants too... Why would they do that do you think?




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join