But then I met people lovingly tending to their gardens, talking and taking care of their plants and flowers and being anguished if something happened to them, and then going to the kitchen and chopping and boiling leafy greens and vegetables.
Whether plants feel pain, are conscious, sentient beings is an old query.
Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose tried to find out the answer and instead raised the possibility that not just plants and animals but all material in this universe has a common law. He showed that like animals, plants and even minerals /metals show similar responses to toxins, stimulants and poisons. In his words,
'Amongst such phenomena, how can we draw a line of demarcation and say, here the physical ends and there the physiological begins? Such absolute barriers do not exist. Do they [his results] not show us that the responsive processes seen in life, are fore-shadowed in the non-life? - that the physiological is related to the physico-chemical? That there is no abrupt break but a uniform and continuous march of law?"
(Aside: The Vedic concept of Brahman sounds familiar here but I'm not sure if that includes inorganic matter.)
The book and documentary 'The Secret Life of Plants' also showed some interesting experiments but apparently the results were not reproduce-able and hence were discredited.
On vegan forums, one frequently hears an appeal to common sense in response to the above question - how can you not differentiate between the crying and thrashing of an animal about to be slaughtered and the silent, event-less cutting of a vegetable.
But what then of creatures like molluscs, clams, oysters. Where do we draw the line for sensitivity? Who made pain and suffering as the criteria for humans to decide whether it was okay to kill a living being? What if plants and invertebrate animals do feel pain but we just don't have sufficiently advanced tools to detect that yet?
There is a lot of literature out there about these ethical issues.
But because these issues are debatable or perhaps due to a compassion deficiency, the guilt trip approach to veganism does not appeal to me.
For one, I suspect that excess guilt about what one eats could lead to stuff like this.
Also, in many cases I see a selective and convenient application of guilt. To put it crudely, the logic seems to be 'at least we (vegans) kill less than you (meat eaters) do'. Which for some reason doesn't sound very convincing.
For one, I suspect that excess guilt about what one eats could lead to stuff like this.
Also, in many cases I see a selective and convenient application of guilt. To put it crudely, the logic seems to be 'at least we (vegans) kill less than you (meat eaters) do'. Which for some reason doesn't sound very convincing.
For me, the most compelling reasons to adopt a largely plant based diet or to become vegetarian/vegan would be the impact of large scale factory farming methods on earth and the long-term adverse health effects of having meat and animal products as significant parts of one's diet.
Not that being a vegetarian insures against such diseases. It would be interesting to compare the rates of obesity and related complications in vegans vs. vegetarians.
Bringing about behavior change among people to lead them to vegetarianism or veganism might be important. But I wonder if the guilt approach fails to work for others as it does for me.
Bringing about behavior change among people to lead them to vegetarianism or veganism might be important. But I wonder if the guilt approach fails to work for others as it does for me.
I've never been a huge fan of meat, even living in a state which is famous for and largely adept at its consumption. I eat meat every once in awhile in small quantities. I prefer grilled chicken or roasted fish...
ReplyDeleteThis approach of vegetarians, vegans doesn't convince me. Obviously, I know what happens to the animals and doesn't agree with it (am I being hypocrite right now? contradicting myself?), but I believe that if a person decides to become vegetarian (or vegan) it should be because their own well-being, health. Well... if I, in fact, ever stop eating anything animal, it will be because of it.
I've heard a lot of arguments about why people stop eating meat and I considered some reasons to be, a little bit, absurd.
Hypocrite, for me, is those who doesn't eat meat but drinks tons of beers, or are vegetarians but eats sausage, paté, etc. Or "vegetarians" who doesn't eat meat but eat chicken...
Very interesting post, by the way. I enjoy reading things about this subject.
Hey Thayse, good to have you back.
DeleteI think we are on the same page about this issue. For me too, convincing reasons to go vegetarian or vegan would be its health benefits and the impact of mass animal farming on the environment.
Life has always sustained life. Before, during and after humans developed agriculture, animal products have been a part of our diet. So the idea of guilt at an animal death or drinking animal milk seems slightly odd if seen in that context. Of course, not everyone is meant to or 'should' eat animal products just because humans have been doing that since ages. Everyone's threshold for guilt is different I guess.
The problem I think is the amount that humans are consuming now. That is unsustainable for the planet and for human health. If hypothetically, meat eaters reduced their meat consumption to once a week or so, I wonder if it will make the environmental and health concerns redundant.
By the way, you mentioned beer too. As a home-brewer, I must ask you how that fits in here. As far as I know, except for the yeast added for fermentation, beer has no animal products.
Thanks again for commenting. To have you drop in regularly to read what I write is one of the best feelings ever.
Haha! After rereading the "beer" part, I realized that I should have explained myself better, why I chose this "example"... I was trying to make a point about hypocrisy, like, I know people who doesn't eat meat (in a attempt to look healthy) and define themselves as a vegetarian, but drinks lots of beer, which - in a large quantity - isn't a healthy thing. And/or smokes a lot. Not that it has something animal... Haha! I failed at it. =)
ReplyDeleteHealth benefits... Exactly. And, yes, it's a huge problem the amount of meat that people eat every day, I'm sure you would be shocked by the quantity consumed in Rio Grande do Sul, which -obviously- brings another serious health issues to the people here.
And, oh, it's my pleasure.
Haha got it. Yes, the beer belly is a famous phenomenon. It has to do with calories in the beer itself as well as the food most people inevitably eat to go with the drinks. Your point is right.
Delete