• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Now I’m curious if plants have enough complexity to their internal experience for it to be possible to be cruel to them or not. One is used to thinking of them as basically inanimate apart from that they grow, but some of them can sort of communicate with other plants in certain ways can’t they?

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There is not really strong evidence of plant sentience. Here’s one paper looking at it:

      A. Plants do not show proactive behavior.

      B. Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant.

      C. The considerable differences between the electrical signals in plants and the animal nervous system speak against a functional equivalence. Unlike in animals, the action potentials of plants have many physiological roles that involve Ca2+ signaling and osmotic control; and plants’ variable potentials have properties that preclude any conscious perception of wounding as pain.

      D. In plants, no evidence exists of reciprocal (recurrent) electrical signaling for integrating information, which is a prerequisite for consciousness.

      E. Most proponents of plant consciousness also say that all cells are conscious, a speculative theory plagued with counterevidence.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8052213/

      Though something interesting and perhaps counter intuitive to note is that even if we realized plants were sentient, a plant-based diet actually involved killing fewer plants due to the lessened need to grow feed (of which most of the energy is lost)

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          10 months ago

          Academic writing is usually dry, but every once in a while you run into something like that which changes your perspective on how to roast an idea

        • Zozano@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s why I’m a fruitarian. I only eat fruit once it drops from the tree.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            The Supreme Court says you are not allowed to interfere with the seed, or stand in shallow water.

            It’s Grow v. Wade.

      • Umbrias@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The issue is we as of yet still have no falsifiable or rigorous measurable definition of consciousness. So any reference to something consciousness isn’t doesn’t make a strong case.

        I don’t think plants have a conventional consciousness, but I don’t think this study found evidence of something it can’t even structure a good definition of.

    • Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well, the first step to this question is the ever infuriating “define cruelty”. It’s easy enough with complex vertebrates who have evolved to socially signal pain, which is almost everything we eat. It’s even easy to extend it to complex vertebrates which hide pain. But it’s hard enough to rigorously say whether something like an invertebrate insect or crustacean even feels pain at all. They certainly have pain responses, but is the qualia of that response in theory internal space recognizable?

      It’s not an easy question to approach, but it is an important one broadly.

    • sirdorius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Let’s say that plants do have some kind of sentience, which is probably very limited due to the evidence we do have. Animals still have more advanced sentience that is closer to our own so it would still be the lesser evil to eat plants. Like why would you eat other people or chimps when there are other options available?

      It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to be able to say that plants suffer the same way as animals. I know you’re not saying this, but you do hear stuff like this based on this premise.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Measuring levels of sentience in the context of what’s OK to do to it is an extremely dangerous road to be taking that always ends in eugenics.

          • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            First you say it’s OK to be cruel to one life form because it’s less intelligent, it’s not long before that extends to disabled people. It might sound like hyperbole, but never underestimate the internet’s capacity to steer the ship towards nazi germany when given the chance.

            • sirdorius@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Who said anything about intelligence?

              sentient: capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling

              That has nothing to do with being disabled, as people with disabilities still sense the world

      • sqgl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Check out the Joe Rogan episode with Paul Stamets on how fungi allow trees in a forest to exchange nutrients. Dunno if that is classed as “communication” but it still blew my mind.

        It was the first Rogan episode I saw and the only good one as it turned out.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can’t eat anything in the modern world without killing animals. A combine harvester harvests wheat and mice. A hundred meat eaters are responsible for a single cow death, and the cow lived on marginal land, drinking from streams - you couldn’t grow other food on the land (sure some are grown on perfect fertile land, they don’t need to be)

        Not saying I’m a meat eater, I don’t care about mice, but there’s blood on all our hands

        • chetradley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          Statistically, that cow had a short and miserable life in a factory farm before being killed at a small fraction of their potential lifespan. They were fed a grain-based diet that caused far more mice deaths than it would have to use the land to grow crops to feed humans directly.

          Even in the situation you’ve presented, which again is an exceedingly small percentage (<10% globally, <1% in the US), land is being used which could be rewilded to promote biodiversity. The cow in question is still contributing to GHG emissions and will again be killed around 16 months of age.

        • Tamo240@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          A quick google gave me

          livestock farming is 2.5 billion hectares, about 50% of the world’s agricultural area and about 20% of the total land on Earth.

          So maybe you should revisit the idea of ‘marginal land’ that ‘couldn’t grow other food’

        • sirdorius@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Of course, but livestock require even more agriculture to maintain than the same caloric/protein intake of plant based. So if the choice is 50 animals or 100 animals then the choice is easy.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They are living things. We shouldn’t seek to deliberately cause pain if possible. While I like how stuff like bonsai trees look, I also feel a bit bad for them, wired and snipped in so many places and forced to be grown unnaturally small.

      Or people who deliberately carve graffiti into trees with a knife.

      Plants and trees have interestingly complex communication networks. We barely understand their microfauna and underground microbiomes that allow forests to grow much healthier and disease-resistant than our backyards. I have a funny feeling we know a lot less than we think we know, like when scientists discovered that babies can actually feel pain, or that dogs realize when they are treated unfairly. Stuff discovered within our lifetimes, lol.

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They can detect tissue damage and grow away from the source. So being physically cruel to a plant would definitely affect its growth. And yes, they can also share some types of information and resources with their neighbours.