animal liberation and plant liberation (portrait)

Download Animal Liberation and Plant Liberation (Portrait)

Post on 31-May-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/14/2019 Animal Liberation and Plant Liberation (Portrait)

    1/6

    Broccoli vs. Animals?

    Vegetarians and vegans must develop a better answer to that age-old meat-eater question--but you killplants don't you? Raising the plant question is, in my experience, a first line of defense for most omnivoreNow, most seasoned vegetarians have their standard 10-point response about why it is better to eat planhan animals. They offer points such as the following: plants don't feel pain because they lack a nervoussystem, the experiments in The Secret Life of Plantshave not been reproducible and even the authorefused to perform the experiments again, omnivores actually kill more plants because cows eat plants, e

    This line of argumentation has its place, but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is OK to eaplants in the first place. Vegetarians have to look a bit more closely at why every single omnivore makes argument and why we get so angry/defensive/exasperated with this argument. It is because there issomething to it.

    Consider the following justifications for eating plants made by vegans on the Vegan-L email discussion lisMost of these arguments (numbered below and followed by my response) could just as easily have beenmade by someone trying to justify eating meat.

    ) Even vegans have to eat something.

    This is verbatim a meat eater's argument--"But what do vegans eat? I don't have time to cook all of my owmeals, I could never get enough to eat without eating meat...." Clearly vegans could eat fruits and parts thcan be eaten without killing the plant--just like herbivorous animals who most often eat only leaves or part

    of the plant that will grow back.

    2) Plants lack a central nervous system and it is unlikely for them to feel pain in the way animals or humando.

    ust as Descartes managed to ignore the obvious when he said that animals were unfeeling machines, ths considerable evidence that plants are much more aware than we commonly believe. Using a definition pain that is based on possession of a nervous system deliberately and arbitrarily excludes plants. Yet plaare clearly aware of when they are being attacked because they mobilize chemical defenses. Just as meeaters try to deny the fact that animals feel pain, vegans try to deny the fact that plants feel something ako pain--something that could be used to justify not killing them. If we ever encounter aliens, the chances

    hat they have a nervous system like ours is vanishingly small, but we would nonetheless assume that theeel what we would categorize as pain.

    3) Plants have no need to feel pain since they cannot move away from the source of the pain like animalscan.

    See the previous response--plants clearly do react; if pain is simply a warning tool, some sort of distresssignal would still serve a purpose in plants.

    4) And even ifplants did feel pain, eating meat causes much more suffering than living a vegan lifestylebecause animals eat countless plants before humans eat the animals.

    Page 1 Animal liberation and plant liberation

    2/16/2http://www.vegetus.org/essay/plants.htm

  • 8/14/2019 Animal Liberation and Plant Liberation (Portrait)

    2/6

    This doesn't apply to hunting wild animals who generally don't kill plants (unlike cows who are fed deadsoybeans). And what about all of the plants and animals that are disrupted or killed by farming (i.e., the ohat were there before the farmer, the ones that the farmer kills on purpose)? Although veganism probabldoes decrease plant suffering when compared to eating meat, this doesn't justify killing plants. The quests not whether we should be omnivores or vegans, but whether or not vegans should adopt a more plant-riendly diet.

    5) Fruits are designed specifically to be eaten--that is how plants spread their seeds.

    Then just eat fruits. Eating potatoes and carrots doesn't spread seeds around and it kills the plant--how cahis be justified? What about plants that try to avoid being eaten--ones that are poisonous, taste nasty, ormake you infertile (e.g. sheep who eat clover high in phytoestrogens)?

    6) Foods like tomatoes, apples, cherries, eggplants, grapes, etc. do not require the killing of the plant. It'smore like taking eggs from a chicken.

    Given that vegans don't eat eggs because they think it's wrong, this argument makes no sense.

    7) If fruits aren't eaten, they quickly wither and die--they are intended to be eaten. The same is not true ofanimals.

    Yes, fruits are intended to be eaten. Some herbivores are also "intended to be eaten." There are carnivoranimals that can only eat other animals. If these carnivores did not eat the old and diseased prey animalshose prey animals would, in fact, "wither and die." Additionally, the whole herd would suffer if the populatgot too large or dying members were constantly eating food that healthy members could eat.

    8) We should be vegans because we can; we should reduce whatever suffering we can.

    Should we not then be fruitarians or gatherers because we can? Or are we simply too lazy, just like mostpeople are too lazy to be vegan. We usually don't find that an acceptable excuse! (Of course laziness iscertainly not the primary problem--people are constantly bombarded with the idea that they can, should, amust eat dead animals.)

    9) We're herbivores. We must eat plants to survive--it is our instinct.

    This simply begs the question--meat-eaters justify eating animals by pointing out that humans are omnivowhich we are--see e.g., Humans are Omnivores). Furthermore, humans manage to overcome all sorts oinstincts"--for example, we generally do not copulate in public. Arguments that appeal to "nature" should

    met with deep skepticism. Recall that slavery and the subjugation of women and countless indigenouscultures were and are considered a necessary part of the "natural order."

    0) Broccoli screams might be pleasure, not pain.

    Ditto for animals.

    1) It's a rare person--and, I would say, a very strange person--who would flinch upon seeing a carrot pulrom the ground.

    First, many people do abhor large-scale agriculture. Second, the fact that our culture is desensitized toviolence, especially to something that's been going on for a long, long time is not an argument for anythinAlso, people don't want to face up to what they are really doing--just like how most people don't think abowhere their meat came from.

    The above responses show that vegans cannot come up with any truly compelling reasons as to why eati

    plants is justified in the context of animal rights. Which leads us to the ultimate question...

    Page 2 Animal liberation and plant liberation

    2/16/2http://www.vegetus.org/essay/plants.htm

  • 8/14/2019 Animal Liberation and Plant Liberation (Portrait)

    3/6

    2) And so what if you cannot totally eliminate any supposed pain that plants may feel. Is that a justificatioor eating meat? For killing humans, by extension?

    We can agree that humans must cause some suffering to exist. Whereas a meat-eater uses this fact tognore animal suffering, vegans use this fact to ignore plant suffering. But just as inflicting plant sufferingdoes not justify inflicting animal suffering, the fact that we do notinflict animal suffering does not license uo inflict wanton plant suffering. Rather than just dismissing plant suffering as inevitable, vegans should tryeduce that as well.

    The Rhetoric of Plants

    Vegans clearly need to be more savvy in their justifications for eating plants to avoid simply justifying eatianimals. Instead of trying to counter the idea that plants suffer, we should just accept this premise becaushe best way to reduce both plant and animal suffering is to stop eating meat since animals are fed deadplants. Additionally, meat-eaters typically don't like to acknowledge animals suffering, yet when they raisehe plant question they areadmitting this since their underlying assumption is that since plants and animaboth suffer, there is no unique reason to avoid eating animals.

    Meat eaters raise the plant question not because it is an indictment of veganism, but rather to deflectattention from their own shame caused by eating animals--they are trying to show that vegans are notperfect either. But rather than getting defensive, sarcastic, or belittling the person, we mustadmit our own

    shame from harming plants. Sociologists point out that "Conflicts escalate, according to Thomas Scheff,when there is no mechanism for individuals to express shame and shame is transmuted to anger and pridwhich, in turn, can lead to more shame. To block this 'feeling trap'as Scheff calls itit is necessary toeduce alienation between groups and find ways to offer apology and restitution" (Groves 189). True dialo

    can only occur if both sides accept their shame. Until then we will be left with the pride, anger, anddeliberate attempts to redirect shame as revealed in this 30 June 1998 post to the Vegan-L:

    Digging Deeper

    Outside the context of a discussion with a meat-eater, there are real implications to the plant question. Itpoints to an inadequacy in the theory of animal rights. Even if we succeed in no longer having a world bason the exploitation of animals, it will still be a world based on the exploitation of plants on a massive scale

    The proper response to the "You're killing/hurting plants" argument is to laugh in their face andnot even entertain such a ridiculous notion. By taking them seriously, you're legitimizing theirargument--and that's what they want you to do. This whole angle was obviously dreamed up bymeat industry propagandists. Their aim is to engage vegetarians in a silly debate that will end up

    making the vegetarians look ridiculous by revealing us to be utter and outrageous wimps--sowimpy we

Recommended

View more >