Marcelino wrote:

> Don't plants feel pain? This also is sometimes posed as, "Where do you
> draw the line? Rights for roaches?" So far, as best we can determine
> biologically and physiologically, plants do not feel pain.

It's a well studied topic, and evidence certainly suggests that plants do
feel pain (not only that, but they emit subsonic "cries" that are perceived
by nearby plants and various insects). While they don't have nerves, they
do exhibit startingly similar biochemical stress responses. So, yes, it's
generally accepted that plants feel pain in a sense quite similar to
animals. Perhaps it's not popularly understood, but true nonetheless --
either way, unless your a phytobiologist you probably don't care. After
all, if you can't eat meat or vegetables, your dietary options are slim.


> Pain requires a brain, a central nervous system, pain receptors, and
> so on.

This is not true. Many organisms very clearly experience pain without
central nervous systems (C. elegans, etc.), and the body has no "pain
receptors" per se. Pain is reflected quite specifically by a cascade of
biochemical responses to external stressors. To you, it's perceived as pain
-- unless you have lerposy. To someone with leprosy, there is no perception
of pain at all. Ironically, pigs are the only mammal other than humans to
contract leprosy.


> All mammals, birds, and fish have these things. No plants do. We
> all know this to be true: We all understand that there is a fundamental
> difference between cutting your lawn and lighting a cat's tail on fire and
> between breaking up a head of lettuce and bashing a dog's head in.

The difference is pricipally semantic and arbitrary. It's just simpler for
people to relate to a cuddly animal than objects that appear more plainly
inanimate.


> Birds, mammals, and fish are made of flesh, bones, and fat, just as we
> are.

Not all. Even then, they are frequently made of different flesh, bones and
fat than we. Moreover, plants are composed of very simlar chemical
constituents but in different configuration and concentrations. Like many
animals, plants produce a wide array of proteins and sugars that we cannot.
Likewise, we produce a number of compounds that other animals do not (for
example, the neurotransmitters and receptors in animals vary quite a bit).



> They feel pain, just as we do.

But you see, that's a popular belief based on supposition. They feel pain,
yes, but demonstrably not like we (humans do). Most animal's responses are
quite different (both biochemically, but also behaviorally). We know that
they, in fact, do not feel pain like we do. We know only that they, (like
most anything else alive) feel pain.



> I may not know quite where to draw the line. For
> example, I'm not sure what a roach or an ant experiences.

It's quite similar to any small animal. Typically the rate of response is
faster because of the small and open circulatory system and high metabolic
rate of many of these creatures.


> But I do know with 100 percent certainty that intentionally
> inflicting suffering because of tradition, custom, convenience, or
> a palate preference is unethical.

You don't know that, you believe that. That conclusion is a value judgement
based on your personal beliefs, understanding of the situation, and
understanding of the concept of ethics. It cannot be fundamentally correct
or true because the assertion does not present a conclusive and objectively
testable hypothesis.



> And if we're eating meat, dairy products, or eggs, we're intentionally
> causing suffering, for no good reason

There's little evidence for that assertion. If you perceive death or
captivity as cruel outright, regardless of the situation, then perhaps the
position is arguable. The fact is that while people understand the
existence of cruelty, death, or undesirable conditions in some cases, they
accept the conditions that actually prevail have none of these attributes
(for example, the PETA site focuses on falsified videos, animal cruelty
cases not associated with commercial food production, etc as a protocol for
advancing a very specific agenda (originally animal welfare, but the focus
is shifting to anti-globalization efforts -- that based on their more
recent funding -- by attempting to adversely affect american and
western-european agriculture)).


>
>
> "PENMART01" > wrote in message
> ...
>> James McIninch > writes:
>>
>> >You're a hypocrite if you pan the consumption of animals yet still
> support
>> >the slaughter of vegatation. It's omnivory or autotrophy, anything else
> is
>> >just a sad delusion.
>> >
>> >(Incidentally, that's tongue and cheek, all).
>>
>> Um, that's tongue *in* cheek.
>>
>> Tongues and cheeks are in headcheese.
>>
>>
>> M-W
>> tongue in cheek
>> Function: adverb
>> Date: circa 1934
>> : with insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration
>> ---
>>
>>
>> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
>> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
>> Sheldon
>> ````````````
>> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>>