I don't think so cause animals eat each other all the time anyway. — Shiva Surya Sai

Not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying, it is okay to eat animals because other animals eat each other? If this is what you're saying, you're appealing to nature. That because it happens in nature, it is morally acceptable. Rape and cannibalism occur in nature, should it therefore be morally acceptable if humans rape and eat other humans?

The studies I'm using to defend this position I've already citied, Reijnders and Soret (2003), Rosi et al. (2017), and Davis (2003), all of which have been linked earlier in this thread, all of which conclude that some meat-eating diets cause less environmental harm than the equivalent vegan diets. — Pseudonym

Post it again so I can read the study. I don't understand why you couldn't just post it again, when I even said "I may have missed it, so can you link it".

That's simply not true. If that were the case, the post would be entitled "Is it wrong to factory farm animals?" and I think you would have had considerably more agreement. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with your notion that animal farming is significantly in need of improving. If you want to aim the post at a particular type of meat-eater, then I suggest you don't open it with the statement to the effect that all meat eating is unethical. — Pseudonym

If people actually thought that factory farming needed improvement, why aren't they doing anything to help improve it? And the only way to improve an animal enslavement and holocaust is by abolishing it. Also, my original post was "Is it wrong to eat animals?" - This is a general statement that would apply in most situations. Similar to "Is it wrong to rape?" - There many situations where it is not wrong to rape, such as a child soldier who is forced to rape his sister, otherwise they will kill her. In that situation, death is worse than rape, so it is not immoral for him to rape his sister because he was forced to; and the alternative would be death. Same thing with eating animals. There may be a situation where you're forced to, where it depends on your survival. But generally speaking, I am not referring to the child soldier situation or the stranded on a deserted island situation. I am referring to the people who contribute to factory farms every day, by buying animal products. An unnecessary harm (lustful rape / bacon) vs. a necessary harm (child soldier rape / killing an animal for survival).

It is absolutely wrong to eat animals;. They possess the will to live in way the rest of nature simply does not. They do not love the way plants do.

Post it again so I can read the study. — chatterbears

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2015/05/23994_thbahvnvt.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0EnoQUILL85Pf3mP-Wo5mPQ_KHDw&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/664S/4690011

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06466-8

As for the rest of your post, it's not 'necessary' for me to kill the deer I hunt. I could buy the equivalent vegetables, or the equivalent in factory chicken. I hunt deer and eat them because it think its less harmful overall for the reasons cited in the studies above (as well as other reasons to do with the value I personally attach to 'naturalness', the meaning of which would take an entire essay to explain). So your acceptance through gritted teeth of those who absolutely have to kill animals for meat is entirely irrelevant. I wish more people hunted their own meat, reared pigs on kitchen scraps, ate the pigeons and rabbits which are killed anyway to grow vegetables. Its not about necessity, its about believing it to be better.

Agreed.

Has Peter Singer come up in this thread? I don't think the ethicality can be more eloquently stated than what he has already presented on the issue.

Peter SInger is a utilitarian. I personally think Tom Regan was better at making the case convincing. (Though they both have a lot of value to add to the discussion.)
Carol Adams also does an amazing job explaining why it's so hard for people to accept even the notion of vegan/vegetarianism.

Why assume the short lived wild animal would have suffered anymore than the long lived animal? It could just as likely be both animals live "free from pain and suffering" until the short lived one is quickly killed by a hunter and the other is likely to suffer a gruesome death.

Why are these studies so old? It would be more relevant to find studies within the past 5-7 years, as more knowledge has been gained since 2002. But either way, that 2002 study that you posted has been refuted by Gaverick Matheny.

2002 Study [Steven Davis] - Was refuted by Gaverick Matheny
2003 Study [Counter to Steven David] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026354906892

Gaverick Matheny states, in response to Steven Davis, "In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

Read full article here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

Your 2003 Study [Lucas & Sam] - "Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur." - So this is talking about exceptions, not general knowledge that would apply.

Your 2017 Study [Nature] - "Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits." - Again, talking about exceptions, such as individual dietary habits, not necessarily plant-based diets themselves.

Here are some articles I can point you to that are more recent and relevant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959 - Clicking the "Figures" tab on the right side, you can see how much higher the CO2 levels of Dairy, Egg, Fish & Livestock are compared to plant-based foods.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data - Global Emissions of Agriculture exceed transportation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM - the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html - Scientific Sources are cited throughout the article.

In my opinion, being a vegan means caring less about plants than caring about animals. Is this so much better? I'm not sure.

In my opinion, being a vegan means caring less about plants than caring about animals. Is this so much better? I'm not sure. — Regi

There is very interesting recent research regarding plant sensitivity that demonstrates their abilities to learn, communicate and remember.

For non-vegans this doesn't present an ethical problem, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, it doesn't present an ethical problem for vegans either since anything that might undermine their position is hastily dismissed in favour of the far less intellectually demanding task of rampant virtue-signalling.

since anything that might undermine their position is hastily dismissed in favour of the far less intellectually demanding task of rampant virtue-signalling.

My english is not that good, could you explain this to me?

If someone's criteria is suffering, I don't see any ethical dilemma as plants don't feel pain.

Though I do have a question. Is a painless animal kill equivalent to a plant kill?

If someones basis is intellectual capacity however, it seems like it becomes much less clear.

There is very interesting recent research regarding plant sensitivity that demonstrates their abilities to learn, communicate and remember. — Txastopher

I'd love for you to post the research, instead of constantly asserting things without evidence. Plants can remember? Post the scientific journals and I'll be happy to consider them.

In passing and because I was curious:

Article:

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-new-study-shows-plants-can.html

"To respond to light, fans and temperature in this way suggests that plants have far more sophisticated abilities than previously thought. The philosophical and ethical implications of this information are confounding.

It provokes further questions about the plant world that we have historically seen as inert and lacking in agency. With no brain, how can plants have cognition? Yet they exhibit functions we typically only associate with a brain."

Paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38427.epdf?author_access_token=ndXv7HCRrrXgnqZkGRINU9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PFvNbZvaVrCKW4Rb8ZW14eVyb7xNIHahQoZ-WZXB-uth8RSOQA0pfaOyF6to9zHCjhchoo9tGdx9p0lbntPMnN

Floristry is murder.

Add this to your Google Drive.

https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8HOeCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Plant+Sensing+and+Communication&ots=YWjzxLh43_&sig=YkBo-29XrPxhNSsp-4U1c3VZ7IM#v=onepage&q=Plant%20Sensing%20and%20Communication&f=false

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monica_Gagliano

http://www.plantbehavior.org/plant-plant-interactions-with-ariel-novoplansky/

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/13/509350471/how-do-trees-collaborate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497361/

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.michaelmarder.org/app/download/6088188961/M.Marder.Place.of.Plants.pdf%3Ft%3D1512782468&ved=2ahUKEwjLldPY2JzbAhXQAewKHdGcBzMQFjAXegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0O17Z9vJIErORnjMyKwG-V

As an omnivore, this research has no ethical consequences. However, for vegans it is extremely problematic. Clearly, they will wish to err on the side of caution and lay off eating anything whatsoever. Thus providing ineluctable proof, were it needed, that veganism is no more than the post hoc rationalization of an eating-disorder.

None of your research was a scientific journal, other than your NCBI link. And even that link said NOTHING about plants being conscious or being able to remember. And the way they "communicate" is by environmental adaptation. Similar to how plants may lean toward the light as an adaptive response to their environment.

But again. Link me a scientific journal that states that plants can remember things. You linked me a random profile from researchgate, then an article from NPR that includes a TED Talk. All these 'talks' and 'articles' describe plants that adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Not one has stated that plants have a brain, or feel pain, or can remember, or have a nervous system.

Your research provides everything I already knew about plants. And my main argument still stands, which is to not cause unnecessary pain and suffering. Plants cannot suffer because they do not feel pain; since they do not have a brain or nervous system.

Beings that have no centralized nervous systems are not sentient. This includes bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, plants and certain animals. Bacteria can adapt in the same way plants do, in order to survive. This doesn't mean that bacteria is sentient and can feel pain. There's no research to support this idea, other than saying, "Plants are complex." - Well yeah, bacteria and viruses are also complex, but we wouldn't call it sentient and capable of feeling pain or suffering.

Look, it would be unethical of me not to remind you that you are suffering from a messianic eating disorder with extreme grandiosity. Seek professional help now.

Be strong! (Obviously, I don't mean physically strong since you're a vegan)

For the sake of argument, let's assume plants have "feelings" and the ability to "suffer" (which, by the way, none of this research shows), veganism still wins out against omnivorism.
In an omnivorous diet MORE plants are used than in a vegan diet, because the animals you eat must in turn eat first... obviously. So, eating fewer animals means causing harm to fewer plants as well. According to the Least Harm Principle, that's a pretty solid reason why veganism is more ethical than omnivorism.

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent... like anyone could seriously believe that dicing a potato was the moral equivalent to beheading a kitten.

Back to Ad Hominem huh. You get upset when the scientific journals don't support your defective reasoning, so you go back to nonsensical comments. Stop derailing the thread, since you obviously don't care to discuss things.

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent...like anyone could seriously believe that dicing a potato was the moral equivalent to beheading a kitten — NKBJ

I'm not really taking a side, but this is an obvious strawman. Mosquitoes are animals, grubs are animals, the corals that make up coral reefs are animals. Slicing part of a coral reef off is hardly more immoral than dicing up a potato. In fact, the vast vast majority of animals are insects who probably are no more worthy of our moral attention than potatoes.

So, for a tiny proportion of animals, far less than 1%, there's a moral issue or some significant difference between them and plants with regard to suffering.

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent — NKBJ

So, generally speaking, they are actually.

Beings that have no centralized nervous systems are not sentient. This includes bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, plants and certain animals. — chatterbears

Insects have a central nervous system and are, for example, a popular dish in Northern Thailand and elsewhere. Where exactly do you draw the line on sentience/suffering? (I haven't read all your posts so I don't know if you've done this already).

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent... like anyone could seriously believe that dicing a potato was the moral equivalent to beheading a kitten. — NKBJ

Although I have no ethical qualms about killing and eating either since I'm an omnivore, all the arguments that can be made for not killing animals can be made for plants also, but with the added complication that key vegan analogies that are stretched to breaking point with animals, collapse completely when talking about plants.

It does not follow from that the fact that it is seemingly impossible to empathise with plant life due to its difference to us that it is therefore acceptable to eat it. This would just be another version of the speciesism argument.

In order to be consistent, vegans should accept their ignorance, err on the side of caution and avoid eating plants altogether.

Not eating animals?

If it's based on a philosophical view, it's in my view an arrogant holier-than-thou attitude that simply is hypocrisy. Cows as ruminants are biologically vegans, humans are omnivores. A healthy balanced diet is the best option for a human. If it's a religious view, well, then it's part of your religion.

Not eating animals?

If it's based on a philosophical view... — ssu

Actually it's predicated on an anthropocentric hierarchy which grades acceptability of consumption according to evolutionary proximity to humans. This is neither philosophical nor scientific. For this reason ethical veganism is more correctly termed moral veganism and as such only has import relative to those who unquestioningly accept its underlying principles.

The fact that moral veganism is based on such flimsy principles is demonstrated by Chatterbears (a level 10 Vegan Mage) in his inability to incorporate research into plant sensitivity into his worldview. He has to reject it or reject his thesis. A philosopher adapts his or her position to accommodate the evidence since those are the rules of reason. Vegans don't do this because they are not philosophers but rather self-loathing fanatics who wish to impose their crazed brand of asceticism on the rest of humanity.

No, I'm sorry, the same arguments do not apply. And it's kind of like you didn't read what I said. Even IF they did, you'd still be wrong to raise and kill animals for food.

But the fact remains that we have no good evidence to suggest that plants have anywhere near the awareness of pain and suffering that animals do. We have evidence to suggest that they can have chemical reactions. But that isn't the same as pain. To feel pain, you need a brain.

That's absurd and you know it. If this discussion weren't about food you'd never suggest that stepping on a halm of grass was the same as kicking a dog-which is the logical conclusion of saying they are equivalent.