#TOTW If science ever proves plants are properly sentient, whats left to eat?

Plants have tropisms which give the reactions to light, gravity etc,.
They are not sentient as in “A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell.”

There is nothing in it for the attacked tree.

There is no benefit to reproduction for an individual tree / animal either.

would we be morally obliged to process food from its source nutrients without a living intermediate

Less of the ‘we’ please. Some of us happily eat animals regardless of their proven sentience. It’s the vegetarians who will have a new dilemna.

As a lifelong vegetarian I never really understood this. What we – well, you lot – eat is broadly cultural.

this point has always puzzled me as well

for example a pig is a highly intelligent social animal probably near to a dog in terms of intelligence. there is no moral difference between eating pig and eating dog – its purely cultural.

I can prove that plants are sentient; the word you’re looking for is sapient.

How ‘sage’ of you 😊

A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell.”

Whats the difference between animals and plants using that one? Plants react to light adn to different chemicals in the air and soil. Humans tasting / smelling things is just reacting to compounds in air or water etc

But the tree is already being attacked , it has gained nothing in this act, its still getting eaten. It appears to me to be a completely altruistic act.The messenger chemical and defence chemical are two different compounds,theres no need to produce a messenger unless its for the benefit of others.
Now then, oaks grow as lone trees in fields, etc, because theyre planted that way. Most trees grow in groves or woods of the same species. I wonder if anyone has genetically tested these groves to see if, as I suspect, these groves are all related to eaxh other. Are we seeing some version of family sticking together?

And where are the light sensing organs on a tree then? Dont forget they sense all these environmental changes with no discernable organs as far as I know, even in winter when the leaves fall.

 It appears to me to be a completely altruistic <span class=”skimlinks-unlinked”>act.</span>

The important word in that sentence is “appears” . The chemicals signal that a tree emits causes another chemical change in nearby oaks to produce other chemicals that caterpillars find distasteful. Oaks have been around for over 50 million years, they’ve had some chance to evolve defenses.

 as I suspect, these groves are all related to eaxh other.

Yes, some plants that appear as individual structures are in fact the same plant, off the top of my head, some species of Ash (Pando)  are like this, and they can become some of the largest living “things”.

And where are the light sensing organs on a tree then?

Phytochromes in their leaves. If you’re very bored (and you must be to have got to this) here are these things called books…

Salt. We will always have salt. And sunny delight.

Yes I am bored, day 4 of 10 day isolation,and what about when the leaves fall off then?

Plants know when the seasons are changing,

You’re using the word ‘know’ quite wrongly.

Phytochromes in their leaves. If you’re very bored (and you must be to have got to this) here are these things called books…

Which have also got leaves. Makes you think.

Is it healthy not to eat meat?

https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/micronutrients-and-mental-health

Do plant monocrops kill more creatures than regenerative (animal) farming?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/mice-the-biggest-losers-w-vegetarianism/4660498

https://www.ourpaleolife.com/fake-meat/

What are rodenticides and pesticides used for on arable farms?

https://www.gov.scot/publications/pesticide-usage-scotland-rodenticides-arable-farms-2018/

https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/crop-management/pests

And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree? The only beneficiary in this instance is any tree in the area which detects the signal before it is attacked, so it gets a heads up and starts to produce bitter tannins before it gets defoliated?
And why develop a sensory system to detect the messenger signal, and what it is it? Yes I know leaves have pores, etc, could it be these? Seems a very elaborate system to the tree to just happen to produce a secondary messenger chemical, which all the local oaks just happen to be able to detect, which just happens to produce bitter tannin. Why would this evolve except to ensure the mutual protection of a species ‘ individuals.
The same can be witnessed in Walnuts, iirc, with juglone in their roots.

Less of the ‘we’ please. Some of us happily eat animals regardless of their proven sentience.

“Please don’t make rash generalisations”

It’s the vegetarians who will have a new dilemna.

*makes a rash generalisation*

I think we are getting too far engrosed with trying to explain the regulatory systems of plants here, I can read up on all that. What I wanted to get at is:
Plants are way more complicated than we first thought. There are many many more points we could explore here, such as poison production in plants and poison sensitivity in their predators, the production of unique chemicals which serve zero known purpose in plants yet which are highly active in animals.
What if, in time, we definitely prove that they can feel our existence and process that information but just cant act on it due to the way their morphology is. Animals can scurry away or whatever, most plant movement is measured in hours or seasons, not seconds (yeah, mimosa, fly traps,etc).
Would anybody feel any less inclined to eat them knowing this? Im not thinking of carnivores here, Im looking more at the veggie/ vegan crew.

Im looking more at the veggie/ vegan crew.

To sum up. Even though plants aren’t sentient in the way that animals are, and “science” is unlikely to prove that they are any time soon, and omnivores are content to eat animals that have been actually proven to be sentient…You want to know what vegetarians would do differently?

Seems on the face of it, to be applying different standards, no?

@paton

Look up the ‘Gish Gallop’?

In short:

For the first link you gave, here’s a (pig farmer’s) pretty savage debunking of your keto-fanatic source:

https://medium.com/sylvanaquafarms/why-this-pig-farmer-loves-the-idea-of-a-plant-based-diet-445a65ae1d30

Have fun cross-referencing and fact-checking the rest of your ‘claims’. If you have enough time! As a bonus, discuss how animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world’s total grain production (In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock) and factor that into your ‘kill creatures’. Also be sure to factor in animal farming’s contribution to pollution and and climate change and deforestation (and the current /resultant anthropogenic species-extinction event). How many creatures killed? Bring the data, your thoughts and some good faith discussion to the table and I’ll be happy to give it more time 👍🏼

It appears to me to be a completely altruistic act.

What you’re doing there is anthropomorphising the trees. And also being highly unscientific.

And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree?

You’re thinking about this wrongly. This system wasn’t designed and implemented by a specific tree. It’s evolved in all oak trees, purely because a species of tree that does this has a better chance of prospering because the caterpillar infestation doesn’t spread. It was a random mutation in some plant at some point in history, and that plant as a species fared better so the mutation spread.

This is like trying to explain to someone why picking consecutive lottery numbers isn’t any less likely to win than spread out numbers.

@nickc
Yes I am. It does say ‘if’ in the title, yes? I supppose I’m getting at would they then revaluate their choices, given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred. Omnivores and carnivores, by definition , obviously couldnt give a **** as it is, why would their viewpoint change?
I thought that was pretty clear, myself.

This is like trying to explain to someone why picking consecutive lottery numbers isn’t any less likely to win than spread out numbers.

Which has actually happened. 23/jan/2016 UK national lotto main draw up came the numbers 8,9,10 and 11.

As to the thread
Thousands of living things eat thousands of other living things. End of story.

Lottery numbers? Eh? Explain that analogy to me, im afraid Im a bit thick.
To have a tree suddenly evolve a n emitter system at the same time and the same place as a tree which evolved a detector system, in the same general time frame (be no good if the detector tree was dead before the emitter tree, too far away for it to be effectual, etc) seems more than sheer luck to me, unless the emitter and detector are two sides of the same coin and linked, ie the ability to emit is tied directly to the ability to derect as they are the same ‘organ’ so to speak.
However, you still need two trees, an emitter and a detector to make any use of this. It would be like only having one telephone.
Anyway, like I said, im not getting at specific mechanisms, I was asking if people who ,in their eyes , had chosen the more ethical route towards their diet could a) concile themselves with there being no difference between eating plants and animals and b) how far would they go to get nutrition ,in line with their “non-kill” ethics.
Lets try that instead, is it.

Fruitarian as long as you shit in the woods.

Don’t worry they will have their revenge…

,in line with their “non-kill” ethics.

not all vegetarians have non-kill ethics though. You’re making sweeping generalisations.

Yes I am. I would still like to hear from veggie/vegans or all those pro-kill vegetarians rather than argue minutiae though.

Yes I am. It does say ‘if’ in the title, yes? I supppose I’m getting at would they then revaluate their choices, given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred.

1) Your entire premise from the outset is wildly hypothetical. It has no more bearing on reality than the cow in Douglas Adams’ Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that wants to be eaten. As a thought experiment it’s interesting, but if you’re labouring “yes but what if plants can think?” then you need to do some reading.

2) Who is “they”?

To have a tree suddenly evolve

Nothing “suddenly” evolves, that’s not how evolution works. Small changes take millennia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution

“For example, he found that tooth length during the evolution of the horse changed at an average rate of about… 4% per million years”

Trees are like half a billion years old.

And why develop a warning system that makes absolutely no difference to the attacked tree? The only beneficiary in this instance is any tree in the area which detects the signal before it is attacked,

The oak trees near an oak tree are likely related.

worth bearing in mind that there isnt actually an “us” we are a meatsack with some pumpy bits to act as eco system for all the bacteria that live on us, in us etc…

on an average human 2-6lbs of us is bacteria and there are aproximately 30 trillian cells in human, there are approximately 40 trillion bacterial cells in a human,

so, really we should fuel our bacterial lords and masters with whatever keeps their ecosystem going, luckily mine seem to like pie and beer

given that the demarcating line between animal and plant is now blurred. Omnivores and carnivores, by definition , obviously couldnt give a **** as it is, why would their viewpoint change?
I thought that was pretty clear, myself.

1. We’re all omnivores by definition (if or not by choice/necessity)
2. This omnivore absolutely gives a few asterisks about what I eat and from where it is sourced
3. Even veganism is (by definition) not a zero-sum philosophy

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.

*my bold

4. Vegetarians are not really a ‘crew’, and have many different personal reasons for not eating meat.

5. Isn’t your post just a poorly-thought-out ‘gotcha’ question, Quixotic in intent and execution? Who exactly are your windmills targets? 😉

I would still like to hear from veggie/vegans

Hiya. What would you like to know?

or all those pro-kill vegetarians

You do realise, don’t you, that this is not the only alternative to what nick said? That all the people who are vegetarian for reasons other than solely for animal welfare concerns aren’t instead rampaging through the countryside with assault rifles?

Surely all that would be left to eat would be scientists?

never mind your plants clicking, some scream when damaged

https://www.livescience.com/plants-squeal-when-stressed.html

@cougar yes it , like I said Im bored. If anyone wants to remove themselves from a conversation please do so. None of us here, as far as I know are Nobel Prize winning biologists ,and Ive never pretended to be. Wer’e just grown people killing time on a bike riding forum. Nothing about it is serious.

To have a tree suddenly evolve a n emitter system at the same time and the same place as a tree which evolved a detector system

As said it doesn’t happen suddenly, it takes hundreds of millions of years. And if some mutation happens in one tree that is beneficial, that tree itself lives for many hundreds of years during which time it produces millions of acorns and potentially thousands of saplings, mostly nearby. So it’s not at all difficult to imagine this happening by natural selection.

I know it wasn’t your original.point but if you are going to think about this stuff you might as well do it right 🙂

Re the original question; it would take a long time for people to accept such a hypothesis. Two possibilities occur to me:

1. By the time this is discovered we’re all eating synthetic food anyway.

2. Veggies adopt the same post rationalisation strategy that meat eaters do and come up with reasons why it’s ok anyway and plant feelings don’t really count.

It has no more bearing on reality than the cow in Douglas Adams’ Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that wants to be eaten.

on an average human 2-6lbs of us is bacteria and there are approximately 30 trillian cells in human, there are approximately 40 trillion bacterial cells in a human,

Trillian ?. She was in the hitch hikers guide to. So many DA references on here 😀

I’m an omnivore and have the teeth and guts to prove it.

If plants are sentient, I’ll continue to eat them too as part of a balanced diet.

Nom nom nom!