You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Joe Rogan Needs A Mindware Upgrade - Vegans are Not Earth's Enemy! (Project Much?)
I understand the moral issues in killing animals. Do vegans have similar moral issues in killing plants? How is the justification made different?
In my experience, most who call themselves vegans are so caught up in the politics of ending the exploitation of animals that they don't focus so much on the suffering of plants. Some will say the lack of a central nervous system means that the plants are not suffering. Others say they do feel pain.
Veganism is actually about ending the suffering of living beings - so it is not wrong to consider plants too.
As far as I am aware, the plants that are food baring, such as apple trees and grape vines - for example - do not die when we eat their food. This to me is a major clue to inform us of what is food and what is not. I would very much like to explore ways of living that involve no death at all - including no death of plants. To do this though requires quite a lot of learning, preparation and growth.. Which I have not yet done.
Some vegans will justify the killing of plants by pointing out that we are not generally aware of a will in the plants that wants to live - but that does not mean that the will is not there. None the less though, it is abundantly clear that the will to live is present in animals and so we do definitely need to respect this if we intend the planetary and collective will to find the balance needed.
A 'no death' model would seem to be the greater goal.
Some of the products of plants are seeds, things like beans, peas, and even wheat.
What are your thoughts on using seeds, how would that parse in a 'no-death' concept?
Generally, eating raw seeds results in them passing right through the digestive tract as they cannot be broken down and absorbed by the body. This means that if we pass them out naturally (not into a sewerage system), then we actually stand a chance of producing more life once those seeds grow. This is actually biology 101 and is part of the propagation of life on this planet.
In cases where seeds and grains are taken, processed and eaten then they cannot produce more life - however, it appears that when they are processed in this way, they can become a problem for the human system - for example, the weight that is gained due to eating most breads.
I guess it is dependent on the parameters. Eating a pod of raw snow peas that aren't fully developed would be digested mostly as plant food.
There are some seeds were the outer coating is digested. The seeds will often not propagate without the coating digested away by a animal.
As a side note, one of the high protein sources in my surrounding environment is buffalo gourd seed:
The seeds contain between 25-42% fat (Berry et al. 1976). Fat in the form of vegetable oil would be a critical dietary component in a desert, where animals carry very little fat on their bodies. Buffalo gourd seeds are also high in protein (22-35%) making them comparable to some legume seeds.
https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/ethnobot/images/cucurbitabg.html
So maybe the pivotal point is on the efficacy to process the seeds or not.
In my experience, the closer we move towards a natural way of being - which involves eating natural, whole foods - the better it is for us and our environment... So yes, the processing aspect is key.
It would be very enlightening to see the results of an experiment whereby a significant number of people came together to live in a 'no death' environment' where nothing was being denied. :)
I think the people would have to travel in the experiment, as no particular location has a very good long term sustainable 'no death' calorie production rate, when compared to human consumption.
Still, I think it is a plausible possibility.