People say fish don't feel pain because fish are very different from us. Unlike birds and mammals, they can't squeal or squawk.

Lisa R,

Yes, the evidence supports the assumption that fish are remarkably complex and do suffer.

Oxford University researcher Theresa Burt de Perera, for example, reported that the blind Mexican cave fish is able to interpret water pressure changes to construct a detailed mental map of its surroundings.

"Most people dismiss fish as dimwitted pea-brains. ... Yet this is a great fallacy," wrote University of Edinburgh biologist Culum Brown in the June edition of New Scientist. "In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human primates."

Chris Glass of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts led another recent study, showing how North Sea haddock developed abilities to avoid trawlers' nets. Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. Dr.

Donald Broom, scientific advisor to the British government, explains, 'The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals'. Indeed, neurobiologists have long recognized that fish have nervous systems that comprehend and respond to pain, and anyone who made it through Biology 101 knows that fish have nerves and brains that sense pain, just like all animals.

Scientists tell us that fish brains and nervous systems closely resemble our own. For example, fish (like 'higher vertebrates') have neurotransmitters like endorphins that relieve suffering-of course, the only reason for their nervous systems to produce pain killers is to relieve pain.

Claiming that fish do not suffer is as intellectually and scientifically sound as arguing that the Earth is flat. Interestingly, scientists have created a detailed map of pain receptors in fish's mouths and all over their bodies. A team of researchers at the University of Guelph in Canada recently surveyed the scientific literature on fish pain and intelligence. They concluded that fish feel pain...Scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the United Kingdom report that in response to pain, fish also feel emotional stress and engage in 'a 'rocking' motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals'. The research team concluded that fish clearly experience pain in the same way as mammals, both physically and psychologically.

A study by scientists at the Queen's University of Belfast proved that fish learn to avoid pain, just like other animals. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the researchers, said: 'This paper shows that pain avoidance in fish doesn't seem to be a reflex response, rather one that is learned, remembered and is changed according to different circumstances.

I have made my business not to kill any living thing. Even insects. I set the bar at ZERO then I don't wonder or have the bar raised by some authority. All life is precious. The 4th commandment was quite blunt, I don't remember reading the word except in it. All things in nature have a reason. I heard a debate once when a scientist was asked what purpose do mosquitoes serve. His answer, "population control."

I agree with the positions taken by animal rights activists on most of issues, but the issue of fish, and whether or not, whether we should eat them because we have to kill them and whether or not they feel "pain" is rather silly.  People who claim to love animals so much forget that WE ARE ANIMALS, TOO, and we must eat, TOO!!  If we ate nothing else that's living, perhaps it SHOULD be fish.  Let's not be ridiculous in our zeal to protect the environment.  Are we upset that the very animals we wish to protect are carnivorous and savage (when left in the wild) enough to eat OTHER animals (which we also do) to survive?  The difference between us and other creatures is that we are capable of moralizing about everything.  THEY don't.  They're hungry, they EAT, no questions asked!  Think, people.  Strike a balance between reason and silliness.

How do you come to the conclusion that we won't be eating anything if we don't eat animals? I believe that we cannot avoid killing some creatures, but we can quite well avoid killing fish at least on a large-scale level. The only reason we choose to continue eating fish is because it's easier than not, and it's economically expedient. For me, leaving the world in "as pristine condition as we can" involves veganism and is not merely for future generations of humans.

You say that eating fish is better than eating other living creatures, but eating plants is better than eating fish.

Sylvia, Stephanie is absolutely right. Please calm down and learn to be more sensitive, and your posts will not be deleted. For starters, anyone who starts using "liberals" as a plural noun is probably not being respectful.

I stopped eating fishes when I was a kid, but as an adult I had a couple goldfish and boy, I learned a TON about fish just from them and learning how to properly care for them. Fish have memories, feelings, and much longer life spans than most people think. Goldfish are pretty cool animals :)
And they don't belong in bowls, they require large tanks with room to move and grow.

After a trip to Sea World at 5 years old, I never ate another living thing from the ocean. I hate watching fish die... it's like drowning... on air.

I guess people who think fish don't make noises have never been around fish.  I remember as a kid watching people fish for catfish in TN.  The catfish cried when out of the water.  Even if fish didn't make noise...why would that then make a person think they don't feel pain.  If certain creaturs God made don't have the same voice boxes we do...does that make them less able to feel???  Give me a break.  They don't live outside the water...why would they be able to communicate outside water???!!!  Come on people.  We don't live where they do.  Go "live" under water and tell us how those noiseless fish communicate.  Sheesh!

As with all human endeavours, we don't set limits until we have created such as mess of it - that nature does it for us by failing to deliver its bounty. Commercial fishing is barely regulated with many countries ignoring already generous and probably eco-damaging quotas. We are seeing the effect of our competitive and greedy natures on the stocks of all large fish stocks. Tuna, Cod, Swordfish, Halibut and now Sharks are all being harvested at unsustainable levels and the stocks are now becoming seriously depleted.  These fisheries are causing severe imbalances in the natural ecosystem.

For instance in Canada we are experiencing a seal population explosion, Could this be the result of the removal of the seals natural predators, sharks? Removal of such a high percentage of top of the food chain predators, will naturally cause the rapid increase in the creatures further down the food chain. Despite our arrogant belief in our own understanding of the oceans, we simply do not know the long-term effect of our activities on the sea.

Our use of the ocean as a waste disposal system, flies in the face of an old truism, "you don't shit where you eat" and the effects of this dumping at sea activity is coming home to roost as we see dangerous levels of contamination of the ocean from plastic, raw sewage, dangerous chemicals and other detritus. This garbage is being ingested and absorbed by many animals from whales to fish, turtles, shellfish, reefs and seabirds. As can be expected, a diet supplemented with our waste is not helping these creatures thrive. Many animals are literally choking to death on plastic shopping bags, some have their guts are so full of indigestible plastics, there is no longer room for real food and they die of starvation.

As many have noted, out of control population growth is the driver behind many of our more obvious failings. Perhaps we should direct a little more energy at managing our own species, before we outgrow the planets ability to provide.  I am seeing signs that we are closing in on the tipping point where nature will do it for us and it won't be pretty.

As to the topic on hand, anyone who has ever fished, can attest to the writhing and major distress a fish goes through as it dies from oxygen deprivation. All creatures on the planet have a pain reflex, this is part of being alive. Whether an an animal can vocally articulate distress is not the only response measure to stimuli that can be observed.

While I am all for animal rights, particularly when it comes to how animals are treated in the industrial preparation process (caging, hormone injections, etc), I have trouble with arguments that propose that we stop eating animals altogether, as if it is some moral argument.  By this reasoning, we might as well disrupt nature and try to find a workaround for every animal that eats another. 

Should we set up controlled environments for all lions, tigers, and other predatory animals - feeding them an artificial protein-based supplement - rather than letting them hunt in the wild?

I respect any one person's right to be a vegetarian or a vegan, for any reason they choose, but in fairness it is not for them to say what the rest of us should eat.

As I said, though, eating meat does not have to preclude a healthy environment.

Godevel,
You say "I respect any one person's right to be a vegetarian or a vegan, for any reason they choose, but in fairness it is not for them to say what the rest of us should eat". 

Yes, it is for a vegetarian/vegan to say what others should eat.  Free speech, right?  We are voicing our opinions and trying to find solutions to these crimes against animals.  People who care about animals and want to protect them from people who exploit and murder them is absolutely "for them to say".  Pointing out brutality and murder should never be stopped.  When a living being is tortured and killed, any person with any amount of compassion and sense of right and wrong must speak out.  We cannot call ourselves civilized if we cannot stand in the way of violence and criminal activity.  People who come on this blog to discuss animal explotation and animal murder, are trying to find ways to make these evil acts stop.  Why are you coming on this blog?  What is your angle if it is not to stop violence towards animals?   

It was in my lifetime that surgery was being performed on infants without the benefit of anesthesia.  Why?  The 'experts' in the medical and scientific fields had loads of 'proof' that infants, less than a certain age, did not have the ability to feel pain.  Their pain receptors had not developed.
When we look back on that now, and it isn't as if this was centuries ago but mere decades, we think of how barbaric it was and how stupid everyone was to think it was the truth.
Twenty years ago they said the same of primates, ten years ago they said the same of cats and dogs, five years ago they said the same of rats and mice - all of it dead wrong.
Anyone claiming that fish don't suffer and feel pain will be proven to be dead wrong too. 

How wonderful and progressive that some humans are now moral enough to worry: That fish and crabs  feel pain, and must not be dragged out the ocean or off of beaches.

I understand the thrust of this article- that it is important for each of us not to disregard ANY living creatures ability to feel pain. This is an axiom I live by, whether speaking of animals, plants, and fetuses as well. I live by the rule that if I cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that a living thing doesn't feel pain, then I assume that it does.

So what does this mean for how I carry on through day to day life? I pick spiders out of the shower and put them on safe  ground, I nurse wounded birds and mice and snakes,I try not to "weed" my garden much, and I eat less meat and less fish. Which means that I appreciate life, nurse it often, and try to take it sparingly.
It is impossible for any of us not to destroy life. Even vegans bring pain and death to the plant life they consume. For me, I try to eat very little meat and rely more on wild caught fish because I know that the fish then have had a more natural and free life before it was cut short to satisfy my nutritional requirements. I have tried to diminish the suffering involved, but the fish has still suffered and died for me.
Some of you may comment that meat and fish are not necessary parts of a human diet to which I would reply that I have tried the vegan lifestyle and it left me feeling weak and cramping. It wasn't for me...if it's for you...then lovely.
Yet, you should not assume the supremacy of your lifestyle or its moral rectitude, because while you acknowledge the suffering and sacrifice of animal life you may be disregarding the pain and cost to plant life. Are you certain that plants do not sense pain? Or like fish are they incapable of communicating their pain vocally to you? Or perhaps you would say that plants have no nervous system...but does that just mean that they do not experience pain the way we do, but differently?

What I'm getting at is that Sylvia, was not entirely off in suggesting that in abstaining from killing and cauing suffering would eventually lead to not eating at all. Plant life is killed to sustain vegan and vegeterian diets. Her argument, though perhaps couched in insulting terms, seemed reasonable and respectful of life-"all things in moderation." That is you cannot avoid killing, so be moderate in taking any life.

As two side notes:
We should be careful about censoring each other. The notion of what is "abusive" is very maleable and could easily be used against any of us at some time. I was censored on the Huffington Post for using the word "tit" in a feminist post I left. Perhaps we should save censoring for threatening rather than merely abusive posts. The risks of threats of bodily harm are more tangible tha those of mean epithets.

Lastly, some even claim that it is not necessary for carnivores to eat meat either... I've known vegans who keep their animals on vegan diets too. Please know that cats and dogs can suffer from ocular and cardiac problems if they don't eat some meat....cats actually need mostly meat. These animals are built to rely on animal protein (in varying degrees)- please don't impose your ideals on their bodies. It could cause a dangerous reality of heart failure or blindness.

EC
Thank you for proving three of my points:

First- that as a vegan you can indeed  disregard the "crime" of killing another living creature as you eat plants (which are alive.) I don't...I attempt to avoid killing plants in my garden and have rescued plants which were going to be disposed of. Perhaps, I am following the ethical extension of your "fish feel pain" argument more than you can follow at this point in your life (to turn your rather unkind and condescending rhetoric back on you.) The fact that you don't want to consider the issue of plant pain may perhaps paint you as limited...but I'll try to avoid attacks...though you aren't in a mind to do so.

Secondly, you may have put your ideology ahead of what is best for your animals. We as humans have a better chance at thriving on a vegan diet than a dog or especially a cat does. I've worked in animals rescue and for a vet. Cats need the taurine supplied by meat and supplements and non-meat sources just don't do as good a job or supplying this VITAL nutrient. I'm sorry for your pets that you have imposed this diet on them. Certainly given the choice of meat or grain...they would choose meat. They do so in the wild everyday. I respect my cats enough to believe that they instinctively know best what they need nutrionally.They beg for beef-not rice. Back to people for a moment- you say that vegans are far healthier...then why is it that vegans who have imposed that diet on their children sometimes see that their kids are underweight and not thriving? Some have had their children taken away because they refuse to see that their children are not thriving on that diet- but their ideology trumps the health of their child. And I know some adult vegans with an exceptionally gray, unhealthy skin pallor, indicatuve of anemia...This is not to say that your diet is always unhealthy- it works very well for some bodies...but not for every body. Bodies are different- there's no one type fits all diet. Let's not turn to food fascism...Instead let's try to find a reasonable middle ground in which we all feel that we are doing a good job of honoring and respecting animals, while still each of us feeling that we are nourishing our bodies in the way that best suits our unique makeup.

Lastly, you complained about Sylvia belittling people and yet most of the attacks I see on this page come from you...toward Sylvia, Chris and myself. Don't worry I'm not complaining....nor will I push to have your posts removed. I believe in free speech enough not to whine and complain about you calling me "limited" and  a "lazy" thinker. So keep the dialogue coming...I can take the heat, but I'll advise you to be mindful of hypocrisy. What's amusing to me is that it appears that each one of us loves animals...and yet we see fit to pursue the disagreements and enmity more than the common ground and mutual respect. Nevertheless keep the free speech rolling...I'm ready.

While I personally find the concept of owning "pets" abhorrent in the first place, I must say that forcing a dog or cat to survive as a vegetarian is cruel and unusual treatment. I would ask why a person would want to "own" a carnivore if only to torture it by denying it proper nutrition for the species. If you can not abide the use of animal proteins in your own home, why not select a naturally vegetarian species to imprison. I understand many species of birds will survive lifelong captivity and accept a vegetarian diet.

I want to address a couple of points that have been brought up with my own experiences.

1.  Vegan and Vegetarians with Animal Companions
I don't know even one vegan, and very few vegetarians, who would have animal companions if their only option was to buy them from petstores or breeders.  The ONLY reason they have animal companions is because millions upon millions of animals are destroyed each year in shelters and animal control facilities.
The vegetarians and vegans that I know personally do NOT support the 'pet' industry, but as long as there are homeless animals out there, they will have animal companions.  If there were no animals in shelters or rescues, they would not have them as companions.
This includes myself.

2.  Vegetarian and Vegan Animal Companions
It absolutely IS possible to have your animal companions follow a non meat diet.  However, it involves a lot more than just feeding them non meat foods.  You have to seek out a qualified animal nutrition specialist and develop a non meat diet for your animal that meets their dietary requirements.  The challenge isn't the diet, it is finding the correct information and a vet willing to work with you who has any knowledge about nutrition.
Most veterinarians know very little about animal nutrition.  I have heard that they spend as little as two weeks out of their entire time in university studying nutrition, unless they decide to specialize in it, so they will not promote or even consider your requests to have your animals eat a non meat diet.  Their knowledge is limited to what they learn through trial and error while practicing and encountering different health issues and what the pet food industry tells them.  If a vet tells you it can't be done, they are telling you that only because they have no clue in how to get it done.
My animals see a vegan vet and, while I do not have my companions on vegan/vegetarian diets, she has spent a great deal of her own time outside of her formal education learning about animal nutrition.  My vet is qualified to work out a vegan diet for your companions that will enable them to be healthy and thrive.
Most times vets develop the 'my way or the highway' attitude towards you and your companions.  And considering that they really know very little about a lot of aspects of animal care, that is the absolute WRONG attitude to have.  If you are seeing a vet who takes that attitude with you, especially if you are like me and do a lot of research on animal care and take an active role in my companions heath, then you need to find yourself another veterinarian.

In the interview, Cowen says, "When it comes to morality, for instance, my view is that it's perfectly fine to eat fish . . . the mere act of killing & eating a fish, I don't find anything wrong with."  Cowen's words say much about HIS personal definition of morality. 

Morality: (definition): the quality of conforming to the principles of good conduct; virtuous.

So, that means that Cowens idea of good conduct and virtue is to eat an animal that has suffered a brutal death?  The word morality is thrown around as though it is understood.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to be moral and eat animals.  There is NO GOOD CONDUCT OR VIRTUE attached to brutally terrorizing, killing and eating animals. 

Cowen needs to find another word to use, instead of morality, like fixation or obsession with killing and eating animals.  Morality is a word reserved for discussions about peace and the striving against violent behavior. 

There is NO debate about whether or not killing is ever warranted, because MURDER IS NOT A PERSONAL CHOICE and IT NEVER WILL BE. 

To Jen,

I, as stated in my previous post, take the position that I assume that ALL living creatures feel pain. Which means that I didn't have to wait for a scientist to torture fish for me to believe  that they feel pain. It also brings me to a point where it lets me assume that plants too can feel pain....but wait maybe I don't need to assume. Research at Michigan University in 2004 discovered a basic nervous system in plants... Google Michigan and Plant pain and you'll come across this study. So perhaps my way of thinking is not off course.

Jen, as to whether or not veganism is healthy or unhealthy...I believe that my point was not in suggesting that humans could absolutely not be healthy on a vegan diet...I agree that it works exceedingly well for some people...And indeed we do see omnivores who suffer from their diet because it is not suited to them. My point in my post, rather, was  in response to EC's assertion that it is a healthier diet. I am suggesting, by citing some unhealthy vegans I know that veganism doesn't not work well for everyone. Neither does meat consumption...Which goes to say that we should each be the masters of our own diet.

I do take  exception to keeping carnivorous pets on vegan diets. To this end, EC, I would tell you that working in a vets office and doing animal rescue has indeed shown me the importance of giving animals a diet which complies with their natural habits. I have seen cats who were fed mostly greens and they suffered for it. Furthermore, if we're getting into real animal loving...why do you think that you are smarter or more moral than your cats? Don't you think that they know what they need? Here's what the ASPCA says about the issue:
 

A friend of mine who is vegan feeds her cats a vegan diet. Is this safe?

—Barbara

At the ASPCA we recognize that there are many quality dietary options for pet parents to choose from, Barbara. However, we do not recommend vegetarian or vegan diets for cats. Cats are true carnivores with unique nutritional needs. They require nutrients that are not available from plant sources. At first, they may appear to be doing satisfactorily on vegetarian or vegan diets, but over time nutritional deficiencies may occur. Even the Vegetarian Society cautions against these diets for cats. When it comes to felines, it really is best to provide a diet that includes meat.

Robert....I like that you don't assume human supremacy...but then I'd say let the cats deicde what he will eat...If he chooses greens over meat then so be it. Working with feral cats in NY I have seen their diet and it it mostly meat...squirrel, bird, snake and then a bit of grass to top it all off.



Also EC- there are cases where CPS has taken children from their parenst because a vegan diet was not nourishing them. This is easily googleable...I'm sure as a vegan parent you are awara of such scary cases where children were removed from the home. Does this mean that I am saying that children can never be healthy vegans...no...DR. Spock apparently thinks veganism is okay for kids. Yet, there have been vegan parents as caught in a trial in Arizona and also in Florida, where vegan parents refused to amend their children's strict diets even after the kids started to look emaciated Children are at a vastly important developemental stage in their life...it is vital that they get good nutrition...and for some children the vegan diet does not provide what they need.

Also directed to EC- I live in New York and am an animal rights activist...so you would be silly to doubt that I know plenty of vegans. My undergraduate college had a vegan cafe...And yes...I do know numerous anemic-looking vegans. And like you they lecture me about how much healthier they are. I will concede though that I also know very vibrant vegans...So as I said before...it works for some bodies...but not everybody.

This is not an attack on veganism...it is a defence of those who wish not to participate. EC you've attacked our love and care for animals. I love animals...I love plants too and try to take life from each group modestly.  

FYI EC... you missed the hypocritical nature of your complaints of attacks and subsequent attacks upon others. The fact that everybody is doing it doesn't make it less hypocritical of you... If you don't like the heat of what you're being dished...then maybe you should stop serving curry! This justs get back to the idea that we shouldn't jump to complain or censor posts for being "abusive" because we may each of us be using harsh terms in our posts.

First, I'd like to ask that people on both sides tone down the rhetoric and use of caps. Cyber-shouting doesn't get us anywhere.

I'm not going to respond to all the comments and arguments being made here, but Amanda, I'm particularly bothered by your repeated dubious references to vegan adults' children being taken away because of malnourishment. If you want to anger the many, many, many vegan parents who take excellent care of their children's nutritional needs, keep going, but if you want to have a serious conversation, this isn't the route to take. Those well-publicized incidents weren't about children starving on vegan diets; they were about children starving on inadequate, inappropriate diets. As well-known nutritional organizations have clearly stated (and as I really get tired of reminding commenters), a well-planned vegan diet is perfectly healthy across the life span. And plenty of omnivorous parents end up losing their children because those children are neglected or malnourished too. But those incidents don't get sensationalized in the news. And if you really want to go down this road, how about we talk about all the omnivorous parents whose young children are obese and looking forward to a lifetime of health problems because of the diets and lifestyles their parents model, allow, or even encourage?

And I'm sorry, Amanda, but if you're willingly, knowingly taking animals' lives, even "modestly," for the pleasure of eating them, you're not an animal rights activist. You may be an animal welfare advocate, but animal rights, no.

Finally, Amanda, I don't argue that it's impossible that plants have senses and experiences we don't fully understand, but I find it remarkable that intelligent people can seriously argue that when the sentience and capacity for suffering of animals is so abundantly obvious, and when nonhuman animals are obviously far more like humans than plants, the killing of animals and killing of plants are on the same level.

Also, EC, I disagree with you that anyone who isn't a vegan by definition can't be "moral," given how much we know about the way most people who eat animals just haven't had that lightbulb moment yet, and I'm extremely bothered by the tendency of some of my fellow vegans to paint all meat-eaters and lacto-ovo vegetarians as sadists. But that's a topic for another post entirely.

Dear Stephanie,

If you examine both of our posts you have largely recapitulated what I posted. I never said that vegan children are always unhealthy or even mostly unhealthy...I cited examples of cases where they were unhealthy but ideology blocked dietary amendments. I also said that there were omnivorous children who didn't thrive on their diets. All of this was to make a point which I have now repeatedly articulated...that diets are personal and there is no one diet that works for everyone. Parents, in particular, must look at their particular child and se what is helping their body thrive. I'm not banging the drum against vegan parents- I'm banging the drum against attacks on omnivores. We should each examine what works best for us.

As to your comments on plant life, I am incredulous that an intelligent person could fail to connect the dots, that plants are living creatures, they have nervous systems, feel pain and thus, are like us. May I ask though must something need be very like us in order for us to show concern for it? You seem to prefer animals over plants for their likeness to humans- but affording rights and care only to what is like us is quite dangerous. Americans once cited that black americans were very unlike caucasians and could therefore be enslaved without moral care, many people today horribly beat and torture animals because they perceive them to be more unlike than like us. So I don't set something being like me as a requirement for respect.
 
When you come to the rational conclusion that any meal you eat has brought another being's existence to an end, then perhaps you will agree with me and eat all things in moderation. But then I feel that you should should ultimately make the choice for a diet which best suits your lifestyle...because any diet will cause death of another...it seems futile to push one over another. It seems a better choice to focus on improving how these creatures live, and that their deaths be quick and less painful.

I have done much in the service of animals- so please don't demean this. I have done a variety of rescue work. The exclusivity of your vision of animal rights makes it an intagible prospect, because you will never be able to reach the mainstream and attract their participation. A bit less judgement and more listening would make it easier for you to reach the inherent goodness and caring within all people.

I laud your last post, and will say that I would not judge any vegan or vegeterian as being sadistic towards plants...

 

No, Amanda, I did not merely repeat what you already said--you are still missing the point. It wasn't that these parents refused to feed their children omnivorous diets that led to the children's illnesses or death; it was that these parents failed to provide them with nutritious, appropriate diets. If they had been feeding these children nutritious, appropriate vegan diets, this would be a different discussion, but they weren't. The problem was inadequate nutrition in general, not a vegan vs. omnivorous diet.

Your continued remarks about plants border on absurd. Do you have proof--real, substantiated proof--that plants are sentient in the way animals are? That they think, feel, and suffer in the same way, on the same levels, as animals do? Do you really not see any difference between killing a plant and killing an animal? Wow. If you're going to stubbornly hold to that position, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

As has been noted, it's true that we must eat something. And I find it far less morally objectionable to eat lower on the food chain, to eat plants that are not sentient beings and that do not suffer, think, and feel in the way that sentient beings do. If you've convinced (deluded) yourself that killing a thoughtful, emotional pig is the same as harvesting a carrot, fine--but this: "When you come to the rational conclusion that any meal you eat has brought another being's existence to an end, then perhaps you will agree with me and eat all things in moderation"? No, that's not going to happen. And please try to remember that by eating animals, you're also calling for vast additional plant death so that those animals can be fattened up for your dinner table.

There's a book I read written in the late 70's I think called "The Secret Life of Plants". Quite fascinating. In it, studies are conducted by IBM (among other advanced companies) to test the receptivity of plants. Not only did they find plants do infact feel pain, they found they could also predict when pain would be inflicted.

In one test, 2 plants were sat in a room, and one was brutally destroyed by a person. The other plant was left beside it simply to observe. They hooked up the plants to electromagnetic analysers to observe changes in the plants overall state of being. They could tell if a plant was stressed or feeling happy.

A lineup of men were asked to simply walk into the room, one of which was the murderer of one of the plants. Monitoring the witness plant responses... can you imagine what happened? They recorded a massive spike on the plant when the murderer simply walked back into the room, while there was virtually no response for the other 9 men.

This test was also tried in other ways, such as burning a leaf with a lighter. On burning the living leaf, the plant would recoil and its nervous system would send out stress responses. Whats even stranger though, is that after a while, the plant would send the stress responses purely from the flame being sparked again. They took it even further, and found plants have a type of E.S.P. which could have them tell if the burner would actually burn the leaf, or was just lighting the flame to generate a stress response. The conclusion was that somehow, plants could tell the difference between fact and fiction, threat and volition.

This has stuck with me for many years, these experiments. What really stuck with me however was that plants that were having their limbs / leaves removed with care didn't send out the stress responses the same way they did when they were violently ruined. It appears that plants are well indeed able to tell the difference between nurturing and mindless destruction and react entirely differently depending on that volition.

So if we're going to start saying plants have intelligence, lets not limit it at the convenient cap to prove our own point. Lets then assume plants know exactly what is going on and choose to do what they do. They knowingly have evolved fruits and leaves that are visually attractive, but also provide immediate feedback in our mouths which tell us that we are chewing on something we are supposed to eat. Funnily, you don't see anybody sucking on the teets of cows (i'm not even sure if thats legal or a form of animal sexual misconduct) and nor do you see people drinking blood juices from blended bovine. Only after massive modification can you eat most animal products. Surely that is an obvious sign of disconnection from the natural way? Throw in the fear of a creature who is freaking out getting its throat sliced, or its children taken away to be milk raped... farout, I cannot believe this is even something that is still a debate.

I am certain that in the future years to come talking about your mcmeatie days will be about as proud a discussion as talking about being involved in the genocide chambers that killed the jewish. Lap it up now while you can!

As a grower myself of spinach, chillis, paw paws, celery and tomatos, I take fruit and leaves from these often. Now, there is no way intelligence of my level could evolve and just leave the tree world behind. We are from the earth.. whatever intelligence we have inherited, the structure for that was provided to us from tarh from which we were born.

Alan Watts says something like just like an apple tree apples, the earth animals. And its a supreme arrogance to think that we somehow miraculously invented intelligence and that the rest of reality is stupid. Actually if you think about it, that is quite stupid. Were there apples just laying around on earth one day that sprouted into trees? Or was there a tree that eventually learned to create sweet apples? Think about it.

Evolution has not just gone in one pathway as much as us humans would like to think so. We like to think that we are chosen or special and that reality devotes all its resources to our mental masturbations when beyond the veil, everything has been evolving alongside us. By now, this point in time when humans have reached this level of evolution, to think plants have not been equally working out their methods of survival, methods of reproduction, attraction, repulsion... to think they haven't got that sorted is the most naive and arrogant bunch of god complex philosophy ever. To think the apple is sweet by chance which we advanced humans simply worked out to steal is bollocks. The fruit tastes sweet because trees worked out that in order to continue growth they need to make their goods tasty so that other creatures would eat them and pass them at another destination. That is symbiosis and symbiosis is a result of advanced co-creative intelligence - not random haphazard chance.

*edit - tarh = that

Long story short, if a tree can work out to make a fruit which tastes good to an alien like creature like a humans then if it wanted to, it could work out how to run away. This was the conclusion old mate Da Vinci came up with as well in regards to the difference between eating animals and plants and why we should feel ok about it.

Just as easily as a plant can create sweet nectar is it able to produce toxic poison.

Interestingly, when you kill an animal, its blood fills up with a toxic poison rendering it useless to eat by most creatures (unless its gutted and artificially cared for with fridges). Fridge or no fridge, the cells in dead flesh send out rotting decomposition messages and not nutritional ones to the consumer.