>Kimberly Hart wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> First point: I find it interesting that vegetarians who are concerned about
>> animal welfare rarely discuss plant welfare. Just because a plant doesn't
>> bleed and doesn't have a nervous system we cannot assume that it is beyond
>> feeling. It is possible that plants do feel pain when we harvest their
>> fruit and destroy their bodies. We may not recognize it as pain like humans
>> experience, but who are we to say that they don't feel?
>
>This is a common statement towards vegetarians, that plants may/do feel pain.
>My answer, as a vegan, is: If plants -do- feel pain, then vegans are doing
>more than non-vegans to minimize such pain.
There is no evidence whatever that plants have a nervous system much less a
brain, so on what basis are we assuming that they can feel anything?
Wishful thinking? To be CREDIBLE we have have to be more scientific, more
logical than that. There isn't even a basis in fact to use "if" or "may".
To proceed on such fuzziness we may as well assume that molds germs and
viruses have feelings, bringing sanitation into question. Sorry, but I
can't work up much sympathy for herpes or potatoes for that matter. But
let's go the whole hog. In the absence of fact, as apparently assumed by
some in this thread, lets assume that inanimate things have feelings too.
:-)
>Agreed... it -is- a cruel world, unfortunately.
Really? I don't think so. Things are what they are. Cruelty implies some
sort of maliciousness to an act or a motive. Eagles and coyotes eat animals
to survive, not to be cruel. To attribute the human capacity for cruelty to
them is not logical as there is simply no evidence for it. At worst, the
world or nature is neutral, that is it is not cruel or benign--it just is.
Well, it's rained a lot here and the grass has growned. Time to cut it.
What a pain.
Cheers, Betty
