Veganism has the unassailable moral high ground. Change my mind.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@BlueVeins
Well i'd point to pretty serious limitations on our ability to know if an animal can suffer.
Recent experiments on brain damaged humans have shown us that suffering is quite possible even when parts cortex which we would consider necessary for suffering are non-functional.
Well i'd point to pretty serious limitations on our ability to know if an animal can suffer.
Recent experiments on brain damaged humans have shown us that suffering is quite possible even when parts cortex which we would consider necessary for suffering are non-functional.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Pikachu It's true that consciousness is moreso inferred and speculated about than ascertained with confidence in general, but I think the case for sessile bivalves being non-sentient is really strong. It's true that animals can be sentient with much simpler nervous systems, but the extent of the simplicity gap is pretty astounding. Clams, for example, only have six ganglia, four of which control opening and closing, whereas humans have several dozen in our spinal chord alone.
And then, you have the fact that it just doesn't make evolutionary sense for sessile bivalves to be sentient. Sessile bivalves can open and close their shells in response to changes in lighting (as they have very primordial light sensors) and impact and that's basically it. Insects, humans, dogs, fish, etc. are only sentient because it allows us to navigate complex environments, but sessile bivalves live a life comparable in complexity to those of plants and fungi.
Clams have been around since the Cambrian period, so even if clams were ever sentient, it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't increase their genetic fitness by ditching an energy-intensive capability that they don't/shouldn't need.
You could make an argument from moral caution, and that's fair, but I'd argue that given the level of risk that we're talking about, the harm done to pest insects in the course of plant agriculture is more serious. We know pretty much for a fact that fruit flies and similar bugs are sentient and they have to be killed to produce any plant food. Mussels (to my knowledge) can be farmed and harvested without any real pest control.
LMK what you think about it, I know it's a weird-ass argument.
And then, you have the fact that it just doesn't make evolutionary sense for sessile bivalves to be sentient. Sessile bivalves can open and close their shells in response to changes in lighting (as they have very primordial light sensors) and impact and that's basically it. Insects, humans, dogs, fish, etc. are only sentient because it allows us to navigate complex environments, but sessile bivalves live a life comparable in complexity to those of plants and fungi.
Clams have been around since the Cambrian period, so even if clams were ever sentient, it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't increase their genetic fitness by ditching an energy-intensive capability that they don't/shouldn't need.
You could make an argument from moral caution, and that's fair, but I'd argue that given the level of risk that we're talking about, the harm done to pest insects in the course of plant agriculture is more serious. We know pretty much for a fact that fruit flies and similar bugs are sentient and they have to be killed to produce any plant food. Mussels (to my knowledge) can be farmed and harvested without any real pest control.
LMK what you think about it, I know it's a weird-ass argument.