It’s funny to me because it reads like a satire of non-vegans, but this is literally how most of them are.

  • Horse {they/them}@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Plants aren’t sentient

    that’s actually fairly contentious, some researchers argue that they might be
    though my answer to the “what if plants turn out to be sentient after all?” thing is i’ll cross that bridge when and if we get to it

    • Angel [any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      24 hours ago

      No, not really.

      We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.

      A few “experts” who arrive at their beliefs off of vibes rather than science may say they support the notion of plant sentience, but it’s not taken seriously as a scientific idea.

      Non-vegans also don’t believe it. If anything, they just throw it out as a disingenuous excuse to alleviate guilt.

      Something I ask non-vegans who say this stuff [NSFW]

      If plants are to be sentient and that therefore makes exploiting animals for food and eating plants morally equivalent, would you consider using a cucumber as a sex toy to be morally equivalent to bestiality?

      In every case, they dodge the question and act as if they don’t understand the relevance.

      • Horse {they/them}@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        the “experts” are botanists, they aren’t like just random people and the idea has been published in scientific journals
        and yeah, of course non-vegans are being disingenuous, that’s what they do

        • Angel [any]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Can you a cite a source, though? I’ve seen non-vegans cite sources and arrive at the wrong conclusions because they misinterpreted the sources. For example, they think that responding to stimuli is an indicator of sentience, but it’s not. I feel like you are assuming far too much good-faith when it comes to this debate about plant sentience. Just because an idea is discussed and seems controversial doesn’t actually mean that it’s truly contentious with in a scientific context. Not all “debates” are genuine, and not all “controversies” are scientifically valid, and this is really just a “We have to validate both sides” kind of framing. Can you please demonstrate to me a single reputable botanical source that endorses plant sentience?