First of all, before you all go willy nilly debunking every other word I say, I would first like to say, for once let us not do it in this ridiculous way. Either take what I said on a holistic level, or feel free to break it apart point by point. Either way, as to keep things succinct and open to others, try not to make a million unrelated criticisms in a single post. Ill tell you right now, if someone drops one of those gigantic mofos of scattered quotes and criticisms I'm not going to even respond. If I don't respond, feel free to interpret it as a win though.
That said:
I realize what I am about to say is maybe moralistic, which is something I do not usually get involved with. But I saw something today that makes me feel differently...
Ill cut to the chase and say that I think for most people, the appeal to "sentient plants" is something I that I can see as 99% of the time, pure bullshit.
My reason being:
If this person tells me this is his justification, I will come to one of two assumptions.
1. That plants are as signficant as animals. This person has come to respect plants in a way that I have not. I subsequently assume that the only reason he respects these plants more than I do, is he is aware of something concerning plants that I am not.
Now Im no expert, (not yet at least), but plants are a very important part of my life. I can at least say I am a gardener, have seen the seasons pass, and have begun to understand a kind of symbiotic relationship with plants. I begin a botony major next fall. I feel it is necessary to mention this, because in comparison, those who tout "sentient plants" as their justification (Now I am just talking about people I know), are often quite obviously ignorant of plants in general, and I doubt such a "greater" connection.
Up to this point, excusing my generalization, I think everything I have said is agreeable, or at least conceivable to all.
I am a vegetarian and a gardener, and in this sense perhaps one might consider me a great hypocrite. This is where I disagree. I think statistically, or at least of the people I know, that a vegetarian is likely to be a gardener, just out of the need for an expanded plant diet. It seems to me that being a gardener, rather than making someone greatly hypocritical in relation to their plants, is something that makes someone more conscious of them.
In plainest terms, I do not agree/have not realized a level of consciousness within plants that puts them in the same "ethical consideration" as animals. I love plants, but seeing my garden die at the end of the season (while I do sometimes hate to see them go) is not something I would consider at all tragic.
So if I do not acknowledge the position that plants are somehow as conscious as plants (which I think is most the time), I must indulge the second possibility,
2) that this person considers animals as trivial as plants.
As trivial, in relation to what?
Human consciousness, which by association is worthy of ethical treatment.
If someone draws such a succinct line between animal and human, I would conclude that this person has a dogmatic assumption as to the significance of human life, which by association trivializes the lives of animals. Too much self importance.
One might say that dogs are creatures driven by pure impulse which do not love, or truly feel pain or suffering. I consider this a valid position. But if this is taken as justification, I would then argue that humanity is in this context no different than animal.
Humanity may conceptualize, and this is something that animals will not do. But whether or not they are real or significant, are love, pain and suffering concepts?
I am not saying that killing an animal is the same as killing a human. But in the same sense, I would not say that killing Billy Bob Thorton is the same as killing the Daili Lama.
Now there might or might not be meaning or significance to life, but if this is so, it is not as simple as
A. Humans matter.
B. Animals do not.
Evolution is a gradual, dynamic process. Consciousness progresses.
Try to comprehend the consciousness of a human, a sign-linguist gorilla, and a dog. Where are the lines objectively drawn and on what basis? Hell, I dont even think the "sentient" gorillas are even necessary. I can see that my dog and I are equal in significance (now whether I can accept this...).
I am not saying that love is real or not; or that life has meaning, or not. I am only saying that whatever lifes nature, there is nothing that validates our own existence, and not an animal's. Any line drawn in the spectrum of consciousness (humanity included) is something I would consider arbitrary.
I am not against meat eating. I can respect, (though I cannot understand) a conscious hunter, as the kind Carlos Castaneda describes. In just the same way, someone who realizes a certain significance in plants that I cannot realize (putting them "on par" with animals), is conceivably respectable in his position.
BUT, to draw ethical lines that are associated with, and ultimately rooted in self importance, is something that I would consider dogmatic. Sadly, I think this is the vast majority.
Edited by daytripper23 (05/16/08 12:57 AM)
|
login or 
register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
