Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism

Plant Suffering Con and I have both provided scientific studies that led to opposite conclusions. Con claims plants can suffer, I claim they cannot but there is a bigger issue here. What is the nature of the "suffering?" The fact is, the only relatable experience we have from suffering ties back to our CNS. When Con cites a study that claims that plants have their own "version" of a CNS, he is acknowledging a subjective labeling because the plant CNS is not comparable to the animal CNS. Con opens a bit of a Pandora's box with his claim that "just because it does not resemble human suffering does not mean that it is not suffering." It is precisely that we are able to relate to the phenomenon that we are able to label it as immoral. We can directly relate to animal suffering, but Con acknowledges that plant "suffering" is physiologically different. Rather than think of the release of painkillers as a way of validating the idea that plants as sentient, it has been proven that plants are capable of altering their physiology as a better way of dealing with the possibility of being devoured rather than to appease some psychological sense of fear, as one professor states: "If one plant is damaged when nearby another, it will release a series of hormonal gases...These hormonal gases alter the physiology of the nearby plants and may even cause a depolarization of membranes which was observed on the lie-detector. The system is in place in order to signal to nearby plants that one is being eaten or damaged by predators. The nearby plants then alter their physiological makeup to better deal with the possibility of being damaged...Plants do not fear or have any other emotions. You must have a complex nervous system to feel emotions and plants DO NOT have that [1]. Of course this does not account for the "special version" of CNS that apparently exists in all plants and puts them on a state of consciousness equal to that of higher animals. I obviously do not have the time or effort to examine the methodology of every study he cites, but the notion that plants are conscious beings who experience a wide range of emotions such as fear, suffering and joy through a CNS is pseudo-science possibly supported by a few questionable studies but rejected by the mainstream scientific community [2]. Misquotes I usually prefer to debate point by point, but Con just sort of “goes” here so I’m left to try to work things out as best I can. Con misquotes me as “those who cannot feel pain are without value” when the full quote is “it does not follow from my first premise that those who cannot feel pain are without value.” Additionally, anhidrosis does not mean that the individual cannot suffer. Con routinely has this habit of interpreting “suffering” as a purely physical phenomenon as evidenced by his idea that we can kill animals painlessly without moral repercussions. At first the idea sounds plausible, but take this example. If I went to a village and shot every male in the back of the head and the women started crying, would it make sense to tell them “no one has suffered?” From a purely physical standpoint, yes, but when emotional suffering and the fitness of the population are taken into account the answer becomes obvious. I will agree that sea sponges are not entitled to moral rights because the entire population lacks a CNS. Sponges are obviously not edible either. Con mistakenly states that I have made net suffering calculations concerning plant pain versus animal pain. Additionally, we have to wonder if Con actually holds himself to the standards that he professes: “we cherish [humans unable to feel physical pain] because they are alive. If this is true, then there is no moral distinction between life forms based on the ability to feel pain, so even if plants do not experience pain, slaughtering them is the moral equivalent of murdering animals.” I firmly believe the idea that all life from humans to sea sponges are morally equivalent is unbelievably irrational. Does Con believe he is an evil person when he washes his hands and kills bacteria? Plant Physiology Con draws much of his inspiration from Cleve Backster, the “granddaddy” of the plant sentience movement who conducted tests on plants with a polygraph and concluded that all living things possess emotion and an inherent interconnectedness [4]. Follow up studies on Backster’s experiments have repeatedly failed to validate his studies [3] and Mythbusters concluded that the idea that plants have feelings – after taking impeccable care to remove all possible stimuli and create a controlled environment using the more precise EEG machine concluded that plant sentience was a myth [5]. Con repeatedly presents the natural production of the painkiller methyl salicylate as apparent evidence for his case. It is also worth mentioning that opiates and cannabis are naturally produced, and one has to wonder if Con interprets this fact as insinuating that plants are constantly sedated. Nonetheless, scientists trace the production of the painkiller to two functions: a warning to other plants, and a response similar to the immune response in animals to fight off diseases [6]. This could easily be chalked up to stimulus-response and provides no evidence that plants are sentient beings capable of emotional feelings. To conclude on the scientific portion of this discussion, one expert answers the question of plant sentience as such: “[Plant sentience] is a question outside the realm of science. Because a plant has nothing akin to the nervous system or brain of an animal, we have no way to even address the question of whether they feel pain or have any kind of consciousness. The observable evidence suggests that they do not feel pain or emotions, at least not in the way animals do” [7]. This echoes the idea that our knowledge of suffering is routed in the CNS of animals. Con has even acknowledged that if plants have some form of central nervous system, it is quite different from the one we have. Affirmative Case P1: Straw man – I never claimed vegetarians should only eat fruit. Con brings up the idea of previously dead animals, but these animals are often unclean having died from disease. It is very rare for humans to consume these animals. If it is a life or death situation exceptions can be made as pointed out in the premise. Nonetheless, Con is going really fringe here because virtually all the meat we consume is processed by the meat industries. Just as you would not eat a dead human being unless faced with a life or death decision, eating a previously dead animal would fall under a similar category. This is a different discussion and constitutes a vast minority of cases. My main contention: Even if it is true that plants suffer, does it follow that causing unnecessary suffering is right? Con never provides a straight answer. P2: Dropped. P3: I addressed Con’s narrow interpretation of suffering. Con misconstrues my “population argument.” While a population of weeds might suffer, this is hardly morally analogous to the suffering of a population of chimpanzees who mourn their dead, are capable of self-recognition, and practice complex social organization. The emotional attachment is key here, as are the cognitive abilities of the organisms. It could loosely be inferred from Con’s “plants suffer” argument that he is possibly arguing that there is no substantial dietary alternative. Nonetheless, Con barely mentioned the issue of nutrition and foods like tofu, wheat gluten, eggs, and fruits could be consumed even if we go by the “no (killing) animals, no (killing) plants” diet. Wheat gluten and tofu have long been staples in vegetarian diets in Asia, and much if not all of the fruit we eat is not derived from killing plants. Sources are in comments. I wish Con good luck.