From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Speciesism
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:18:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.183814.18413@zooid.guild.org>, Rosemary Waigh
<rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
> 
>[...]
> They are the same criteron.  I was using suffer in the first sense given
> in the shorter OED, "to submit to with pain, distress, or grief".

American Heritage gives this and another definition:  "To sustain loss,
injury, harm or punishment."

It is correct to say "all pain is suffering," but it is incorrect to say
"all suffering is pain."  The two words are not totally synonymous, but
animal "rights" activists pretend that they are because it suits their
agenda of vegetarianism.  

We can suffer emotional distress without feeling any pain.  All living
organisms have the capacity to suffer death whether or not they may feel
pain.
 
>[...]
> >No, these are not analogous.  Sexism & racism are intraspecies forms of
> >discrimination.  Speciesism is, by definition, an interspecies form of
> >discrimination.
> >
> Martin, this is not a terribly compelling argument.

Neither was yours.

>It is like saying racism
> is different from sexism because sexism is an intraracial form of
> discrimination whereas racism is an interracial form of discrimination.

Racism *is* different from sexism just as speciesism is different from
either.  If you are going to make an argument against interspecies
discrimination, you should not use intraspecies "analogies" to do so. 
Intraspecies exploitation is usually maladaptive for species whereas
interspecies exploitation has positive adaptive significance.

>You
> have not explained why interspecies discrimination (=speciesism) is acceptable
> to you.

It is not only acceptable, but necessary to enhance the survival of any
species.
 
> >>To create the same effect (no suffering) in humans and potatoes, different
> >>treatment is needed.
> >
> >So what?  One is autotrophic and the other is a heterotroph.
> >
> Could you define these words please?  They're not in the edition of the OED
> I have.

An autotroph is an organism that essentially "makes its own food" as in
photosynthetic plants or chemosynthetic bacteria.  Heterotrophs rely on
other organisms for their food.  Autotrophs are always at the "primary
production" end of the food web, and heterotrophs are always the consumers.

Because heterotrophs need to eat other organisms (or substances derived
therefrom) for survival and autotrophs do not, I found your original
statement intuitively obvious.  Did I miss your original point perhaps?

>[...]
> Okay.  You can do what you want to a potato *plant* and it will not suffer.

As indicated above, this is incorrect.  A potato plant has an equal
capacity to suffer death.

> There is no evidence that plants feel pain. 

Again, pain is a "speciesist" criterion.  Only motile organisms need to
feel pain so as to respond quickly to harmful stimuli by moving away. 
Plants also respond to harmful & beneficial stimuli, but over longer
periods of time.

As Rich Young has pointed out, there is preliminary evidence that plants
have intercellular mechanisms for electrochemical signal transduction.  If
true, this would mean that they have rudimentary "nervous systems."

If these data are later confirmed, what will you & your vegan buddies
choose to eat then?

> Besides, feeding plants to animals and then eating the animals causes more
> plants to die.

Don't confuse current agricultural practice with necessity.  One need not
"feed plants to animals."  What if the prey animals eat plants on their own
accord?  Some prey animals are fruitarian.  Herbivores don't always kill
the plants they eat.

It is you vegetarians who rip up those tender plants from the ground and
kill them in the prime of their vegetablehood.  You justify killing them
simply because they cannot feel pain.

Of course, we heterotrophs must eat something.  Often, this involves the
death of another organism.  I see no reason to discriminate against one
kingdom of species in favor of another.  Death is death.

>So if that is your concern you had better become vegan.

Not so.  If I were willing to forsake my innate predatory instincts, and
desired to adopt a truly non-violent lifestyle, there is another option.  I
could instead become a fruitarian or, preferably, lactofruitarian.  Only
then can one avoid killing for food.

To ensure adequate intake of known and unknown nutrients, it is best to eat
the widest possible variety of foods.  By limiting one's food choices to
one kingdom of species, either plant or animal, we compromise our ability
to do so.

In particular, your vegan dietary regimen is suboptimal.  It is
particularly hazardous for infants & children.  You must supplement your
diet in order to obtain adequate nutrition.  A majority of nutrition
professionals do not recommend this regimen.

Of course, we all choose whatever we like to eat.  I respect your decision,
just don't try to convince me that it is superior.

>[...]
> In another posting I point out that I have no objection to self defence
> (whether intra- or interspecific).  Going down to the supermarket and buying
> parts of a dead chicken hardly counts as self defence!

Are you defending yourself in going down to the supermarket and buying
parts of a dead plant?

Self-defense is only one form of interspecies exploitation.  Sustenance is
another, at least for heterotrophs.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals