From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 01:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.193924.21805@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.232801.15847@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.181051.9112@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec22.013124.4246@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec21.180401.27092@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:

[...]

>>	Your assumption is unjustified because I have said nothing about
>>	any morality which might surround the consumption of plants for
>>	food.  As I said before, my purpose in posting the excerpt from the
>>	study was to show that there may be more similarities between
>>	plants and animals than might be immediately apparent.
>
>So your purpose was to explore biological similarities and you had no
>intention or desire to be drawn into any ethical discussion which might
>attempt to draw moral conclusions from biological similarities or
>dissimilarities? Note that I'm just trying to find out what your purpose
>was in posting some recent scientific evidence followed by the leading
>question:
>
>**    Now, just how different ARE plants from animals?
>
>Can you see how easily this could be interpreted as an invitation to a
>discussion about whether animals and plants should be relegated to
>similar ethical categories?

	No, I can't easily see how this could be interpreted as such an
	invitation.  The statement clearly asks about the similarity between
	plants and animals, not about whether there is any ethical relevance
	attached to either of them.  Someone made a statement that plants
	and animals are not similar; I merely offered some preliminary
	evidence to show that the dissimilarities so often claimed may not
	be as wide as it might seem at first glance.

[...]

>>	First, let me point out that "pain" and "suffering" are not equi-
>>	valent terms.  As Martin, I think, pointed out, "pain" certainly
>>	does result in "suffering," but all "suffering" is not "pain."
>
>I don't recall "pain" being mentioned here, but your point is
>well-taken.  I have at times used "pain" in a broader sense that's
>compatible with the definition put forth previously by Ted Robinson.  In
>that broader sense, "pain" is meant to be interpreted somewhat
>non-literally. 
>
>>
>>	That said, I ask again: at what point does the linkage dissolve, and
>>	how is this determination made?  What about garden slugs and amoebae?
>
>I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
>scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
>many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
>debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 

	How conveniently fuzzy.  Of course, it DOES allow us to kill roaches
	with abandon while rushing to the defense of mice.

[...]

>So it's my impression that you wish to restrict your participation to
>the domain of scientific data and prefer not to take a position on any
>ethical implications of that data?  You are content to discuss the
>obvious truth that people DO eat dead plants and animals without further
>inquiry?

	That WAS my intent when I posted the original excerpt from the
	study.  If you want to discuss the ethics of vegetarianism vs.
	omnivory, then first tell me this: what are the ethics surrounding
	my consumption of garden slugs, beetles, and amoebae?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals