From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Meat eating....etc!
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:09:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug13.200924.18695
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <16e9m9INNsq6@quality.hal.COM> sankar@hal.COM (Sankar Bandy) writes:

>The whole thing depends on how you define emotion and pain. If you are
>expecting an animalistic external reaction like a 'cry' or 'visible'
>motion, then by that restrictive definition you can say that they don't 
>have any. But the plants do react to exeternal stimuli(both beneficial
>and harmful) in a much profounder way than we can 'see'. The experiments
>done to plants does not involve only 'electrical impulses' but all kinds
>of them including mechanical, optical, electro magnetic etc. It has been
>seen through the appropiate instrument that the plant do generate a
>'panic' reaction when presented with a threat stimuli. For instance they
>have a 'shudder' like reaction that can be observed through the instruments.
>Their hormone production rate, photo synthesis etc are all drastically 
>affected by a sudden and violent external stimuli. I think before you 
>make sweeping statements like that, try to get more broader perspective
>of consciousness and subjectivity. Like I said Dr. Karl sagan's Cosmos
>would give you a good scientific perspective of our close relationship
>to plants as well as animals.

	Thanks for the advice. In the absence of neurons and sensory
	receptors, how can plants feel pain? Do we *sense* an electric
	field if we exhibit physiological reactions to high electric
	fields? Not in the conventional sense. Impress an electric field 
	on an electrooptic crystal or shine light on a photorefractive 
	crystal and watch their optical properties change. Are the crystals 
	experiencing pleasure or pain? Your definition is so much bunkum.
	Can I stretch MY definition of pain to include anything I like? 
	Really scientific I must say. (Emotion is an even more complex subject)

>
>>	mind that plants and animals are NOT the same at the cellular
>>	level, even if they were so what? By the same reasoning, does
>
>I think you did not read my posting properly, I said that plants and
>animals ARE very similar in design at the cell level although they
>differ in external behaviour.

	Of course that's what you said and you are wrong. If you can distin-
	guish the cells in an electron micrograph then they are different.
	
>>	the fact that human excrement is mostly cellulose and bacteria 
>>	make it any desirable as food? I must have seen more number of
>>	dubious posts in this thread than in any other. Whether you are
>What is your point here ? Are you saying plants are similar to human
>excrement or that human excrements have life ? A classic case of 
>'obfuscation' perhaps ? Yes, yours is one of the most dubious post
>I have seen for a long time.

	If the "similarity" in cellular organization is somehow a better
	criterion than the obvious differences at the macroscopic level in
	your "scientific" food-selection scheme, then similarities at 
	the molecular level is an even better criterion, is it not? 
	What is shit but carbohydrates with some minor amounts of 
	amino acids and other things? 

>>	for or against meat-eating, leave science alone (except where it 
>>	relates to health and environmental issues); moral issues cannot 
>>	be debated from a scientific standpoint.
>
>I differ from you there. Science is there precisely to reinterpret our
>morality in the light of new findings. Morality **MUST** be debated
>in terms of Scientific findings and where it is established to be 
>harmful **MUST** be discarded. 

	How is the following a MORAL issue?

>For instance the current findings of
>science is that plants cannot supply the human body all the essential
>vitamins and proteins that it needs for proper growth and development.
>So the best diet is a balanced mixture of vegetarian and non-vegetarian
>ingredients. In fact the WHO gives a recomended list of items and their
>relative percentages that is considered to be a balanced supply of 
>nourishment for the human body at different ages and for both sexes. One
>is free to choose from the lists ingredients that suites one's palate.

	You are obviously unaware that from a strictly nutritional pers-
	pective, a vegetarian (not vegan) diet is complete. Before you
	link science and (morality or immorality of) vegetarianism, I suggest
	you get a better grip on both.

							- Nagarajan