• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123...9
Psyri
Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK
Member Since: 2nd Apr 2003
Total posts: 1576
Posted:I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.


Delete Topic

_Aime_
_Aime_

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Hastings
Member Since: 2nd Jan 2004
Total posts: 4172
Posted:To be perfectly honest I don't like it when people forward the 'plants have feelings' argumant put to me by meat eaters, as generally its said to be antagonistic.

I respect what other people choose to eat, and dont lecture them on it, so I expect the same amount of respect for my own choices.

Yes they are a life form, but the pain felt by animals it hardly on par with the 'pain' a flower feels when its picked.


Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted:my view:

Animals have central nervous systems and so are equipped to feel pain and terror and to experience suffering.

Plants are alive and therefore react to their environment, yup. But without any identifiable central nervous system, or anything that appears to act like it/perform its function, I reckon it's pretty safe to say* that plants don't experience suffering.

Therefore, eating animals is less 'moral' than eating plants because it causes more suffering.

The jury's out on what kirlian photography actually records, and by what mechanism, but I don't think it's particularly relevant here. Yeah it might indicate that something is alive, but we knew that about plants already.

Anyway didn't someone say over in the other thread that rocks and chairs and tabletops also have auras?


*for now. Until new evidence is adduced that indicates otherwise.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I'm going to have to call you a complete raving loony, sorry. wink

The kirlian stuff is considered dubious for a number of scientific reasons, but I'll stick to the simpler philosphical points about this to avoid anouther blazing row.

As I've mention before, there is absolutely no way anyone can ever know what the internal subjective state of a thing is. Mabey plants think and feel, mabey they don't, mabey rocks can. You simply can't ever truely know definitively.

Even if they did feel, you cannot know the details of it's senstations. Mabey sticking a fork into a brussel sprout gives it a veg-gasm, you simply cannot even know.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)

As I've mention before, there is absolutely no way anyone can ever know what the internal subjective state of a thing is. Mabey plants think and feel, mabey they don't, mabey rocks can. You simply can't ever truely know definitively.



Yeah sure, but you can make informed guesses based on past observation and inference, especially when you contextualise it in a self-consistent theory.

And c'mon, if you're going to say you can't ever know the subjective state of something, some smart-asre is going to turn around and say aha, but what can you know about anything exept your own subjective state? Descarte's demon and all that.

wink


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


 Written by: jeff(fake)

As I've mention before, there is absolutely no way anyone can ever know what the internal subjective state of a thing is. Mabey plants think and feel, mabey they don't, mabey rocks can. You simply can't ever truely know definitively.



Yeah sure, but you can make informed guesses based on past observation and inference, especially when you contextualise it in a self-consistent theory.

And c'mon, if you're going to say you can't ever know the subjective state of something, some smart-asre is going to turn around and say aha, but what can you know about anything exept your own subjective state? Descarte's demon and all that.


From a philosophical point of view that's correct. We infer feelings and thoughts on humans because we are human and think and feel and so it's a logical deduction, but one we can never prove. Likewise we might infer similar feelings on dogs or chimps or dolphins because of their similarities. But once you get to plants or fungi (why does noone care about fungi feelings? frown), extending that branch of reasoning becomes absurd.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:I'm not even gonna start about vegatarianism, Yes it's viable, but the importance of meat is how we got to where we are today, appart from the dietary benefits to meat the socail structure of humans was also built around the hunt.
Humans don't NEED to eat meat, but then again neither do a lot of carnivourous creatures, I watched ray mears track, kill, dress, gut and eat his own deer the other night and there were a lot of interesting social motives behind the hunt.
Plants are "alive" the act of eating it "kills" the plant the argument is all about awareness, so tranquelize the animals before butchering and the argument is moot


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I think the best comment I've ever heard on the topic of plant awareness was in repsonse to the question:

"If tree could scream, would we cut them down?"

"Well...if they did it all the time, I think we all would"


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)



we might infer similar feelings on dogs or chimps or dolphins because of their similarities.





Yup. What I'm saying is: especially the similarity of having a central nervous system, which I'm tacetly identifying as the seat of thoughts and feelings (well, specifically the cerebral cortex is responsible for that).





 Written by: jeff(fake)

extending that branch of reasoning becomes absurd.





yeah yeah. The fact that they don't have a mechanism to feel with is what makes the argument absurd... hand on, are we just agreeing here? wink



 Written by: jeff(fake)

(why does noone care about fungi feelings? frown),



Beacuse they seem to take care of themselves quite cheerfully. I know a few mushrooms. Every one of them is a fun guy.

Badoom tsh.



 Written by: Mynci



Plants are "alive" the act of eating it "kills" the plant the argument is all about awareness, so tranquelize the animals before butchering and the argument is moot





That's quite interesting actually, would it be equivalent if you could guarentee that the animals are tranqualized before slaughter? Hmm, perhaps I could be convinced of this. But realistically speakin, in slaughterhouses right now the little cowses are often NOT killed at the outset, and are still alive when they're strung up by the back feet, skinned and hacked to pieces with chainsaws.

frown for the little cowses!

EDITED_BY: 87wt2gxq7 (1170250454)


Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Did someone say something about smartarses and philosophy...

ok... go on then wink

 Written by: Jeff

we might infer similar feelings on dogs or chimps or dolphins because of their similarities. But once you get to plants or fungi (why does noone care about fungi feelings? ), extending that branch of reasoning becomes absurd.



At what exact point does this become absurd?

This raises a massive problem when you cannot prove anything but have to rely entirely on a series of educated guesses.

A dog may remind you of yourself, so you prescribe it similar feelings and emotions to you - but can you say the same thing about a prawn, an oyster or a grasshopper.

Anthropological studies have shown even homogenizing human feelings and emotions is deeply problematic, they often differ greatly according to the results of specific cultural practices.

Resultantly drawing absolute lines upon blurred boundaries is very difficult.

A second philosophical bone of contention would be: why should resemblance to humanity be the logic applied to a creatures capacity to feel? Because we are the pinnacle of Gods creation? While this was used as a philosophical argument until the 20th Century it tends to hold less weight now.


On a side note... The best argument for not eating meat that I know of is the amount of productive land it takes to rear cattle, and the extent to which old growth forests are being cleared to support the west's love of cheap imported meat. Nothing to do with subjective arguments about the respective feelings of oysters and olives, everything to do with demonstrable facts.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

_Clare_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted:**** smile ********
EDITED_BY: _Clare_ (1170258949)


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: dream

At what exact point does this become absurd?


 Written by: 87wt2gxq7

The fact that they [vegetables and fungi] don't have a mechanism to feel with is what makes the argument absurd...




 Written by: dream

A second philosophical bone of contention would be: why should resemblance to humanity be the logic applied to a creatures capacity to feel?


Well firstly we'd have to define what 'feeling' means. It's a very difficult word to pin down because it's so damn general and woolly. I prefer the word 'experience.'

What's at issue here is whether or not animals and plants can experience fear, pain and suffering. I would say that because animals have the same sort of equipment as us, they can. You can see it happening as clearly as you can see other humans experiencing fear.


Delete

The Tea Fairy
The Tea Fairy

old hand
Location: Behind you...
Member Since: 2nd Jul 2004
Total posts: 853
Posted:What about the really simple organisms with simple, or absent, nervous systems? (shrimps, insects, crabs etc)

I understand where Dream is coming from, where do we draw the line? (yay for anthropology!! biggrin )


Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan

Delete

The Tea Fairy
The Tea Fairy

old hand
Location: Behind you...
Member Since: 2nd Jul 2004
Total posts: 853
Posted:And what about coral? Isn't coral somewhere in between a plant and an animal?

Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: The Tea Fairy



What about the really simple organisms with simple, or absent, nervous systems? (shrimps, insects, crabs etc)



Actually, all those things have a fairly complex nervous system, but I see where you're going.



 Written by: The tea fairy

where do we draw the line?



An immortal question. People generally have a great deal of trouble with spectrums. When does a foetus become entitled to human rights? When does a person with a brain damage lose them? The answer can only ever be based on value judgements, and not objective measures, which makes many people uncomfortable and provokes irrational reasoning. But just because there is no point where you can say a foetus becomes a person, doesn't mean that a fertilised egg is a person.



Likewise it's clear that humans can experience pain, and likely that many other vertebrates can exerience it in a meaningful way as well. We suspect cephalopods can too, so they are sometimes afforded a limited degree of protection from cruelty. At what stage can we say that something is too dim to meaningfully experience pain? It's essentially arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that everything can experience pain.



And, of course, what we call animals or plants is essentially just an arbitrary label to particular clades of the tree of life.

 Written by: The tea fairy

And what about coral? Isn't coral somewhere in between a plant and an animal?



Go go gadget zoology knowledge!



Coral is an animal, a member of the Cnidarian phylumm, like jelly fish. I think it has nerves, but no centralised brain.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted:IFAIK no animal is without some kind of nervous system. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to move and interact (other than passively) with their environment.

A coral is an animal colony.

I think you draw the line wherever you want to, and the 'moral-high-ground' vegetarian of Little Miss Nebula's post draws it at the boundary between things which are demonstrably able to experience suffering and things which which are extremely unlikely to be able to experience suffering.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


IFAIK no animal is without some kind of nervous system.


*cough*

Just being a jerk now. ubbangel


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:sponges are cool. You can take 2 of different colours and pass them through sieves, and they will reassemble with sponge bits of their own colour!

completely off-topic, sorry...

I read about a vegan couple eating roadkill a while ago... so I suppose to them it was not "can it experience pain?", but "does it suffer pain because of us wanting to eat it", and since it didn't, they ate it.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

UCOF
UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel

Member Since: 17th Apr 2002
Total posts: 15414
Posted:I've been waiting for the correct thread to appear to post this song in. I was originally going to do a video to it but...meh. shrug

It is by a rapper called Immortal Technique and contains naughty words. Its on my website: Clicky clicky


Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:That's one thing I love about Hop, I usually learn something every time I come here. For instance, I'd never heard of a fruitarian before, so I went a-googling and came up with This lovely website that appears to be telling me that I'm somehow compromised in my role as a human being by not following their lifestyle. Maybe they're right, maybe my urge to punch the author of that website does come from my carnivorous diet, maybe I should have an imported, out of season apple and just chill out.

but in the theme of upsetting plants by eating them, do fruitarians eat only local ( fresh and preserved ) fruit and save the seeds for re planting later ? The reason I'm asking is I'm curious as to how the trees that produced that fruit in the first place might react to the thoughts that their " babies" might be denied a chance of living a full, rooted life as they fulfill their destiny to grow just that much closer to the sun and Mother Nature.

Don't seeds deserve life too ? Somebody has to speak up for the unborn generation of future trees, especially in this day and age of impending disaster due to global warming, frutarians might just be murdering our future saviours.

Frutarians would do well to get off their soapboxes ( fruitboxes? ) and convert to the only true "moral" diet, which is scavenging for things already dead. In the fall, the leaves from apple trees make an excellent salad, and might be supplemented with some of the kelp that's washed up on the beach in the last storm and there's another dead sea lion, about 500 pounds worth, rotting down there too..that's meat though, and may make the person who consumes it spiritually/intellectually inept, like the website says.

Remember, every time you spit a seed into the compost, somewhere, a tree weeps with anguish. frown

Hummm..for some reason, the Google toolbar spellchecker doesn't recognize the word fruitarian, and offers the word fruiterers as an option


Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


*cough*




Oh yeah, forgot about them. Who chows down on delicious sponge then?

 Written by: Birgit


sponges are cool. You can take 2 of different colours and pass them through sieves, and they will reassemble with sponge bits of their own colour!


Wait a minute... did my housemate tell you that?!

 Written by: Birgit


so I suppose to them it was not "can it experience pain?", but "does it suffer pain because of us wanting to eat it", and since it didn't, they ate it.

yey freegans! :o)


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


 Written by: jeff(fake)


*cough*




Oh yeah, forgot about them. Who chows down on delicious sponge then?



*cough*

I've crossed the line from jerk to asshat.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted:I meant which humans.
You're nearly out of asshat territory and now entering bum-eyes land... wink


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: The Tea Fairy


What about the really simple organisms with simple, or absent, nervous systems? (shrimps, insects, crabs etc)

I understand where Dream is coming from, where do we draw the line? (yay for anthropology!! biggrin )



It's impossible to say exactly where the line is drawn, but it definitly lies between cows/pigs/chickens and plants smile

Futhermore, even if plants were capable of suffering in anything the way an animal is, vegetarianism would still be more compassionate than meat eating because-

animal production requires plant deaths (for animal feed) and, the amount of plants that have to die to feed a human on meat is considerably (around x 10 I believe) more than the number of plants that have to die to feed the human in a vegatarian way.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


Wait a minute... did my housemate tell you that?!




Nah, it was my zoology prof. Though he would've been a nice source for useless knowledge. He knew a lot about pissing off bees, too.

And for stout:

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/ethical.html
br>
 Written by: that website there


Conventional ethical vegan, code name HX, notes that eating vegetables seems to be 'violent' as it requires killing innocent vegetables. HX thinks that eating fruit does not involve killing, hence is preferable. Thus HX thinks that fruitarianism is the ultimate diet.

(...)

Further, by questioning consumption of vegetables, HX appears to be considering fruitarianism in its most extreme form - 100% fruit, no veggies, and presumably no seeds either, as they are life forms as well.



"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Well you' can't say that the website I posted isn't lacking in dramatic appeal, however the living-foods website does have a more real world outlook. I especially like the part about modern fruits being, well,,,freaks



I'm heavily influenced by Mother Nature, if she sees fit to kill her creations on a whim, (hurricanes, forest fires), I can't see a problem with me doing the same, only I actually eat what I kill.



So it's 1:30 pm and a beautiful day, so I'm going to grab the fly rod and head out to the wilderness and harvest a few tasty trout, just the way nature intended. Too bad about the suffering and death that may occur, but foraging for berries just doesn't provide the spiritual experience that I crave. ( yay for anthropology )



Edit: no luck fishing, not even a nibble. In the natural world, this would have been a problem as it would have meant no food. Good thing there's the organic fruit and veggie market.



Evolution is based on things eating other things, literally, for a living, and as products of that evolution, I see it as only natural that we kill and eat other things. i understand the want to not be cruel to animals, most of us can relate to them as warm feeling creatures that are capable of displaying emotions we are familiar with..fair enough.



But plants?? no way, plants evolved to be food, millions of species rely on destroying plants for their survival humans included. So what about the plants "emotional state" and not wanting to be "cruel" to it by killing and eating it, why worry about it ? other than to explore the upper echelons of flakiness I can't see fruitism ( or speciesism ) as even remotely useful philosophies to help chart the course of your life.



Do bacteria scream in agony when their cell walls are ripped apart, and they're literally eviscerated alive only to be flushed to a dark smelly grave when you flush your toilet after cleaning it? Does that mould have a right to exist in your carpet?



This is way different from loving your plants in a gardening sense this is really up there on the flakey scale, this is uberflakey !!

EDITED_BY: Stout (1170296911)


Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: owd

It's impossible to say exactly where the line is drawn, but it definitly lies between cows/pigs/chickens and plants



My point is that the line is arbitrary as we don't know what it 'feels like' to be either a cow or a tree. Lines are drawn on this issue in many different places by many different people.

Drawing a single line, and saying that cows/pigs chickens are on the sufficiently similar to human to not eat side would suggest that you cast moral aspersions at tribal herdsmen and hunters.

 Written by:

even if plants were capable of suffering in anything the way an animal is, vegetarianism would still be more compassionate than meat eating because-

animal production requires plant deaths (for animal feed) and, the amount of plants that have to die to feed a human on meat is considerably (around x 10 I believe) more than the number of plants that have to die to feed the human in a vegatarian way.



How many plants does it take to feed an oyster?

Furthermore - there are areas of land where the soil is unsuitable for arable crops, but will sustain patchy grasses with which humans can feed animals but not themselves.

Making universal assertions on these matters is fairly muddy... While many ideas apply well to the UK, abstract them to a global level and they have problems.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

jo_rhymes
jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops
Member Since: 10th Apr 2005
Total posts: 4525
Posted:Sy, you should be prime minister.

Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: dream


 Written by: owd

It's impossible to say exactly where the line is drawn, but it definitly lies between cows/pigs/chickens and plants



My point is that the line is arbitrary as we don't know what it 'feels like' to be either a cow or a tree. Lines are drawn on this issue in many different places by many different people.

Drawing a single line, and saying that cows/pigs chickens are on the sufficiently similar to human to not eat side would suggest that you cast moral aspersions at tribal herdsmen and hunters.


Logicians should note the argument from final consequences logical falacy. What we label tribal hunter is irrelevent to the issue of whether eating cows and pigs is moral.

 Written by: dream


 Written by: OWD

even if plants were capable of suffering in anything the way an animal is, vegetarianism would still be more compassionate than meat eating because-

animal production requires plant deaths (for animal feed) and, the amount of plants that have to die to feed a human on meat is considerably (around x 10 I believe) more than the number of plants that have to die to feed the human in a vegatarian way.



How many plants does it take to feed an oyster?

Furthermore - there are areas of land where the soil is unsuitable for arable crops, but will sustain patchy grasses with which humans can feed animals but not themselves.

Making universal assertions on these matters is fairly muddy... While many ideas apply well to the UK, abstract them to a global level and they have problems.


It would take a very large number of plants to feed an oyster, as the food it requires required plankton whilst alive. Basic ecology.

I'm not sure you've understood OWD's point, although I would correct him that he's thinking about trophic energy levels rather than numbers. The sheep would eat the grass themselves, resulting in a morally inefficent system compared to a hypothetical strictly aggrigultural one, which would be OWD's point. The fact that arable crops can't live every where is pretty much irrelevent to his argument since you could grow enough in different regions.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:hug
Jo



 Written by: Jeff

It would take a very large number of plants to feed an oyster, as the food it requires required plankton whilst alive. Basic ecology.



Indeed Jeff. Basic Ecology. Unfortunately unless bacteria are now classified as plants you're wrong. Perhaps you were misled by the taxon phytoplankton - from Greek: plankton meaning wanderer and phyton meaning plant.

 Written by: wiki

phytoplankton encompass all autotrophic microorganisms in aquatic foodwebs. They serve as the base of the marine food chain, providing an essential ecological function for all aquatic life. However, unlike the situation on land, where most autotrophs are plants, phytoplankton are a diverse group, incorporating protistan eukaryotes and both eubacterial and archaebacterial prokaryotes.

In terms of numbers, the most important groups of phytoplankton include the diatoms, cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, although many other groups of algae are represented. One group, the coccolithophorids, is responsible (in part) for the release of significant amounts of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) into the atmosphere. DMS is converted to sulfate and these sulfate molecules act as cloud condensation nuclei, increasing general cloud cover. In oligotrophic oceanic regions such as the Sargasso Sea or the South Pacific, phytoplankton is dominated by the small sized cells, called picoplankton, mostly composed of cyanobacteria (Prochlorococcus, Synechococcus) and picoeucaryotes such as Micromonas




 Written by: Jeff

The sheep would eat the grass themselves, resulting in a morally inefficent system compared to a hypothetical strictly aggrigultural one, which would be OWD's point. The fact that arable crops can't live every where is pretty much irrelevent to his argument since you could grow enough in different regions



No you seem to have misunderstood me. Claiming that you could hypothetically feed everyone arable crops if there existed a universal global transportation system (to get the food to people where arable crops cannot grow) is well and good but makes little difference to the situation of a Mongolian nomadic herdsmen. A universal set of morals which looks down on said herdsman for not living in your fantasy world seems a touch unfair on him. You become a morally superior person to him because you live in an affluent country.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

_Clare_
_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast
Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002
Total posts: 5967
Posted: Written by: jo_rhymes



Sy, you should be prime minister.





ubblol





Yep... too true



And because I sent you a present today, I reckon I should get some cushty job when you do...



Cash/presents for honours et al....



smile


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Page: 123...9

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [vegetarianism plant* feeling*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Your nickname, and you, your feelings and your friends! [120 replies]
2. Forums > A story of feelings true. [34 replies]
3. Forums > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too [267 replies]
4. Forums > feeling down and expressing feelings [5 replies]
5. Forums > Nice Feelings [24 replies]

     Show more..