hans

joined 5 months ago
[–] hans@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

otherwise it would be waste after we press the soybean for oil

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

we already feed people soy. but we make a lot more than people want to eat. feeding it to livestock is a conservation of resources

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

if we don't plant soybeans, we won't get soybean oil

[–] hans@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

these papers are years-old. I've read them.

they do not consitute proof that any animal understands personal mortality

[–] hans@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Their 'reactions' to being cut, like the smell of cut grass, are chemical reactions. Not feelings or desires.

all neurological responses are chemical response. you don't know if a plant might experience this like emotions

[–] hans@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

this is not proof crows or elephants understand that they, themselves, might die

it is not evidence at all about the cognitive abilities of turkeys

[–] hans@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

plants don't want to be eaten. animals don't want to be eaten. and the reason for both is the same: we don't have proof they understand the concept

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

somehow I read "beef and dairy". whoops

[–] hans@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

my bad. carry on

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Since we both dont really know for sure, we should probably just

suspend judgement on the claim until there is more evidence.

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

we can't prove a negative. but you are making the claim that requires that they do understand personal mortality, so it is on you to support that claim

[–] hans@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm explaining that "not wanting" something does not require that you even know of that things existence

view more: next ›