Submitted by stagn in AskRaddle (edited )

I do not have a clear idea about this, from superficial research it would seem that bivalves do not have a central nervous system and cannot feel pain(there is no definite evidence that they do not feel pain) and their breeding is quite environmentally sustainable, is this true? opinions? After so many years of "strict" veganism adding some portion of oysters and similar in the alimentation can be considered equally ethical?

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

rattledlove1139 wrote (edited )

I say this before so maybe sound like record but i do not know if pain is the best metric for choosing veganism because studies on animals pain and emotion in general still fairly new, and same for plant life - maybe things (types of animal or plant) we thought can't feel pain actually DO just in whole unique way that we do not have capacity understand. And still at point where human workers involved, who also definitely feel pain whether slaughter or pick or transport. But not possible to live very long when just eat nothing so some point need decide what to eat even if know this causes pain

Sorry not have answer on sustainability, sustainable food is kind of hard to know sometimes because food popularity = food demand = usually more harmful methods and production, and "sustainable" probably does not count measures like transport and package/display.
But i guess whether you should depends on circumstance (missing nutrients? difficulty access food? how YOU feel?) and if this is best solution or not. Maybe... Maybe not

7

stagn OP wrote

I dont agree with the argument that "even carrots suffer" devouring a freshly harvested carrot is not the same thing as Kill with bites a calf who writhes screams and bleeds. Being able to choose what to eat, I still have to understand how to minimize the suffering caused by my diet.

And I would like to understand to what extent the bivalves suffer, assuming that I am at sea and I find some clams, does it make sense to eat them or am I just causing useless suffering? And if I don't eat the clams "so as not to make them suffer" what's the point of squashing hundreds of insects (which suffer as much or more than the clams) on the windshield of the car while I go to buy some bread that has caused the death of countless insects and animals anyway? (I don't drive and I never use the car, I just gave an example to give you an idea)

5

rattledlove1139 wrote

I do not think necessarily the actual plant "body" we eat feels pain but there is no saying for sure yet that actual plant can not feel any pain. Plants move and communicate too, just not in ways that we or other animals relate with. If that is true then what else?

I am not sure what you ask, it feels like you have already come to conclusion all things to eat will create suffering. Even you say (which is true) about insect killers and machine accidents. And as i say human workers will hurt from much of production too. There is trauma and physical pain in force jobs, whether slaughter or harvest crop or transport, because this how majority of job system and food system exists right now: horrible cruel conditions. Those pains different but all still happen.

But what is useless about feeding self? All animals want to, try very hardest to... this is how life exist at all. It is OK to think and make choices with human mind but at some point there can be too much worry. If you want, do. If you don't want, don't. Metrics of pain and suffering not easy to see from outside either, and i still think should not be main base for veganism. That is road to unhealthy obsession because so much cruelty in every realm of food production.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

And still at point where human workers involved, who also definitely feel pain whether slaughter or pick or transport.

I think, on a topic about veganism, the suffering of human workers is the least important, miserable thing

2

rattledlove1139 wrote

I do not understand what mean

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

I wanted to say that, in my opinion, no suffering of human workers even comparable to the suffering of animals being borne, living and dying in a state of constant torture, so it shouldn't ever be a matter on a topic about veganism

6

rattledlove1139 wrote

I do not know if really agree irrelevant, suffering is not "better" just because have some understanding in situation, and should care for affected humans too. Even relief human workers may get do not negate how much suffer in rest of that time.
Whole food and job system need to change, until bigger and better changes set in there is suffering all over. Unless can 100% provide for self but that is not really viable position right now for almost everyone.
I have my goals too (maybe when less tired i will talk more about my wishes for how things could be) but right now need to focus on eating disorder first. So unfortunately for me goals DO need wait. I wish could just say "I caused no suffering" but regardless choice I can not, I make peace with that

2

moonlune wrote

because studies on animals pain and emotion in general still fairly new

There's no need for studies, it's pretty obvious that animals feel pain and plants don't, you just don't want to look at the facts. And if you've suddenly become a science worshipper, well there actually are studies.

And still at point where human workers involved, who also definitely feel pain whether slaughter or pick or transport.

Workers get PTSD working at slaughterhouses. They don't get PTSD picking vegetables. Again, you're just giving yourself excuses.

0

rattledlove1139 wrote

There is no need be hostile. I do not even say veganism useless or anything I only say there is more than look at "who suffers" because there is suffering all over.

I am not science worshipper I just state we don't know everything. Plant communication and intricacies is not something that anyone fully understand yet, just because not hear plants scream do not mean no pain. I do not always scream or react to pain, does NOT mean i do not feel it.

People do get PTSD when set to work in abusive conditions which lots of fields are as well. People forced to work in near deadly heat and worse is we do not hear about most this because "illegal immigrants" do not have right to report anything about their abuses in "official manner". It is more than just "kill is trauma, pick is not" - inherently yes killing is much more trauma than picking. But conditions around harvest also VERY important remember.

5

moonlune wrote

You don't know everything, k whatever. But on this topic, I know and I tell you you're wrong.

−1

256 wrote (edited )

There is no need be hostile.

The Militant Vegan discourse.

there is suffering all over.

Same energy as 'Striking is bad, because suffering exists', following that would render any resistance to human climate impacts baseless - an ideology of trauma reproduction.

plant suffering (science)

The questioned existence of plant suffering does not matter for the question of ethical consideration for non-human animals. Killing a cow, because legumes might feel suffering too, does not compute.

perpetrator's suffering

I see a pattern here: Others' suffering does not make producing intentional, unnecessary and avoidable suffering ethical. It is still immoral to kill a boar for fun when you live in an autonomous anarchist space.

−1

rattledlove1139 wrote

I do not understand what that means. Name calling and saying i make excuses (I am living with eating disorder and i should not need say this just so anyone take seriously) is hostile. It would be hostile if i did that too.

Not sure people understand what i say when i bring up possible plant suffering. I say that means suffering is not best measure to decide veganism because at some point may be found true that all life we eat suffers, not just animals. Even without that possibility, human workers suffer too, in lots of harvest situations are inhumane conditions preying on vulnerable people. Therefore to make no suffering in food choices would need to not eat at all which is not really productive diet, because suffering baked into system. That is ALL i say and not understand why people keep thinking i say things I do not!

I think more about earth health and opportunity. And being grateful for whatever food is available, for all life (plant, animal, human) that give something up so i could eat another day. i do not have choice just become vegan but I want to be able eat thoughtfully and support world where others do same, eating much less or no animal product. I have not once say suffer is good ethical or veganism is useless just that this one way of measuring is faulty.

5

Bezotcovschina wrote

Have no opinion. When I try to think about it - it inevitably brings up my struggle with accepting the pain and harm I do to plants, and mushrooms and the planet anyway. Basically, what rattledlove said.

So, I prefer to keep things as it is, keeping plant-based diet and feeling a bit bad about my inability to make things clear and uncontradictory for myself.

6

moonlune wrote

I was vegan for 5 years and started eating oysters and mussels, because I learned that my veganism is not the dogmatic avoidance of everything animal but the dogmatic avoidance of causing suffering.

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I eat mussels and oysters for B12, vitamin D, and DHA/EPA oils.

When possible, I forage them myself. There's an invasive European mussel here that is abundant and crowds out indigenous varieties, people focus on foraging those.

For me in my context I think it's generally more ethical than buying vitamins, for reasons similar to those outlined in this old post.

6

Fool wrote

I suggest eating the muscles as well as other parts of humans - go Anthropo'arian!

🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🍴🐿️

6

Syzygy wrote

Personally, I see no reason to seek justifications or excuses to consume an animal when I call myself a vegan. It doesn't matter how ethical or sustainable it may be. It's something I refuse to do. There's certainly a level of hypocrisy in how I get my vegan food, as it is probably somehow unethical, unsustainable, or illustratively harmful. But that's a hypocrisy I'm entirely content with. Decide for yourself if the hypocrisy of veganism and eating an animal is something you're content with.

5

stagn OP wrote

All products derived from agriculture cause the death of countless animals and insects, the chemicals kill many insects (which apparently are more sentient and suffer more than mussels), plus all earthworms and small rodents .. which die during the various mechanized processes , plus the fury that farmers have towards some wild animals such as boars.

How can vegan be truly vegan with the huge amount of animals and insects killed to produce plant foods?

4

256 wrote

Why is the insufficiency of agriculture a reason against veganism and for more suffering?

2

stagn OP wrote

I'm trying to figure out if occasionally eating bivalves can be an exception to suffering, that doesn't dispute the fact that other animal products are a huge source of suffering more than agriculture. Summarizing what I understand, it is not clear if bivalves suffer but it is clear that they have a simpler nervous system than insects so if they suffer they suffer as much or less as a gnat. Eating only wild fruit without hurting any insects is the best thing but unfortunately the reality is a little more complicated. So whereas all agricultural products cause a lot of suffering in various ways including killing a lot of insects (which surely suffer as much or more than bivalves) and also other animals like small rodents and farmers are desperately trying to extinguish wildlife like wild boars. And very few vegans question and give up farm products from the supermarket, eating occasionaly bivalves is this bog cause of sugffering? while the mayority of the "pure" vegan eats only products from the supermarket and kills midges with his car every day ?

4

256 wrote

Do you need to eat bivalves?

I feel like this is not about veganism and more about agriculture. Don't you think vegans want to source their materials without suffering too? This is the inverted 'Vegans are radical'-discourse.

3

NoPotatoes wrote

Personally I have no ethical qualms, but the texture may or may not be a deal breaker for me.

4

256 wrote

Note that the 'Ascetic Veganism' discourse is a common talking point of anti-veganism. It stands next to 'jokes' such as 'Eat Grass!'. Some vegans internalise this discourse and conflate veganism with religious diet regimes.

4

veuzi wrote

I'm not a vegan and my ethics regarding food stops at "eat what you can get", so my opinion may not be worth much to you here. Anyway, importing oysters and mussels from another part of the world obviously isn't sustainable, finding and picking them from the ocean yourself can be. YMMV on the taste and texture though.

3

Majrelende wrote

Animals feel pain, plants feel pain, I don't doubt that mushrooms do, and probably all sorts of microbes.

How natural does it feel to you? I choose what I eat based on this. I cannot imagine myself slaughtering goats, for instance, and thus, because it is unnatural for me, I do not eat goats. Eating greens and fruits and seeds is a completely different case, because it does minimal harm to the plants. Harvesting whole nettle stalks for spinning into yarn, I try to do it carefully so as to hurt the plants minimally. I dig parsnips sparingly and with gravity, but I know that the bare soil will help the next generation to survive.

My suggestion is eat who you can eat without guilt, in the manner you can... and not invalidate any organism's pain for their difference.

3

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Edit: We should live with uninhibited compassion, not eat whoever we wish as long as we can suppress our compassion for that being! I really miscommunicated that, and deserve some of the ridicule that came. Now my response and explanation would be more complex after the discussions that came out of this post.

Having natural emotions means retaining our inclination to compassion and not suppressing it. Speciesism and all other forms of bigotry require the repression of that compassion in order to function.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

Majrelende wrote (edited )

we discuss whether these substances provide any empirical or logical evidence for “plant consciousness”

Consciousness is subjective experience!

You cannot prove by material means whether another organism is conscious or pain-feeling or not; there is no physical evidence. If you doubt this then you are unable to conceive subjectively of consciousness; thus you are either not sufficiently self-aware, or not sentient at all. I believe the former to be a far more likely option.

The decision of who is to be considered conscious or sentient is one made by society; it is a line drawn precisely where it is convenient to draw such a line in order to classify certain beings as objects of no moral consequence, so as to justify the treatment of them as such. Children, slaves, women, etc. have all been put through that objectification.

I cannot objectively prove to you that I subjectively feel (pain), and I do not think I need to do so. It is ridiculous to require the same test (objective, material proof) of plants. Their pain is perhaps not the same as ours, but the assumption is baseless.

5

moonlune wrote

Plants don't have the organs to feel pain.

3

Majrelende wrote

Plants don't have mouths, they have roots and leaves, but we still recognise they eat, even if it is of a radically different sort to our eating.

Let's consider. We have mouths, we seek out nutrients and energy with our limbs and put them in our mouths. Why? Because we don't want to be hungry, and we are pleased by eating.

We also feel pain, and that causes us generally to recoil or escape, because we are animals and we can move. Plants, when they are hurt, begin making new growth at a more rapid rate, and as I understand it, such injuries encourage them to produce toxins in order to deter certain types of herbivory. Isn't that enough like human pain to qualify?

If not, then do butterflies not have wings because their wings aren't the same as bird wings?

4

moonlune wrote

The roots are the organs the plants use to eat. Plants don't have organs for pain.

Projecting only goes so far. Plants aren't animals and don't follow the same biology. Plants do tons of cool stuff, but don't feel pain. It's impossible.

3

Majrelende wrote (edited )

We're approaching this from very different angles. You are looking for an objective measure of pain, and that measure is similarity to the measures that indicate that a human is in pain. But something is obviously happening when a plant is hurt, and neither of us has access to the experiences of plants.

Is that particular experience pain? Because of our lack of access to plant experience, that is a question of belief. You see no reason to believe it is pain; I see no reason to believe it is not. Thus, it is a free choice to have compassion or not have compassion for plants; the question now is the effect of our believing or not believing.

Imagine there are two towns. In one, everyone has compassion for plants; in another, no one does. In the first town, people are careful to only do as much harm to plants as they need; in the other, people take freely, and only have mercy on the plants as far as it benefits them immediately. I think the first will be more beautiful, its people happier and healthier, with less hunger, and as a whole, moving through the world with kindness and grace. Look at the second town, and you have most places in the civilised world.

5

Fool wrote

I think what they're trying to say, is by the doctrine of Science, Pain is defined to be related to a specific form of neuron based process. As such, by their definition of pain any pain like discomfort experienced by plants should have a different name, because it doesn't use the same mechanism.

I'm not saying that Plants cannot be conscious, I'm just trying to discuss why devout believers of Science have a hard time.


Side thought:

In a way, pain would not be beneficial to plants from a survival perspective. As their defences are largely passive or reproductive, and they do not have capability to move away from danger. A disrupting process like pain would just be noise with no benefits to the plant.

Animals that don't feel pain don't tend to survive too long, because it is a self care mechism. On topic, Mollusks with no capability for movement would have no use for pain.

2

moonlune wrote (edited )

I'm really sorry but I can't waste my time on this anymore, try Googling something like "plant tropism pain".

2