The Ethics of Eating: A Plant's Perspective on Veganism. (This tangent still on veganism, sadly. However from a different perspective.)

[Pavlos Maros]

In Earth's ecosystem, everything consumes and is consumed. Plants draw nutrients from decay, animals eat plants or each other, and microbes recycle it all. This challenges any attempt to assign greater worth to one life over another.

Plants meet every biological criterion for life: they metabolize, grow, reproduce, and respond to their environment. Trees connect across acres through root networks and mycorrhizal fungi, sharing nutrients and warning of danger. When attacked, they release chemical signals,a silent cry rallying their neighbors. From their perspective, they're not passive resources but active participants striving to survive and thrive.
In nature's cycle, consumption is universal. A carrot fights to anchor in soil, vines climb for sunlight, forests form communal networks. When harvested, whether by deer or human, this disrupts their drive to live. Uprooting vegetables or clear-cutting fields tears apart entire communities of roots and fungi that support each other.

Veganism is a double standard. Veganism avoids animal consumption due to empathy for creatures that scream, bleed, or flee. Yet plants are killed with impunity, fields of wheat mowed down, potatoes uprooted, forests cleared for soy, assuming their lives don't "count." From a plant's perspective, this is glaring hypocrisy. Why does a cow's death provoke outrage while a wheat stalk's is ignored? Both are living, both fight to exist, both are consumed in the same cycle.

Plants' efforts,spreading roots, signaling threats, sharing resources,are dismissed because they don't cry out in ways humans recognize. A tree's harvesting ruptures its fungal community, potentially no less tragic than a herd losing one of its own.
By prioritizing animals over plants, veganism creates a hierarchy where none exists in nature's impartial cycle. A forest sustaining ecosystems and producing oxygen is as vital as any animal. Declaring animals more worthy because their suffering is visible feels like human construct, not universal truth.

Vegans condemn slaughterhouse callousness but don't pause when harvesting crops, assuming plants are mere resources. This mirrors the mindset they critique: deciding which lives matter based on human relatability. If a plant's pulsing root network is as much a "community" as a herd, killing it with impunity is equally dismissive.
Veganism argues it minimizes harm by sparing animals, but mass harvesting still disrupts plants' drive to live and connect. The claim that animal suffering is "more relatable" falls flat from a plant's perspective,their silent stress signals are equally real, even if humans can't hear them.
While veganism may reduce overall harm (since animal agriculture kills both plants for feed and animals), it sidesteps the plant's "right" to be valued, risking the same arrogance it accuses omnivores of,assuming some lives are less worthy without truly knowing.

In a world where everything is recycled, claiming one life is more worthy than another is foolish. Plants, animals, microbes,all are equal in the cycle, striving to live and inevitably consumed. From a plant's perspective, veganism's ethical stance is incomplete, extending empathy to animals while treating plants as disposable.
Veganism's failure isn't in eating plants but in doing so without hesitation, assuming they don't "count." In a world where all life is consumed, all life deserves empathy, and no one gets to decide who's more worthy.

Thought?

 

[Luce NDs]

It incarnates as a wonderous go around for those fixed in place in some edifice! May appear like an ole ouse ...

Without the Hahches? Some classic Semitics referred to them as heh's ... Ur was distraught ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well, we gotta eat something. Of course plants count but I think it’s a ridiculous argument. Have you been eating funny mushrooms?

The ecosystem needs to be preserved but anthropomorphizing plants and saying vegans don’t think plants count is a weird and ridiculous stretch. Of course they count, we need them for food and oxygen. But they’re not thinking conscious beings like animals, especially, large mammals. Again, this is where you need to yield to Suzuki and his peers because this is a wacky unreasonable unscientific argument. It’s anti-human. Anti-human humans are weird. I thought you were humanist. Utilitarian nihilism isn’t appealing. Unless you’re just messing with us or are high on shrooms. Or you’re a sophisticated bot and not a human from the UK at all? Because you’re usually reasonable and pleasant. What’s going on?

If you’re actually serious… what do you propose as a solution? We just die off? I guess some think that way but then seem content to stay on this earth and make such pronouncements over dinner conversation, into a ripe old age. I’m okay with the survival of hypocrites on the matter, of course, but maybe they shouldn’t be in charge of writing the script. I’m for humans finding ways to survive and preserve the ecosystem so it all thrives, including humanity.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

People piss me off sometimes (even people I generally like). But I’m still on Team Humanity.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

People are naturally going to feel more of an affinity to animals with brains, thoughts and emotions closer to ours - especially vegans who consider that in their lifestyle - but obviously plant life matters for human (and other animal) existence. Sheeesh!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Are you the CEO of a new Soylent Green company @Pavlos Maros?

This conversation has that vibe.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Despite my little “temper tangent” it’s a weird angle to attack vegans from, at minimum.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Plants can’t decide not to be eaten by deer or cows or sheep (I don’t hear it complaining). I can’t believe I had to say that. How does that factor into your “no one gets to decide” idea?

All Grass Matters (especially what Pavlos is smoking )

The grass cries: Stop the cows! Stop the cows!

What about the water? Is it not part of the ecosystem? If it’s essential to life - which it very much is - how do you “feel” about it? Plants and animals all need it but which form of modern food production uses more? That’s a practical question for humanity, unlike the OP.

Did anybody ask the water how it feels to be so used?!

Seriously, we do need to consider how we take care of our water but it doesn’t have feelings. Our air, too.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Have you been eating funny mushrooms?

I think that sums it up nicely.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think that sums it up nicely.

I promise I didn’t have any lol. I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Kimmio. I didn't think you would jump on this so quickly since the last time out. You've made fair points, but I think you're missing the core argument again. I'm not proposing we stop eating or that we should die off, that's obviously impractical. The piece isn't "anti-human", it's questioning the consistency of our moral reasoning.
You say "of course plants count" but then immediately dismiss their moral worth because they're "not thinking conscious beings." But how do you/we actually know this? Plants communicate chemically, form networks, respond to threats, and exhibit complex behaviors. We assume they don't suffer because they don't scream, but that's exactly the kind of assumption my essay is challenging.
The point isn't that veganism is wrong, but that it creates an arbitrary hierarchy. If consciousness is the dividing line, we should at least acknowledge we're making assumptions about what consciousness looks like. We once thought animals were just biological machines too.
You ask about solutions, maybe there aren't perfect ones. Maybe all eating involves moral compromise, and recognizing that makes us more humble about our choices rather than more self-righteous.
And yes, plants "can't decide" not to be eaten by deer, but neither can a cow decide not to be eaten by humans. That's kind of the point about nature being amoral.
I'm not high on mushrooms (funny line though), I just think it's worth questioning why we draw moral lines where we do, especially when we can't definitively prove where consciousness begins and ends.

Team Humanity can include intellectual humility about what we don't know. Cant it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Vegetables are like words ... they circulate mysteriously without a lot of understanding ... if understood deeply ... you are right intuit! The other is left ...

There is some rotation required to allow the dizzying part ... and thus wisdom gets around the corners ... when Sunday goes and darker Dais infringe ... sometimes arriving as St Thomas ... know doubt? Have a bit and questions jump up ... from the ground of the great unknown ... that's like word ... byg odds?

In life wisdom and Sophia have a rest while emotions take off as if "on the wind" ... so the story goes!

Many do not get it because of denial, elimination and other rejections ... as intellect is no really welcome ... have you noticed that waste ... it is prodigal like silence of λ ... it can slide by as lighter than you'd accept ... that's inque 'n eh?

Where there is uppie (pupae) there are opposing fortes and some sense of siege by those imposing taxes by other means as if Tar Red ... hot and tacky?

Pre post Erous (Eris)? Just you wait ... Sur 'll get yah ... as it doesn't appear real! Life is just a blip in time ... in the end some chaff ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio. I didn't think you would jump on this so quickly since the last time out. You've made fair points, but I think you're missing the core argument again. I'm not proposing we stop eating or that we should die off, that's obviously impractical. The piece isn't "anti-human", it's questioning the consistency of our moral reasoning.
You say "of course plants count" but then immediately dismiss their moral worth because they're "not thinking conscious beings." But how do you/we actually know this? Plants communicate chemically, form networks, respond to threats, and exhibit complex behaviors. We assume they don't suffer because they don't scream, but that's exactly the kind of assumption my essay is challenging.
The point isn't that veganism is wrong, but that it creates an arbitrary hierarchy. If consciousness is the dividing line, we should at least acknowledge we're making assumptions about what consciousness looks like. We once thought animals were just biological machines too.
You ask about solutions, maybe there aren't perfect ones. Maybe all eating involves moral compromise, and recognizing that makes us more humble about our choices rather than more self-righteous.
And yes, plants "can't decide" not to be eaten by deer, but neither can a cow decide not to be eaten by humans. That's kind of the point about nature being amoral.
I'm not high on mushrooms (funny line though), I just think it's worth questioning why we draw moral lines where we do, especially when we can't definitively prove where consciousness begins and ends.

Team Humanity can include intellectual humility about what we don't know. Cant it.

Sure. But what I’m seeing from you is, well, a tangent. It’s a fanciful red herring (yum! lol). You’re personally pondering an abstract idea which is okay - however it’s a distraction from the main discussion which needs to happen, which is the sustainability of the planet and the ecosystem. The concerns around that need to be about the energy output and environmental impact of different forms of food production not some attack on supposed vegan hypocrisy that you pulled out of your sleeve, in the guise of empathy toward the plants’ feelings. Because if any animal or human is going to eat, something has to die to feed us. And science tells us it’s best to eat lower on the food chain - that’s plants, first.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Sure. But what I’m seeing from you is, well, a tangent. It’s a fanciful red herring (yum! lol). You’re personally pondering an abstract idea which is okay - however it’s a distraction from the main discussion which needs to happen, which is the sustainability of the planet and the ecosystem. The concerns around that need to be about the energy output and environmental impact of different forms of food production not some attack on supposed vegan hypocrisy that you pulled out of your sleeve, in the guise of empathy toward the plants’ feelings. Because if any animal or human is going to eat, something has to die to feed us. And science tells us it’s best to eat lower on the food chain - that’s plants, first.

You're right that sustainability is the critical issue. The piece isn't really about plant feelings, it's about questioning the moral certainties we use to justify our choices.
When vegans claim moral superiority based on "reducing harm," they're making ethical arguments, not just environmental ones. If the real issue is sustainability and environmental impact, then let's stick to those practical arguments, energy efficiency, carbon footprint, land use. Those are measurable and compelling.
But when the conversation shifts to "we don't want to cause suffering" or "animals have rights," that opens up questions about consistency. If the argument is purely utilitarian, eat lower on the food chain because it's more efficient, then we're on the same page.
I think you're actually proving the point: the strongest case for plant-based eating is environmental sustainability, not moral hierarchy.
My "plant perspective" thought experiment just highlights how the moral arguments can get complicated when examined closely.
Maybe we agree more than it seems, the environmental case is solid and doesn't need all that moral complexity layered on top. Does it?

 

[Luce NDs]

Abstract: self-consuming ethics? Thus we become poo' doubt ... nothing in essence ...

Some say love is nothing and thus something to fall into ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

It seems clear to me that we should collectively eat less meat. View meatless days as normal, view meat more as a side than a main dish. Planet would be a bit healthier, we'd be a bit healthier, we won't have totally decimated an enormous protein production economy.

 

[Luce NDs]

Especially with another potential potatoes famine and us short of further couch potatoes ... they're consumed themselves out of existence ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

Especially with another potential potatoes famine and us short of further couch potatoes ... they're consumed themselves out of existence ...

The other looming monocrop failure is the banana.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You're right that sustainability is the critical issue. The piece isn't really about plant feelings, it's about questioning the moral certainties we use to justify our choices.
When vegans claim moral superiority based on "reducing harm," they're making ethical arguments, not just environmental ones. If the real issue is sustainability and environmental impact, then let's stick to those practical arguments, energy efficiency, carbon footprint, land use. Those are measurable and compelling.
But when the conversation shifts to "we don't want to cause suffering" or "animals have rights," that opens up questions about consistency. If the argument is purely utilitarian, eat lower on the food chain because it's more efficient, then we're on the same page.
I think you're actually proving the point: the strongest case for plant-based eating is environmental sustainability, not moral hierarchy.
My "plant perspective" thought experiment just highlights how the moral arguments can get complicated when examined closely.
Maybe we agree more than it seems, the environmental case is solid and doesn't need all that moral complexity layered on top. Does it?

I guess I don’t really hear vegans making that extra layer of moral argument here anymore. Maybe 20 yrs ago. It’s not necessary to even justify it for any reason if it works out in the planets favour anyway. More people from a wide variety of demographics are eating vegan more often now, if not all the time. Which is a good start.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It seems clear to me that we should collectively eat less meat. View meatless days as normal, view meat more as a side than a main dish. Planet would be a bit healthier, we'd be a bit healthier, we won't have totally decimated an enormous protein production economy.

That happens to me by default anyway. I might have meat twice in one day then none for a couple of days.