I was thinking while walking back from class and watching the giant man sitting atop the exceptionally large lawn mower cutting the grass on the football fields between campus and the dorms I live in. I had on flip-flops and the freshly cut grass caught under my bare feet and between my toes. Like millions of tiny green corpses lined up across the entire football field. This made me wonder, what would it be like if grass could bleed as though it were human? What a mess even a personal push mower would create across a front lawn!
And if the "blood" wasn't green would we even take the trouble to mow? And would we think twice about lopping off the heads of so many tiny organisms, or would we just done more protective clothing so as not to dirty our old work tennis shoes? Doesn't that seem cold? Just lopping off the heads of living things and leaving their bodies to rot atop their, albeit still growing, remains.
I think if we were to view plants as
living sentient organisms then we would see the things we do to them far more brutal and gruesome than the things that happen to animals. Not that I am fore animal cruelty or butchering, but it seems that people that don't eat meat because of the cruel treatment of livestock and instead devour salad after salad after tofu hot dog are, at some level, hypocritical.
We grow plants and harvest them, just as we do livestock. And if those plants were considered living, sentient organism at the same level of animals then why is it okay to massacre them to save the lives of our future cheeseburger?
What is it that makes the "animal" a higher organism than a plant? That it has eyes? That it makes noise? Or is it the complicated way in which the organism is constructed? Perhaps the level of intricacy that is found in an organism is what defines it's level on the hierarchy of nature.
I'm not certain of the answer to this, and I may come back and revise what I'm writing now, but for certain I will continue to devour both plant and animal equally. :D
Posts
6 comments:
Grass doesn't die when you cut. Also it has no central nervous system so it can't feel pain. the grass doesn't really die it gets a haircut
Who is this?
And that doesn't answer my question though. I certainly see with what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but is it the lack of complexities provided by the central nervous system, or is it the absence of pain that justifies dismembering the plant? You can say it's a haircut, but that's because we're comparing it to humans' one painless "appendage." it still is a major portion of the plants structure.
Is this weed inspired? I can kinda see where you are going. But it isn't too logical.
I revised a few things to maybe make this a little more clear.
My overall question is what defines the hierarchy of the animal kingdom? You (assuming both anon posts are the same person) mention the central nervous system, I'm asking is it the presence of the central nervous system or the absence of pain that puts the plant lower.
Don't just say my post is not logical, tell me what I am saying that doesn't make sense. Just saying it's illogical is a pointless comment. :/
How about this? The absence of pain and the non-presence of a central nervous system are the same thing. And nothing defines the hierarchy of life (if there even is one.) If there was definition to it, then vegans and people like peter singer would be just plain silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singe
Post a Comment