Categories
memes MGTOW misogyny

Meme of the Day: “Marriage is an orgy with the dildo-licking woman using the state as a strap-on”

Found this one in the MGTOWChristian subreddit, under the title “I hate the false religion of woman worship.”

You gotta give him points for his very vivid imagination!

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tovius
4 months ago

In off topic news, apparently 2020 has aliens now (allegedly)

https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israeli-space-security-chief-says-aliens-exist-humanity-not-ready-651405

@Dormousing_it

More urgently, I have a loose molar. My dentist is closed, except for emergencies. I hope this counts as an emergency.

I’m sorry to hear that. I hope this will cheer you up.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tovius
Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

@Big Titty Demon : your comment on sacrifice is one of the thing that irk me with vegetarian : how a lot of them don’t understand that I care more about trees than most animals, and about as much about potatoes and carrots than poultry. It’s not like your full vegetarian meals seem any less of a sacrifice to me.

That’s probably linked to the fact that few people realize that plants feel their environments and are just as living. It’s much, much easier to anthropomorphize animals than plants.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

Unrelated to either the comments or the post, but very relevant to the blog :

https://www.prettyscale.com/

That’s pretty much a computer using incels beauty standard to rate photos.

Sheila Crosby
Sheila Crosby
4 months ago

@Full Metal Ox

I suppose it would. It was the church of Our Lady of the Snows, so I suppose you could argue, the Snow Queen.

I’m going to have another try at embeddingcomment image

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@Tovius
I knew this year would end with something weird, so I guess this shouldn’t surprise me. That said, I think the man in the article is making this up, because we all know that if there was a Galactic Federation Trump would spill the beans instantly on Twitter regardless of what the aliens said. 98 shekels is about US$30, so I’m somewhat tempted to buy his book just to see what other weird stuff is in it (though the shipping might be more expensive).

Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
4 months ago

@Big Titty Demon: I COULD give up meat. You’re quite correct. I’ve been flirting with it for some time now. I’ve been experimenting with meatless dishes, trying to keep my meat servings down.

I’m going to put a trigger warning here, for an animal’s traumatic death.

My old boss, Bill, was an avid hunter. Keep that in mind… He was driving, when he saw a deer get hit by a car. He immediately pulled over. Another car pulled up next to his. They both had the same idea – finish the deer off, for the meat. They had their knives at the ready. I understand you’re supposed to slit the animal’s throat, and drain its blood?

When Bill told me this story, I was shocked, but I don’t know why he would lie about something like this. It blows my mind that they had the tools at the ready to butcher a large animal.

Anyway, I decided I was in no position to be critical. I’m a meat eater, and farming animals for their meat is much crueler than hunting for sport, IMO.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ ohlmann

I care more about trees than most animals

You raise an interesting point.

However plant based diets ironically also save plants (and trees). Meat production overall is between 3 and 12% efficient. That is to say, it takes 100 kCals of plants to produce 3 kCals of beef or 12 kCals of chicken.

As a result, only about half of the crop production on earth is actually eaten by humans (in the US it’s only 27%)

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

And as for trees, meat production is the major driver of deforestation. The land is either used to graze cattle directly, or produce animal fodder. It’s not just indigenous people people being exterminated in the Amazon; the trees are going too.

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by Alan Robertshaw
Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
4 months ago

@Tovius: Thanks. My loose tooth doesn’t hurt, until I try to use it for what it’s designed to do.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ dormousing_it

Sorry to hear about your dental woes. Have some pictures of your namesakes living the dream.

comment image

comment image

comment image

Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
4 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw: Aaaaawww, thanks! I’ve only ever seen videos & pics of dormice, since they’re not native to North America. I hear their environment is under threat in the UK. How about a trade – raccoons for dormice? If only that was possible.

As discussed, farming animals for their meat takes a big toll on the environment. A diet heavy in meat supposedly isn’t good for your health, either. That should be all the encouragement necessary for me to drop meat. I guess old habits die hard. I enjoy just about ALL food. I don’t know if that’s a blessing, or a curse.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ dormousing_it

There is a theory that the Romans introduced dormice to Britain. Honeyed dormouse was a popular snack with them.

Like so many animals though, they are under threat as we intrude on their natural environment. There was an interesting experiment a while back though. They tagged 50 dormice to see how they were affected by farming. Only one ended up in a combine harvester. About half of them seemed to be victims of natural predation. Although there is an issue as to whether farming destroys the cover they normally hide in.

I’d love raccoons here. However they banned their import a few years back. Must be a Brexit thing.

I did track some down locally though. They have a family at our local Screech Owl Sanctuary. I did point out that the name made it less than obvious they would have racoons.

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
4 months ago

According to Wikipedia, the one native species of dormouse found in Britain is this:

Hazel dormouse – Wikipedia

This one is introduced in a small area in Britain (I guess most animals are technically edible, but this species was clearly named to spite Alan):

Edible dormouse – Wikipedia

This one, not found in Britain, has a nice raccoon style eye mask:

Garden dormouse – Wikipedia

(Despite the map, garden dormouse is actually recently extinct in Finland, aside from maybe one or two spots in the area that was ceded to Russia during WWII)

In Finnish, these species have names that translate as “hazel mouse”, “oak mouse” etc., but the edible dormouse, and by extension the whole dormouse family, is called unikeko, literally “heap of sleep”.

North Sea Sparkly Dragon
North Sea Sparkly Dragon
4 months ago

@Lumipuna,

I’m a heap of sleep, I might have to change my name to unikeko. I’m attempting to learn Finnish, so that I can visit my friend in Northern Finland and at least manage to be polite.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

Edible dormouse

If I was a dormouse I would be seriously annoyed with taxonomists.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

Dormousing : in all honesty, most westerner eat *way* too much meat. I have litteraly divided it by three without problem, and as a french I already eated a lot less than an american.

Not really a vegan vs meat eater thing however in my opinion. You don’t even need to change your recipe all that much, most work just as well with a smaller portion anyhow.

And if the environmental cost of meat bother you, be sure of also checking from where the thing you eat come. I say that because the other thing I cutted a ton from my diet is pineapple and bananas, which often come by airplane to France, and so have an absolutely comical ecological load to them (according to simulation, ten time more than beef just because I eat french beef but there isn’t a ton of french pineapple). Of course, it depend on your region.

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
4 months ago

Dormousing it and North Sea Sparkly Dragon,

(More info gleaned from Finnish Wikipedia)

Unikeko was historically coined as a Finnish term for the “sleepers” in the Christian myth of Seven Sleepers. The association between these and dormice probably originated later when Finnish scholars began inventing names for foreign animals.

Seven Sleepers’ Day – Wikipedia

In modern Finnish, unikeko also means “sleepyhead”, as an affectionately mocking term. The abovementioned Christian memorial day of Seven Sleepers is somewhat well known in Finland due to one local tradition in the southwestern town of Naantali:

National Sleepy Head Day – Wikipedia

Slightly more detailed version in Finnish, with pictures:

Unikeonpäivä (Naantali) – Wikipedia

Last edited 4 months ago by Lumipuna
.45
.45
4 months ago

@Dormousing_it

I’ve never butchered anything, but it is strange to me how many people don’t carry a knife. How do you cut things?

I generally carry two knives on my person (both are of legal size for my area), and in my car there are three knives, and for that matter a hatchet present. (Larger knife not legal to carry on person and a multitool in bug out bag type thing in trunk, and one of those emergency knives with the seatbelt cutter and glass breaker in the center console.)

So yeah, I am in a position to deliver a mercy killing to a severely injured animal on the side of the road, though I would feel bad about doing it.

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@Ohlmann

in all honesty, most westerner eat *way* too much meat.

I don’t want to sound or imply that I am morally superior or anything like that, but I have noticed that people do eat a lot of meat. I’ve been a vegetarian for most of my life, but even before that I didn’t eat meat often, it was a once a week to once a month type of thing. Then I heard other people talk about “meatless Monday” and was surprised that people eat meat every day.

@.45
In my case, I don’t carry a knife because I don’t really need to cut things much when I’m out and about. Maybe it’s a locational thing, but I just don’t often find myself in situations where it would be useful. As for self defense, I find that it’s easier to carry pepper spray or similar.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ ohlmann

And if the environmental cost of meat bother you, be sure of also checking from where the thing you eat come.

You’re quite right to consider transportation when it comes to food.

However transportation is relatively minor factor when it comes to the environmental impact of food. Most of the impact comes from the production methods, not the delivery.

Bringing 1 kCal of plants half way round the world has far less of an environmental impact than bringing 1 kCal of beef two miles up the road.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change-meat-does/

But you’re very correct that there are other factors. For example a lot of processed foods, even vegan ones, contain palm oil; and that can be a nightmare for orang-utans.

.45
.45
4 months ago

@Naglfar

A dinky little pocket knife as I carry would be useless for self defense. For one thing I’d never get it out of my pocket in time.

As for cutting things open or whatever, I find nothing causes such a need like not having a knife handy. It always seems like the instant I have to go without for entering an area like a theme park or airport, I am suddenly confronted with some kind of packaging that takes five minutes of struggle to open with bare hands, but could be sliced open in a flash with a knife.

At work, where opening boxes and things is practically our way of life, I am often asked to cut things or “Can I borrow your cutty-thing?”

Naturally we are only to use approved box cutters that in a Catch 22 are usually not made in sufficient quantities to supply all the stores. I’m not kidding when I say we usually finally receive a couple right about the time corporate decides that particular kind is unacceptable for some reason, tells us we can no longer use them and have to order the next new type that we won’t receive for two years.

It goes without saying that despite efforts by district staff to come in and say we HAVE to use something that literally isn’t available, most of us use whatever we want in complete violation of policy. The women tend to grab whatever vaguely sharp metal object is handy, the men usually have knives that the rules forbid them to have in the workplace. The joys of working for a corporation…

Paireon
Paireon
4 months ago

…Once again I am left scratching my head as to why so many misogynists are kinda low-rent Time Cube-style wordsmiths. Oh well.

Also, I should eat less meat but I’m a forgetful asshole.

@Naglfar- (OOT) In an earlier comment you mentioned that ancaps tended to naturally transition to monarchists; how is that? I have a hard time wrapping my head around what process makes someone who thinks a 100% deregulated market economy with virtually zero government is a good thing would so easily switch to thinking a socioeconomic system that is highly stratified and geared mostly at funneling wealth to the top elite (i.e. most definitely not working under free market rule). What am I missing? Is it just that they seek to use the problems caused by the former ideology to transition to the latter, with them on top, of course (making their support of the first extremely hypocritical as it’s to be discarded when opportune)?

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@Paireon

In an earlier comment you mentioned that ancaps tended to naturally transition to monarchists; how is that?

This is something I thought about when Skimmingway visited and expressed his love for both. What happens is, in fully unregulated capitalism, one individual or group can often buy up everything else or build a private army and conquer everything else. This results in a monarchy, and appears to be the inevitable conclusion of anarcho-capitalism since there’s no regulations to prevent it. Most people who support these ideologies seem to think they’d be the CEO/king, when really it’s far more likely they’d be a serf or slave.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

Yes, the ancaps really want one law : the law of the strongest. It mean authoritarism make sense for them.

There’s also that it’s an ideology for affluent white men, the kind of guy who are accustomated to have all the privileges all the time. It’s probably more honest to actually want monarchy for them.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

@Alan : “vegetable produce less CO2” is more a rule of thumb than an hard rule, as is “transportation isn’t important”.

For the vegetable footprint, the thing is that humans eat more vegetables than meat for the same satiations, and the cost of both vary widly. If you compare beef to grain, it’s overwhelmingly in favor of grain (if only because the cow eat grain !). If you compare poultry to chocolate, it’s the reverse. (chocolate being, AFAIK, by far and away the worst culture in ecological term, just like how beef is more than three time worse than poultry)

For transportation, slow, cheap transportation is also pretty CO2 efficient. Like boats for grain is very low ecological cost. Some food are refrigerated or flown by plane (I took the example of pineapple in France), and that’s so ridiculously less efficient that it suddenly become a concern. If something have a short lifespan like most fruit, there’s a much bigger odds you need to double check how it’s transported and stored.

(also, while I am not aware of farm animal eating palm-related stuff, beef in particular is very often fed soy, for the worst of both world with a particulary costly animal fed with particulary costly food)

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
4 months ago

@Ohlmann

I’m sorry you are irked, but I can find no scientific articles backing that plants have a brain-analogue or anything more than the autonomous awareness of their surroundings that a robot equipped with sensors has. I therefore disagree that carrots are equal to chickens (and wager that empirically most people do, as I have never seen a pet carrot) and would point you towards Alan Robertshaw’s excellently sourced argument as to why, even if you turn out to be correct, a slice of meat represents the massacre of hundreds of thousands of plants by this reasoning.

@Dormousing_it

 I COULD give up meat. You’re quite correct. 

I did not mean to suggest that you specifically should give up meat: I meant that mock meats are more for the benefit of those who eat meat than vegetarians, because it is difficult to go off meat “cold turkey”.

I recognize your position on hunting vs. farming, but I have a slightly different opinion based on my experience. TRIGGER WARNING FOR GRUESOME STORY: I had a neighbor when I lived in Texas that was a big hunter. I respected this person because he did take care to hunt his own food, shoot it cleanly, eat all the parts including the squiffy ones, etc. It seemed less wasteful and more respectful to eat meat this way than factory farming. I then lost this respect when he and his wife proposed I should go hunting with them (not sure why, always been a vegetarian), and that I could start by shooting something “small” that “didn’t matter”, such as an armadillo. It would be so much fun for me, because armadillos, when you shoot them in the head, die instantly and spasm, jumping 4-6 feet in the air. It’s a hilarious thing to watch, just so funny. It’s a contest to see who can get the highest spasm, my neighbor got a jumper that was almost 7 feet once! Taller than him! Hahaha! I’ll really enjoy it and then I can go hunting with them.

Whereas my experience with farmers is mostly (well, all) with small farmers that raise their animals on large tracts of land not unkindly, and do not gratuitously kill small animals–or at all. Yes they are sold on to be killed, but there’s not such a glee in animal death.

Perhaps that changes with the bigger farmers or the people who actually kill the animals, I don’t know. But that is my personal experience of hunting vs farming. I just go with “it’s better if we can not do both.”

@Alan Robertshaw

Those are some tremendously cute pics of dormice. I’m getting strong Redwall dibbun vibes.

@Lumipuna

by extension the whole dormouse family, is called unikeko, literally “heap of sleep”.

This is the most awesome fact I’ve learned in a while. <3

Last edited 4 months ago by Big Titty Demon
Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

by extension the whole dormouse family, is called unikeko, literally “heap of sleep”.

This is the most awesome fact I’ve learned in a while. <3

I love that too. I can only assume that, unlike ‘edible’ dormice, Finnish dormice had a say in the name.

As for the sentience thing, this does crop up in vegan debates. Some people argue that it’s ok to eat shellfish as they aren’t really self aware.

Personally I don’t buy that. Apart from the fact they do have behaviours like avoiding predators and pain, it reminds me too much of the old argument that animals are just organic machines. That they don’t really have emotions; they’re just automatically reacting to stimuli and it just seems that way.

To me, perceived intelligence shouldn’t be a factor in who gets eaten.

Although that would make the pub quiz more interesting.

Last edited 4 months ago by Alan Robertshaw
Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
4 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw

To me, perceived intelligence shouldn’t be a factor in who gets eaten.

Interesting! What is your criteria?

Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
4 months ago

@.45: It’s rare that I have to cut things, when I’m not at home. Pre-COVID, I worked at a place where my car, or my person, could be searched at random. So, that’s another reason why I don’t carry knives.

@Big Titty Demon: Yeah, that’s gruesome. I don’t understand the mentality – to kill an animal for “fun”. One of the reasons why my cats are now indoor pets, is because one of my cats disappeared during the first day of hunting season. It seemed very suspicious, to me.

Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ big titty demon

 What is your criteria?

That is a really good question.

To some extent it’s almost intuitive; but if I had to rationalise I could set out some criteria I don’t think should be relevant.

So that would include things like intelligence*, cuteness**, cultural norms*** etc.

But those would be ‘necessary but not sufficient’ as they say.

So I won’t use a natural sponge, even though a biologist could probably make an argument that they’re no more self aware than a plant.

But self awareness or lack thereof doesn’t do it for me. It’s like if I needed a transplant I still wouldn’t harvest the organs of someone in a PVS.

I guess it’s one of those moral questions that isn’t really conducive to rational considerations. At least, if there are any such arguments; they’re beyond my ken.

So basically it’s an almost arbitrary distinction. Plants ok, animals not. That does of course bring up some interesting evolutionary issues over fungi!

I’m not sure what I’d do if it turned out plants did have self awareness. Trees after all do communicate by pheromones; so then I’m using the ‘automatic response to stimuli’ justification that I decried earlier. And some carnivorous plants can sort of count!

But my stance is based on harm reduction rather than elimination. The definition of veganism does contain the ‘so far as practicable and possible’ clause.

So I guess that’s my cop-out if I ever have to justify myself to an angry Triffid.

* So I wouldn’t say I can eat tuna but not dolphin
** I don’t think it’s ok to experiment on (non cute animal) but not bunny rabbits
*** Lots of people happily eat all kinds of animals so I don’t think eating a puppy or a kitten is any worse than eating a veal calf or a lamb.

Last edited 4 months ago by Alan Robertshaw
Tovius
4 months ago

@.45

It goes without saying that despite efforts by district staff to come in and say we HAVE to use something that literally isn’t available, most of us use whatever we want in complete violation of policy. The women tend to grab whatever vaguely sharp metal object is handy, the men usually have knives that the rules forbid them to have in the workplace. The joys of working for a corporation…

That situation seems almost begging for some malicious compliance.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

@Big Titty Demon : brain isn’t in consideration for that. Behavior is. And we know that plants have behaviors and feel their environments. Your position is, without trying to offend, about the same as the view over animals in 16-17th century. There were discussion at the time if animals could feel pain, which is an absurd discussion now. I don’t think using the word “pain” for plant is good, but they feel something. Probably in a very alien way compared to us, but being anthropomorphic isn’t a factor.

Now, on average, the most intelligent animals seem more involved with their environment and more conscious than plants. But that’s an average. Grass communicate predators and infections, some plant coordinates their flower, etc ; in a lot of way, I believe they are similar to less intelligent animals, like ground sloths or more commonly, non-colony insects.

Forest impress me particulary, since there’s a ton of interaction between trees of various type, hence why I value trees a lot. Farm animals, on the other hand, don’t impress me particulary.

On a related note, my barrier to consider a robot as worth the same right as a pet, or as a human, aren’t particulary high. I don’t have any indications that, say, deep learning algorithme are above the bacteria level of conscious or even have *any* consciouness or feeling, but if someone made a case for it I wouldn’t find it absurd. The lack of sentient AI in my opinion have much more to do with how we have no fucking clue of how to do them, and will only create them accidentaly.

On a second related note, the status of pet is *entirely* determined by the human side. While a pet dog is probably more worth consideration than a pet rock, the pet rock is still a pet. What make the pet dog different is that it’s a dog, not that it’s a pet. And, yes, mankind have had far stranger pet than carrot pets.

@Alan : if I were 100% sure that someone in PVS would never come back, then he is dead and harvesting his body for organs would be ethical for me. (within the limits of the right of his family over his remain). The trick is, currently we cannot be sure. We don’t understand well what PVS is and the rare stories of come back.

To give an actual example of someone who is dead but still have living tissue, I would take Henrietta Lacks, a woman who died of cancer 70 years ago and from which we still use culture of her cells. For me, she’s an example of someone actually dead with still living tissues. People on PVS aren’t that by default, because we aren’t sure. I won’t blame family deciding otherwise, but that’s their decisions.
(the story of the culture of her cell is a scandal through and through tho. She and her family have some right about the destiny of her earthly remain)

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
4 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw

But self awareness or lack thereof doesn’t do it for me. It’s like if I needed a transplant I still wouldn’t harvest the organs of someone in a PVS.

An excellent point. I would not either, so I guess it’s more about some nebulistic determination of the “capacity to carry consciousness” for me. Intelligence has never factored in, only consciousness. I would agree that it is hard to define, and not my area of expertise, either. I am positive a philosophy expert can run laps around me here.

Lots of people happily eat all kinds of animals so I don’t think eating a puppy or a kitten is any worse than eating a veal calf or a lamb.

I think it sort of depends on the motivation to eat the kitten. I used to know someone who ate a cat, and his expressed intent in eating the cat was to offend everyone he possibly could by telling them he ate the cat. This is approximately akin to the dude that eats raw squirrels in front of vegetarians expressly to offend them; it’s different than eating meat from habituation or needing it for sustenance.

@ohlmann

Your position is, without trying to offend, about the same as the view over animals in 16-17th century.

Without trying to offend, Imma recommend once again you look at Alan Robertshaw’s posts, and how he managed to make the same point without having to say, “I don’t mean to offend, but X offensive thing.” That’s some gaslighty bullshit. But since you suggest it, here are some of the differences between me and a 16th-century person with that view of animals: I could be convinced (admittedly, not by you unless you had hard science to back yourself up) that plants can sustain consciousness with appropriate evidence. I do not categorically rule it out; my opinion is based on the best available science. I also am not ignoring evidence such as, real 16th century example, cats being beaten in bags and set on fire wailing in pain to sustain this opinion. I’m also not mistreating my trees and beating them or letting them starve to death willy-nilly in the interim, because I don’t believe they can feel pain or harbor consciousness. These are just some of the key differences.

Grass communicate predators and infections, some plant coordinates their flower, etc ; in a lot of way, I believe they are similar to less intelligent animals, like ground sloths.

Your own body does this without the presence of your consciousness. Infections and parasites (predator) responses are coordinated without any input from you. This is an autonomous process, there is no lower-level secondary consciousness directing this in our bodies. I don’t find this a convincing argument. *shrug* I can make a system myself that communicates as much, and in fact have contributed to plant pathology models to study infection response. I don’t consider the model able to harbor consciousness, and never will, but it successfully mimics plant response to infection.

None of this negates that by your moral metric of plants sacrifice = animal sacrifice, eating an animal results in unnecessary mass plant casualties for the same calories.

It seems you and I will have to agree to disagree.

@Dormousing_it

Unfortunately your suspicion is probably correct. My sister’s dogs were shot on the first day of hunting season 2 years ago. Or well, it’s suspected both were and known one was, because she came back with the bullets in and had to have just so much medical care. The other one never came back.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 months ago

@Big Titty demon : I think one of the big point of discord is more that I don’t see what plants and trees do as terribly different to what animal do, so I really don’t get from where you say they are basically inanimate and consciousless. And plant being aware of their environment is effectively the state of the knowledge in science. It’s like some dinosaurs being feathered in that popular culture might not have caught up yet, but it’s pretty rock solid by now.

“there is no lower-level secondary consciousness” is a statement of faith, not anything supported by science, because we can’t detect thoses “lower level secondary consciousness” in anyone. Including human. We can try to guess their existence by looking at behavior, but with the pitfall that A – it’s very very easy to rewrite the behavior of anything as not driven by a secondary consciousness, B – suffering and stress isn’t linked to consciousness and C – we will be vastly more likely to admit that for human-like behavior, which lead to dogs looking a lot more intelligent and conscious than wolf, typicaly.

And while you act all offended by the comparison with the older position on animal, I must admit I am also irked when people say against all evidence “plants aren’t conscious”, when it’s both science and easy observable that they react to their environment pretty much as well as pidgeons and flies, just more slowly. Carnivorous plant behave differently if they catch a prey or a gust of wind ; you can write that off as an automatic response, but is it different to how a dog behave differently when biting a prey or a lamppost ?

Also notably, you make a stark distinction between animals and plants, while it’s pretty sure that there is a continuum, with virus at one end and human at the other end. It’s very hard to rate anything but the extreme in the continuum, for a lot of reason. For example, insects generally seem to not have much brainpower and don’t show affections to human “owner” like mammals and birds do, but is that due to them being less conscious, or just because they have vastly different mind process where “affection” isn’t a concept that make sense ?

That also extend to plant. It’s pretty sure their perception of the environment is entirely unlike human and that they don’t see community and affection like we do. But does that mean they are worth any less ?

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
4 months ago

We’re animals. We need to eat.
We’re omnivores. We can eat anything.
We’ve got zero sense. We tend to eat to excess the things we like.

Seems simple enough.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
4 months ago

This may be interesting to people here – (UKnian) left-wing journalist Aaron Bastani of Novara Media talking to (USAnian) co-founder of Finless Foods Mike Selden about food from animal protein grown without animals (or rather, without all but the initial animal to culture the cell strains from).

They touch on the science, technology, economics, politics, ethics and environmental impact of producing meat in this way (for example, tuna sashimi on a commercial scale without any fishing except for I guess one initial tuna) with a timescale of the next few years (e.g. 2 or so years to marketing approval in the US and 15 years to mass consumption as a normal everyday food). Plus there’s a little bit of explaining of the unrelated but also interesting things happening in plant-based burgers etc., and why plant-based tech is good for minced ‘meat’ products, compared with animal-cell-based tech for growing fillets and steaks.

In a nutshell (I think) a conversation about massively reducing environmental damage and animal harm producing food that non-rich people can afford and that large numbers of people already want to eat. (pro-vegan; acknowledging a huge population of people a lot of whom are not currently up for that)

The whole interview is about 40 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGF5MLuBau4

PS Novara Media is well worth a look for left-wing journalism – they are a shoestring channel, with news three times a week (about 1 to 1.5 hours, Mon Weds and Fri, live at 19:00 UK time but available afterwards), an in-depth interview once a week (Tues) plus ad hoc extras for individual news stories plus articles. All free to access (they request donations/subscriptions (of 1 hour of whatever your wage is, per month) if you like the work and can afford it).
PPS I have no connection with them of any kind except that I like the channel. Youtube channel (hopefully on the link above!) plus website https://novaramedia.com/

Last edited 4 months ago by opposablethumbs
Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ opposable thumbs

Thanks for that. I’l give it a proper listen on one of my walks. I’ve checked out the first few minutes though and it seems very interesting. Although I do find the idea of cultured meat a bit ‘repulsive’ for want of a better term. Even moreso than ‘natural’ meat. I have visions of weird things growing in vats.

@ ohlmann

I do take your points. For me though there is a qualitative difference between plants and animals. I appreciate I’m using the ‘organic machine’ justification; but, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I do think that is the case for plants.

It is true they show some forms of interacting with their environments but, to steal BTD’s phrase, I don’t think it demonstrates a capacity for consciousness. It truly is just mechanical responses to stimuli.

For example; I’ve mentioned how carnivorous plants appear to be able to count. But that’s just it, it’s an appearance, not real. The mechanisms by which they do that are well understood. It’s just a bio-chemical phenomenon; and no more involves ‘thinking’ than when crystals respond, often quite spectacularly, to changes in their environment.

I find it analogous to the old Galvanism experiments that inspired Mary Shelley. Introduce an electric shock to a corpse, or even a detached limb, and it reacts. But I don’t think we would say a corpse or an isolated body part is conscious. Not in any meaningful sense anyway.

And for me it’s the same for plants.

Last edited 4 months ago by Alan Robertshaw
Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
4 months ago

@ohlmann

And while you act all offended 

Yeah, you can fuck right off. You knew it was offensive because you prefaced it with “without intent to offend, <offensive statement>”. Now you’re saying I’m not actually offended, I’m just acting that way. Good job with the gaslighting. We’re done, because you don’t really want to have a conversation, you want to browbeat your opinion without having to back it up. My experience in this field says nowhere that “And plant being aware of their environment is effectively the state of the knowledge in science.” Plants are not consciously aware. It is most definitely not scientific consensus that they are, let alone “rock solid”. My expertise outweighs your as-yet to-be-cited opinion, and I will not devalue it for you. You consistently fail to acknowledge the basic logic flaw in your original value judgement of vegetarian meals while expecting me to override all of my painstakingly gained knowledge for your opinion.

I will not do it. The conversation is at therefore at an end.

I’m waiting for “hysterical overreaction” next. I know how this conversation goes. It always comes after “you’re acting all sensitive, geez”. We’re done. You say what you want, I’m ignoring your ass.

Hambeast
Hambeast
4 months ago

@.45 – I kinda had the opposite problem. I used to do receiving and stocking at a US craft chain and would use my keys to open boxes if all the box cutters had been claimed. It never failed to get a manager to plop a box knife in my hands, for some reason. Probably because I didn’t care; the keys worked just as well and I didn’t get in trouble for taking them home by mistake.

Oddly enough, management tried to make my carrying my keys and stuff in my pockets an issue since the other women had to leave purses in lockers (and everyone had to leave phones in lockers) while out of the break room. They let it go when I asked when the guys would have to leave wallets and keys in lockers. I don’t carry a purse because of shoulder and hand issues, I wear cargo pants and I don’t wear makeup, so not a lot to carry.

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
4 months ago

My own suspicion is that plants are not conscious in any meaningful sense. Their responses to stimuli tend to be strictly local, and algorithmically to be simple reflexes. There is no evidence of higher cognition and no evidence of centralized integration of sense inputs into a unified gestalt. Without this I don’t see how there could be consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t rule out little local consciousnesses in each separate part, but a) what purpose would these serve? Human consciousness has the purpose of central planning for the entire body, so is centralized; and b) where is the “brain” wherein it would reside?

I expect that, though you can certainly harm a plant, there is no more experience of suffering than when a surgeon cuts into an anesthetized patient, and strictly less than when you swat a fly. That, at least, has a central nervous system, even if not much of one; it has a central point of sensory integration and may be capable of some form of consciousness.

There’s also a question of selective pressure. Everything indisputably conscious seems to use it for what boils down eventually to motor planning, if not always exclusively for such. I would therefore not expect to find it in something sessile, at least not if it never had a mobile ancestor or larval stage or similarly.

So: plants are almost certainly not conscious.

Absent significant evidence to the contrary I will likely continue to hold this opinion indefinitely.

(The motor issue does lead to the question of whether there are conscious single cells. I doubt this for complexity reasons. Nothing like a brain has been identified in any cell. At the outer edge of possibility, perhaps some of the most “focused” behaving predatory protozoa, ones that seem to have a “head” and a “tail” at least part of the time such as when chasing something, rise to the level of a nematode or a similarly simple multicelled animal, while still being well below a housefly.)

epitome of incomrepehensibility

@Lainy – Oh, that Lucy! I remember hearing about her. But this part I never knew:

Lucy’s baby is another Australopithecus afarensis that was found later in a different area, but is also several hundred years in an age gap of lucy and isn’t actually her baby and there is no evidence on lucy’s pelivs that she ever gave birth before dying.

It’s fascinating, and kind of the opposite of what happened with oviraptors – people thought they stole the eggs that were found near them, so they gave them a name meaning “egg stealers,” but the eggs were actually theirs. (Wikipedia article)

For meat-eating, I guess it doesn’t seem inherently wrong to me to eat other animals, at least because other omnivorous animals do the same. But it’s true that most, or at least many, humans don’t need meat to survive. Plus the part that worries me is the environmental impact.

I’m not vegetarian now – I was for a year and a bit – but I don’t usually use meat when I’m making my own food. I try to avoid things like beef because commercial cattle farming uses up so much energy (grain, water, etc.) But a lot of the times I don’t think about it because I’m not good at thinking about a lot of things at once.

(like right now, I’m supposed to be working on a take-home exam…sigh)