Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Question for vegetarians

vegatarian meat free run animals vegan

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#46    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 17 May 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

The moral argument against eating meat is founded on the premis that we should cause no unnecessary pain and suffering (P&S) to other animals. Pain and suffering is a bad thing.  Bad things should be avoided.

Agreed.

Quote

If we really want to get to the bottoms of this we should assign a unit of badness and goodnes. Ill call the unit a B & G.

Interesting thought experiment but highly impractical.

Quote

The first thing that becomes apparent is that if animals can be raised in good natural environments like humane organic farming, then killed instantly without ever knowing or feeling the instrument ( ie a bullet to the head or equivalent), then it's safe to say that no units of B were ever produced.

Sounds lovely but animals are routinely mutilated and suffer from all kinds of "humane" practices. There is no such thing as "humane" farming". So the rest of your argument is moot I'm afraid.

Quote

Quit the oposites the multitude of happy animals that were produced producing more units of G. The meat taste great producing even more units of G.

But there's other healthy and tasty food available.

Quote

The meat generates a productive economy generating even more units of G.

Farmers can generate income from growing crops.

Quote

Animals produce non chemical fertilizers producing more G, and grazing ( not over grazing)  is good for grazed lands as part of the natural cycles of life, to this produces even more G.

Vegetation can grow without any manure.

Quote

The moral argument against eating meat comes from the B produced by mistreating animals. This is not an argument agains EATING meat. This is an argument against MISTREATING animals. EATING meat does not necessarily ( but definantly can) lead to mistreating animals.

That's the animal welfare argument. I disagree, I adhere to the animal rights argument. “To say that a being who is sentient has no interest in continuing to live is like saying that a being with eyes has no interest in continuing to see. Death—however “humane”—is a harm for humans and nonhumans alike.” -- Gary Francione

Quote

If one wants to be moral which means you are a marginal G seeker and a marginal B avoider, it's easy to see EATING meat is not an issue. Buying meat comeing from mistreated animals however is. Buying meat that is produced humanely and organically however is perfectly moral.

same argument, see above.

Quote

The vegitarian claimin that eating all meat is immoral, must make a better argument that more G is produced by avoiding all meat. This means that the B from producing crops must be factored into the equation. This is not pointing out hypocrisy of e vegetarian ( though certainly true ;) ) the vegetarian is makeing a tally of Bs and Gs associated with ones choice in diet but conviently leaving out the Bs of one side of the equation and souly focused on the Bs of another.

If the vegetarian is going to logically claim moral high ground, he/she is going to have to explain why eating  only plants creates more marginal G than  humainly grown and treated meat does.

What is missing from this argument is intention. There is a significant moral difference between killing an animal for the express purpose of consuming it and the baby mouse that is run over by a farm tractor.


#47    Toadie

Toadie

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Female

  • "If you never doubt your beliefs, then you’re wrong a lot"

    "Life's not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow"

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:40 PM

View Postredhen, on 17 May 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

You claimed that "Not eating meat will not stop animals being killed inhumane way."

A straw man argument is an argument that  easily defeats a claim (as easy as knocking down a straw man/scarecrow), but does not pertain to the original proposition. The OP claimed that eating "organic" "happy" meat is morally better than eating factory farmed animals.  You said that not eating meat will not stop animals from being cruelly killed. Right, but that wasn't the original argument.

Sorry yes I agree that it is better to eat organic "happy" meat. Animals should be able to ran around in a paddock not be confirmed to a small pen



How about taking the next step and watch the farmer slaughter the animal? I don't see the humane part of shooting a bolt or bullet in an animals head, slitting it's throat or sticking it and bleeding it.

I personally prefer to have our own cow in the paddock and get the meat man to come shot the cow on your property then meat man bags it up for you. At least you know the meat you are eating has been well looked after, hasn't been put under stress and no chemicals have been added to the cows feed.

It is definitely going to suffer when it is slaughtered.

How is it going to suffer when it is slaughtered? Once the animal is no longer alive all that remains is the material body



Both beings are treated as property, to be used as seen fit. Keep in mind we are not just talking about eating meat. If you find some roadkill or eat an animal that is already dead, I don't see a problem.

No it is completely different. A human has a concept of what is happening, a human can grasp what the future holds, human has emotions. A cow in a paddock only "concerned" would be a) access to water B) gets fed at certain time

It may be more inconvenient, but it can be done. Thus, if you don't need to eat meat, as you just agreed to, it would be cruel to do so because it entails unnecessary pain and suffering.

I don't believe it entails pain and suffering. What is so painful about a cow in the paddock?





#48    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:42 PM

View PostToadie, on 17 May 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Sorry yes I agree that it is better to eat organic "happy" meat. Animals should be able to ran around in a paddock not be confirmed to a small pen

While they may have more comfortable lives, the same fate awaits them all.

Quote

How is it going to suffer when it is slaughtered? Once the animal is no longer alive all that remains is the material body

Providing you sneak up on it unawares, with no other cattle watching, I suppose you have a point.

Quote

No it is completely different. A human has a concept of what is happening, a human can grasp what the future holds, human has emotions. A cow in a paddock only "concerned" would be a) access to water B) gets fed at certain time

Not so, cattle have emotions.

Quote

I don't believe it entails pain and suffering. What is so painful about a cow in the paddock?

castration, dehorning, branding, and nose rings for starters.

I've never used the satirical website the Onion for argumentation before, but I think this article shows the "happy" meat myth for what it is, an economic windfall for producers who are certified "Cage Free," "Free Range," "Humane Certified," "Grass Fed," "Organic," and "Local"

nb. the article talks about abattoirs that don't use bolts but rather incisions, which accounts for a large number of cattle, not just those ritually slaughtered for Halal or Kosher meat.

Edited by redhen, 17 May 2013 - 08:44 PM.


#49    Toadie

Toadie

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Female

  • "If you never doubt your beliefs, then you’re wrong a lot"

    "Life's not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow"

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:23 PM

View Postredhen, on 17 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

While they may have more comfortable lives, the same fate awaits them all.

Same fate awaits us all Death is apart of life there is no escaping it. It seems you view death as a suffering like it is the worse fate to place upon an animal. Why is that? For some death would be a blessing an end to the animals suffering especially for the animals that are treated unkindly or are straving.

Providing you sneak up on it unawares, with no other cattle watching, I suppose you have a point.


Not so, cattle have emotions.

Please provide evidence of this

castration, dehorning, branding, and nose rings for starters.

Above is not a constant suffering the animal isn't in pain for the rest of its life. If you want to go down that road then humans shouldn't have pets because that is unnatural.

I've never used the satirical website the Onion for argumentation before, but I think this article shows the "happy" meat myth for what it is, an economic windfall for producers who are certified "Cage Free," "Free Range," "Humane Certified," "Grass Fed," "Organic," and "Local"

nb. the article talks about abattoirs that don't use bolts but rather incisions, which accounts for a large number of cattle, not just those ritually slaughtered for Halal or Kosher meat.

Like I said before research where you buy your meat from



#50    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

View PostToadie, on 17 May 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Same fate awaits us all Death is apart of life there is no escaping it.

True, but what gives us the moral right to kill animals for the sake of pleasure, amusement, and convenience?

Quote

Please provide evidence of this

Really, can you not see fear or sadness in a cow? Just take a look at a slaughterhouse and you will see fear. Take a look and listen to a cow ball all night long after its calf is taken away. We've known about emotions in animals for a long time now. Darwin wrote about this in 1872.  For cows specifically, there are plenty of academic studies.

Quote

Above is not a constant suffering the animal isn't in pain for the rest of its life. If you want to go down that road then humans shouldn't have pets because that is unnatural.

So it's ok to mutilate animals because it's not a permanent state of pain? As for pets, indeed, I am in favour of abolishing the use of animals as pets. Animals don't need human rights or legal rights, they only need one right, the right not to be property.

Quote

Like I said before research where you buy your meat from

Again, I submit there is no such thing as humane slaughter, just like there is no such thing as humane rape or humane slavery.


#51    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,535 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:40 AM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 17 May 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:



I can respect (in some way) that you kill (most of) your own meat because I think most people wouldn't be able to do that (me included). I think there is a big difference between hunting your own meat and simply buying it down at the shops, where somebody else has done that. That old saying "out of sight, out of mind" springs to mind. It doesn't mean I think it's the right thing to do and I think I made that abundantly clear; in my ideal world the thousands of years of slaughter comes to an end. Of course, this will never happen because $$$$$ rules this world and so does the selfish/ignorant majority. It's easier to simply forget what these animals go through (on a mass scale) rather than have what is supposed to make us different from animals and that's to have a conscience.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the argument that vegetable farming causes comparable suffering.
I understand why it's hard to swallo. But it does. You have to have an understanding how mass agriculture affects ecology. How herbicides and insecticides affect small waterways, and how soil errosian is a pain unlike any other that we will pass to our grand children and all if it to many generations of wikd life. The small vegetable farmer... No. They are mostly going organic these days anyway. But trust me. Our current agriculture practices are not sustainable and will evenchually lead to famine for humans and ecological disaster for wikd life. You are a young smart guy my. I think you will start to see where I'm comeing from before to long. You can't have a heart and intelligence at the same time without evenchually realizing some of this.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#52    Toadie

Toadie

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Female

  • "If you never doubt your beliefs, then you’re wrong a lot"

    "Life's not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow"

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:54 AM

View Postredhen, on 17 May 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

True, but what gives us the moral right to kill animals for the sake of pleasure, amusement, and convenience?
Killing animals for meat has nothing to do with pleasure or amusement. Yes there are some animals that our body doesn’t need to eat but there are a few that our body needs. Human brain is complex and requires more nutrients then other animals.

Best diet for our well-being is one high in fish. Fish provides our brain with EPA and DHA which our body does not naturally produce. EPA and DHA lowers blood pressure, boost immunity, decreases inflammation and helps to prevent depression. We cannot rely on seeds to produce DHA because that is useless. Vegetarians generally lack DHA and this can cause health problems. Example India largest vegetarian population and they have the highest rate of blindness due to the lack of DHA in their diet. Eyes are built on DHA.

Another animal that aids in our well-being is turkey due to its high levels of tryptophan which makes the neurotransmitter serotonin

Animals kill other animals to survive. Humans need to eat certain animals so that our brain is supplied with the correct nutrients so it can perform at its peak.

Really, can you not see fear or sadness in a cow? Just take a look at a slaughterhouse and you will see fear. Take a look and listen to a cow ball all night long after its calf is taken away. We've known about emotions in animals for a long time now. Darwin wrote about this in 1872.  For cows specifically, there are plenty of academic studies.
Sorry what I meant was that animal does not think about the future. Cow isn’t born with worries of being eating for dinner or do they look at each other and think to themselves hope I’m not going to be made into human food


So it's ok to mutilate animals because it's not a permanent state of pain? As for pets, indeed, I am in favour of abolishing the use of animals as pets. Animals don't need human rights or legal rights, they only need one right, the right not to be property.



Again, I submit there is no such thing as humane slaughter, just like there is no such thing as humane rape or humane slavery.
We can kill animals in non-stressful environment we don’t have to subject the animal to unkind killing methods. Rape and slavery is a completely different topic all together and is not related in any way to this topic.




#53    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 May 2013 - 05:08 AM

View PostToadie, on 18 May 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Killing animals for meat has nothing to do with pleasure or amusement.

Sure it does. Meat tastes yummy! It's pleasures your taste buds.  When people are enjoying a nice big juicy steak, they aren't thinking of the amino acids and other nutrients in it, they simply are savouring the taste. You left out convenience. It is very convenient to give in to the constant bombardment of commericals and billboards that advertize cheap and fast hamburgers. That's the fault of government which is in collusion with big agri-business for economic reasons.

Quote

Yes there are some animals that our body doesn’t need to eat but there are a few that our body needs

Not so, there are no nutrients in meat that you can't find elsewhere. Otherwise vegans like Carl Lewis would not be able to win 9 Olympic Gold medals.

Quote

Sorry what I meant was that animal does not think about the future. Cow isn’t born with worries of being eating for dinner or do they look at each other and think to themselves hope I’m not going to be made into human food

Neither do infants or severely mentally handicapped people, you already said this. And again I think this is the wrong criteria when considering whether to kill a sentient being or not. Again, 'The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?'

Quote

We can kill animals in non-stressful environment we don’t have to subject the animal to unkind killing methods. Rape and slavery is a completely different topic all together and is not related in any way to this topic.

These are all grave moral issues and not subject to mere opinion. All three are examples of causing unnecessary harm to other beings, no matter how comfortable you make the victim.

p.s. I don't how or why you are quoting both my replies and your text, it makes it harder to respond to your individual claims.

Edited by redhen, 18 May 2013 - 05:32 AM.


#54    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,535 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:09 PM

View Postredhen, on 17 May 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:



Agreed.



Interesting thought experiment but highly impractical.



Sounds lovely but animals are routinely mutilated and suffer from all kinds of "humane" practices. There is no such thing as "humane" farming". So the rest of your argument is moot I'm afraid.



But there's other healthy and tasty food available.



Farmers can generate income from growing crops.



Vegetation can grow without any manure.



That's the animal welfare argument. I disagree, I adhere to the animal rights argument. “To say that a being who is sentient has no interest in continuing to live is like saying that a being with eyes has no interest in continuing to see. Death—however “humane”—is a harm for humans and nonhumans alike.” -- Gary Francione



same argument, see above.



What is missing from this argument is intention. There is a significant moral difference between killing an animal for the express purpose of consuming it and the baby mouse that is run over by a farm tractor.
It's not a thought experiment. It's breaking down an issue so that it can be marginalized. This is a classic kind of argument in economics, though in economcs we call it utility which basically is the sum of good and bad. There are even economic laws that bear the term. ( the law of diminishing marginal utility). It allows human choice to be quantified and the mathematics of economics to born so that we can have graphs and equations.

Quote

Sounds lovely but animals are routinely mutilated and suffer from all kinds of "humane" practices. There is no such thing as "humane" farming". So the rest of your argument is moot I'm afraid.

;) you are flirting with an unverifiable opinion here. Of course there is such thing as humane farming. If you are saying that killing animals is inhumane, you might want to ask yourself why the humane society puts down 3-4 million animals per year. And we are now open to the possibility that driving is inhumane.

http://m.humanesocie...n_shelters.html

You are anthropomorphisizing ( dam that's the biggest word I have used in a while) animal 'interests'. Most Animals do not have the cognitive abilities to be interested beyond anything in their imeadiate awareness and instincts ( this is scientific fact). You however have an interest in weather that animal lives or dies, in reality the animal does not. It can't. It has nothing to do with the animal and everything to do with you.

I would agree with the opposite of your opinion. To carelessly harm wild life and ecology, to me, is  more grievous than consuming an animal on purpose while being concious how it's treated and how it's life or death affects the environment and other life.

There is also a significant difference between a baby mouse being run over and 877 million pounds of pesticides and 185 million pounds of herbacides being poored  over our food (2007 statistics). If we are going to give the chicken rights, what about the mantis?

http://www.panna.org...-use-statistics

Quote

Vegetation can grow without any manure
CROPS cannot grow without nutrients. Chemical fertilizers contribute to soil depletion, is a poor substitute for organic matter, and are highly dangerous. Some of our worst accidents in history are a direct result of storeing chemical fertilizers for agriculture.





"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#55    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:22 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 18 May 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

It's not a thought experiment. It's breaking down an issue so that it can be marginalized. This is a classic kind of argument in economics, though in economcs we call it utility which basically is the sum of good and bad.

That may be fine for economics but I don't think it is applicable to moral matters.

Quote

you are flirting with an unverifiable opinion here. Of course there is such thing as humane farming. If you are saying that killing animals is inhumane, you might want to ask yourself why the humane society puts down 3-4 million animals per year.

Well opinions are just that opinions, and verifiability is not the goal, I'm just echoing a certain school of philosophical thought, professor Gary Francione calls it abolitionism, which is borrowed from the anti-slavery movement. As for HSUS animal euthanasia, I disagree with several or their policies, euthanasia is one of them. Justin Bieber had to surrender his pet monkey in Germany recently. When he asked how long he had before they euthanized it they informed him that they don't euthanize pets in Germany. So it can be done, we're just not as compassionate or efficient as the Germans.

Quote

You are anthropomorphisizing animal 'interests'. Most Animals do not have the cognitive abilities to be interested beyond anything in their imeadiate awareness and instincts ( this is scientific fact). You however have an interest in weather that animal lives or dies, in reality the animal does not. It can't. It has nothing to do with the animal and everything to do with you.

“To say that a being who is sentient has no interest in continuing to live is like saying that a being with eyes has no interest in continuing to see. Death—however “humane”—is a harm for humans and nonhumans alike.” ― Gary Francione

Quote

I would agree with the opposite of your opinion. To carelessly harm wild life and ecology, to me, is  more grievous than consuming an animal on purpose while being concious how it's treated and how it's life or death affects the environment and other life.

I submit that there is a difference in our interactions with wildlife and animals that we have domesticated. By doing so we bear some responsibility towards them.

Quote

There is also a significant difference between a baby mouse being run over and 877 million pounds of pesticides and 185 million pounds of herbacides being poored  over our food (2007 statistics). If we are going to give the chicken rights, what about the mantis?

There you go again with your imaginary measurement scale of moral good and bad. Anyways, you are leaving out intention again. I'll say it again, there is a big difference between killing an animal specifically for its flesh or fur and the accidental killing of an insect. This idea is expressed in our laws by the two criteria for convicting someone of a crime. You need two criteria; an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind)

Quote

CROPS cannot grow without nutrients. Chemical fertilizers contribute to soil depletion, is a poor substitute for organic matter, and are highly dangerous.

I already stated that vegetation can grow without any fertilizer, neither chemical or manure. Our ancestors have been doing this for thousands of years.


#56    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:39 PM

View Postredhen, on 18 May 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

I already stated that vegetation can grow without any fertilizer, neither chemical or manure. Our ancestors have been doing this for thousands of years.

Actually plants need nutrients to grow properly and produce well. In nature the ecoystem puts nutrients back into the land as its plants and animals die and degrate back into basic compounds. In those areas which we harvest from this doesn't happen so fertilizer, whether it be chemical or natural compost, is needed or after a while the land will be depleated and difficult to grow in.

Edited by trancelikestate, 18 May 2013 - 10:46 PM.


#57    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:45 PM

Let me pose another question. How many vegetarians refrain from killing insects such as misquitos as they are biting you? I would guess very few people do. So to those people, in your opinions, why are insect lives worth less than those of say chickens or pigs?


#58    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:08 AM

View Posttrancelikestate, on 18 May 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Let me pose another question. How many vegetarians refrain from killing insects such as misquitos as they are biting you? I would guess very few people do. So to those people, in your opinions, why are insect lives worth less than those of say chickens or pigs?

I believe it is immoral to kill animals for the sake of pleasure (taste of meat), amusement, and convenience (animals that are in the way, i.e. culls). I believe it is not immoral to kill animals in self defense, which is self explanatory. I classify mosquitos that are attacking me in this category.


#59    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:16 AM

View Postredhen, on 19 May 2013 - 12:08 AM, said:

I believe it is immoral to kill animals for the sake of pleasure (taste of meat), amusement, and convenience (animals that are in the way, i.e. culls). I believe it is not immoral to kill animals in self defense, which is self explanatory. I classify mosquitos that are attacking me in this category.

Perhaps if an animal like a bear is trying to kill you it is self defense. A misquito biting you brings you no harm other than mild discomfort. So your saying it's ok to kill for your own comfort? How is that any less selfish than killing for taste?

Edited by trancelikestate, 19 May 2013 - 12:17 AM.


#60    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:48 AM

View Posttrancelikestate, on 19 May 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Perhaps if an animal like a bear is trying to kill you it is self defense. A misquito biting you brings you no harm other than mild discomfort. So your saying it's ok to kill for your own comfort? How is that any less selfish than killing for taste?

Mosquitos can carry some deadly diseases and viruses. But more to the point, I don't believe insects such as mosquitos, fruit flies, etc. can experience pain. First, they don't have a brain which is necessary for the crucial emotional, subjective experience of pain. What they have is a ganglia, which is just a cluster of neurons. Of course we will never know the subjective experience (qualia) of a mosquito or any other animal for that matter. Hell, we can't even know what it's like to be another person.

Perhaps it might be useful to observe how insects react to trauma. Insects can carry out many normal functions while critically incapacitated, including feeding and mating, right up to the point of death. From what I understand, some insects have observed to live for days without a head !





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users