• 🦄🦄🦄
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    72 days ago

    My phone also screams (signals) when someone calls, must mean my phone feels pain I guess.

  • By contrast, stressed plants are much noisier, emitting an average up to around 40 clicks per hour depending on the species. And plants deprived of water have a noticeable sound profile. They start clicking more before they show visible signs of dehydrating, escalating as the plant grows more parched, before subsiding as the plant withers away.

    someone smarter than me should get to inventing a device that listens to plant clicks and tells you when it needs water

    • Rikudou_SageOPA
      link
      853 days ago

      That’s actually mentioned as one possible use case further down the article!

    • edric
      link
      fedilink
      753 days ago

      Might be a good use-case to have your home irrigation system be triggered by plant clicks instead of a schedule.

      • El Barto
        link
        fedilink
        39
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        It could be. Although we don’t know how much those sounds indicate distress, and perhaps watering should happen much sooner.

        Imagine if aliens abduct you and give you food only when your stomach makes the kind of noise it makes after three days without eating anything, because “that’s all they can detect.”

          • El Barto
            link
            fedilink
            22 days ago

            We’ve already established that. But that method will shorten the life of the plant (and human.)

            • richmondez
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 days ago

              I dunno, calorie restrictions has tended to lengthen lifespan in other organisms we’ve tried it on.

              • El Barto
                link
                fedilink
                12 days ago

                Sure, but not to the point in which it’s a constant stress.

    • El Barto
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That idea is mentioned in the article, yes.

      Edit: apologies. The OP has already pointed this out.

  • yeehaw
    link
    fedilink
    233 days ago

    Hasn’t this study been done before? Feel like I’ve heard of grass “distress signals” from years back

    • Rikudou_SageOPA
      link
      English
      93 days ago

      Yes, remember that one as well, but this is a literal sound, not only a “plants communicate stress in some way” (if I remember the previous research correctly).

  • @Hackworth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Remember that Mythbusters (Episode 61 Deadly Straw) that re-created Cleve Backster’s primary perception experiments to show plants can sense malicious intent and totally re-created his results? I had to re-watch it to make sure I was remembering correctly. They totally just alter the experiment until they break it, then sweep it under the rug and call it busted. Totally.

    • @ThirdEyeSlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      52 days ago

      So it’s been years since I’ve seen it, but I do remember that episode. I went through the wiki a bit and read up on some of Backster’s experiments and how they were received by the scientific community… not great. It is a very intriguing subject, but I think it gets anthropomorphized pretty bad. Even the title here, “plants do scream” almost implies consciousness. I do think there are mechanisms that plants may have evolved that we don’t fully understand. Like holding onto water or nutrients if there are more plant clicks (screams) happening nearby. But we have to be scientific about this. In the article, they talk about possible sources of the clicks possibly being air bubbles escaping the plant. Jumping to some of the conclusions that were explored in the past like “plants have ESP” are tall claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims like that were never reproducible, so we shouldn’t believe them. I think plants are amazing, and we should keep studying stuff like this, but best to stay realistic and phrase these findings appropriately. Just my two cents.

  • @Evilschnuff@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 days ago

    For me the question is if plants can actually hear these distress sounds, otherwise it’s not really for communication.

    • Rikudou_SageOPA
      link
      32 days ago

      They probably do. But even if not, it can be used for communication with insects and other animals.

  • babybus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    643 days ago

    Well, sort of. Not in the same way you or I might scream. Rather, they emit popping or clicking noises in ultrasonic frequencies.

    Another “science” community with clickbaity bullshit.

    • Rikudou_SageOPA
      link
      363 days ago

      Eh… What? It’s an interesting article. The screaming is in quotation marks. So as far as I’m concerned, the title is fine.

    • @heraplem@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      What? The fact that plants physically react to being cut has absolutely no bearing on whether they have conscious experience.

      • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        In the same way that cultists give human sacrifices to Cthulhu specifically to eat.

        I’m pretty sure the fruits are screaming too.

        • @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The whole deal is that we get to eat the fruit, and in return we provide the seeds within with a nice nitrogen-rich deposition nice and far from the parent plant.

          It’s not a death cult, it’s a sex cult. The fruits might be screaming, but not in pain

          • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            And the deal with Cthulhu is that he gets to devour whoever you’ve sacrificed, and in return he provides a benefit to the survivors: allowing them to live long enough to provide more sacrifices. It’s basically the same deal.

            Also, if anyone reading this happens to be a seed on a fruit meant to be devoured by humans then I have bad news about your final destination: it’s rather a stinky place that is not in any way conducive to your growth. The cake is a lie.

            • It’s basically the same deal

              It’s not even remotely similar.

              Also, that “stinky place” to us is heaven to a plant. Kinda how the foul oxygen they excrete is life-giving air to us.

              • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                The stinky place isn’t soil. It’s a sewer or a landfill, because that’s where human waste ends up. Neither can support plant life because they are devoid of light, just like the realm of Cthulhu.

                • Doesn’t change the plant-animal arrangement from the perspective of the plant, it’s still freely given. We just hold up our end through agriculture.

        • Sabata
          link
          fedilink
          22 days ago

          I’m screaming, and the things consuming me can’t.

    • @inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      68
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you’re the potato.

      Humans have to eat and with the exception of a few minerals like salt, everything edible to humans is alive on some level. Vegansisn is making an ethical choice about reducing what causes the most pain fear and suffering in another. If I were to develop cancer, a tape worm or a virus should I also allow those living things to thrive as well or does “Uh, now what?” also apply to antibiotics?

      • GladiusB
        link
        fedilink
        -153 days ago

        How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins? And eggs and cheeses are more efficient with all sorts of aminos.

        As much as I respect vegans I also don’t agree with their approach. I am of the opinion (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

        • @Landsharkgun@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 days ago

          What? The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat. Turns out all the land we use to feed animals we can just grow soybeans on instead. Speaking of which, you want amino acids? Wanna take a guess what has all the amino acids you need? That’s right, tofu! It’s widely recognized as the healthiest source of protein possible. That sets it apart from red or processed meat, which actively gives you heart disease and cancer.

          Look, I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. If you want to eat meat despite the facts indicating you shouldn’t, that’s fine. Same as you can decide to smoke cigarettes and drive a Hummer. Just be aware that it’s worse for both you and the entire planet.

          • GladiusB
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            Excessive soy beans has side effects as well. Most nutritionists (like doctors) agree that plant based with diversity of meats is the healthier option.

            • Sunshine (she/her)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 days ago

              You don’t need those animal products for nothing. As most doctors are carnists and do not fully understand nutrition because they have not studied the topic much in their training.

              The objective of this article is to present to physicians an update on plant-based diets. Concerns about the rising cost of health care are being voiced nationwide, even as unhealthy lifestyles are contributing to the spread of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. For these reasons, physicians looking for cost-effective interventions to improve health outcomes are becoming more involved in helping their patients adopt healthier lifestyles. Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet. Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels. They may also reduce the number of medications needed to treat chronic diseases and lower ischemic heart disease mortality rates. Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.

              Source

          • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            -22 days ago

            The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat.

            the definition provided by the vegan society makes no mention of efficiency.

        • @inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          19
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

          No vegans dispute this. In fact that is a large reason we point that meat is not a necessity to a healthy diet like many claim.

          But fundamentally I’m not here to talk about veganism. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I only wanted to provide a complete answer to the “hypocritical vegans” comment that appears in every thread paints feeling pain. While I personally think deciding that things are most “humane” when they are “efficient” for you regardless of the effect it has on others is selfish and motivated reasoning, thus unethical. But this thread nor community is a place to discuss ethics, I clearly illuminated why equating plant rights and animal rights is silly, so frankly I would just like to end the discussion there. Thanks.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            No vegans dispute this.

            I’ve actually seen vegans dispute that. I have no problem with veganism. It is not a bad idea. I don’t eat meat, but I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.

            But I have seen that.

            • Sunshine (she/her)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 days ago

              (or the money) to be a vegan.

              That’s an urban myth as the whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper and it’s only the prepackaged supermarket vegan alternatives that are more expensive on average.

              There are several products that are more expensive in any diet like waygu steak or decades old wine.

              Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.

              Source

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                -22 days ago

                Your paste:

                adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.

                Me:

                I don’t eat meat

                Either you did not read my post or you ignored it to lecture me anyway. Either way, you are not here in good faith.

                • Sunshine (she/her)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 days ago

                  I’m only disputing your claim that the “vegan diet is expensive.”

                  Claiming the vegan diet is expensive when a comprehensive study by Oxford on the topic says otherwise necessitates reexamining the claim.

          • GladiusB
            link
            fedilink
            -43 days ago

            Well I do think getting protein from many sources makes more sense and easier to obtain. Are there other options? Absolutely. But how available are they at all times and how much do I need to eat to get the same amount? I hear what you are saying by selfishness but we kind of have to be. It’s what fuels this giant meat puppet I move around daily.

            • @Jon_Servo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              203 days ago

              Many sources of protein

              You think vegans just eat blocks of tofu all day? My diet has never been more varied and flavorful than when I went vegan. Every single environmental impact study says animal agriculture is a bane to our continued existence, and it goes so far beyond that. Our lands and crops are swallowed up by this ever-rotating machine of suffering and murder that affects the lives of billions of land animals every year, which die terrified and in pain. No “varied protein” myth is worth so much suffering.

              • @prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -23 days ago

                And now it seems we can say the same with plants. Life per se is bad because it is based on a predatory scheme. We need to eat more living things in order to keep living…

                • @Teppichbrand@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 days ago

                  Vegan Bullshit Bingo
                  #22: Plants have feelings too

                  No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli. If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…

              • GladiusB
                link
                fedilink
                -33 days ago

                No. One of my sisters is a vegan and we have had extensive talks about it. Yea garbanzo and peanut butter are great power packed availability. But peanut butter only goes so far. Garbanzo needs a massive amount to match isolated whey or anything close.

                I totally agree with the environmental impact. I wish I could have locally sourced options that wouldn’t impact the environment so much.

                • @Teppichbrand@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Local meat is not better for the environment. Scientific information is only one click away. Look at this graph, it’s impressive. Plus:

                  Vegan Bullshit Bingo
                  #11 I only eat organic and regional

                  While seemingly 99% of people say this about themselves, the proportion of organic meat in virtually all western countries is less than 2%. Maybe you consciously buy organic products for the big feast, but then in everyday life you go get your weekly hamburger, the restaurant around the corner, or “just this once” prefer to reach for the somewhat cheaper discount products. Moreover, in organic farming, animals suffer and die in the same way. Organic cannot solve the core problems: Murder and exploitation for pleasure. The goal is more about soothing the conscience of consumers rather than actually helping the animals.

                • @Jon_Servo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  14
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  I love how micromanaging nutrition only ever comes up when veganism is mentioned. Do you think people who gorge themselves on steak and cheeseburgers are inherently healthier than someone with a vegan diet because they consume animal protein? You might be shocked to learn that the densest source of protein doesn’t come from an animal.

                  EDIT: You DO have local sources available to you. It’s in the same grocery store you buy slaughtered animals from.

        • @heraplem@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 days ago

          How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins?

          What does this have to do with anything? This is bringing efficiency to an ethics fight.

          • GladiusB
            link
            fedilink
            02 days ago

            I’m not fighting. I find it annoying to have to eat 16 times the amount of normal peanut butter as one chicken breast. It’s pure math.

      • @otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -123 days ago

        If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you’re the potato.

        Eat people because they’re potatoes, got it!

        Or wait, it’s “than”? Hmm…no, I can’t think of how to turn it into a joke with a punchline of “than” being there instead of “then”, lol

    • @jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you’d be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.

      • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        12 days ago

        the same plants that are being fed to animals are the plants that we eat too. animals are mostly said crop seconds or parts of plants the people can’t or won’t eat.

      • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        -12 days ago

        Wouldn’t you need to decimate the population of cows, pigs, and chickens in order to reduce their environmental impact? This argument always invokes an image of Thanos wiping out half the universe in order to ‘save’ it, but the people making this argument never seem to be receptive to acknowledging this point and just hand wave this step away.

        • @Holomew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 days ago

          The population of livestock is artificially high because of meat industries. Additionally, all animals in a meat producing farm will be killed already. That’s the entire purpose. Simply slowing the reproductive rate of the industry would reduce the populations on a fairly short timeline. I’m a meat eater myself, but using the killing of animals as an argument AGAINST slowing meat production is not very logical.

        • @Landsharkgun@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 days ago

          Which would you prefer? A thousand people living freely or a hundred thousand people living in cages too small to stand up in?

          Get outta here with pretending that big number = better. Those animals are raised in horrifying conditions explictly to be slaughtered. They wouldn’t exist in the first place except for the cruelty and greed of the meat industry. We routinely acknowledge that there are ‘fates worse than death’ for people, but when it comes to animals people seem to forget that. With the ending of the meat industry, fewer animals would exist, but they would be much better cared for.

          • @Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -22 days ago

            Ending the meat industry would result in the extinction of breeds we have engineered for meat and milk production.

            Ending factory farming would significantly reduce numbers and increase quality of life for the animals.

        • anar
          link
          fedilink
          12 days ago

          Meat eaters are already decimating populations, they are Thanos with a universe conveyor belt, clicking every second.

        • @jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          You’re going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.

          Edit: Ohhhh, you’re another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I’m going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.

          • @fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -22
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Oh no, you’re not better than anyone! Tragic.

            Assholes like wiping shit off. Which is what the block button does to you.

            • antiabed
              link
              fedilink
              13 days ago

              Dumbest person on the internet today award goes to…… YOU!!! Congratulations 🎉🏆🎉

                • copygirl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  53 days ago

                  Real classy of you to do the toddler thing of sticking your fingers in your ear and going “la la la I can’t hear you”. (It’ll be an honor to share a spot on your block list with these other two fellas.)

      • @rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -223 days ago

        I challenge you to make an appetizing meal out of the plants (and specific cultivars!) used as animal feed.

        • oce 🐆
          link
          fedilink
          47
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
          Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
          Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

          Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

          Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

          • @jerkface@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            123 days ago

            It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

            • oce 🐆
              link
              fedilink
              203 days ago

              They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
              There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

              This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

              You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

              • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -83 days ago

                The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland. It’s either to hilly or rocky or just plain doesn’t have great soil. Not to mention the level of crops it would require to feed people and the amount of people who just cannot sustain on a all vegan diet. There is a reason we are omnivores and not herbivores.

                • oce 🐆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  113 days ago

                  This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

                  Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

                  Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

                  Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

                • ThoGot
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 days ago

                  The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland.

                  But why should land be treated in that binary? How much biodiversity is being destroyed just to keep cattle or some other animals instead of keeping it in its natural state?

                • @catloaf@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  93 days ago

                  Pretty well, actually. Grasses like corn, wheat, rice, and oats make up a substantial portion of the typical diet.

        • @jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

          And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

          • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals

            That’s a lie. 2/3 of the world’s crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world’s crop calories go to livestock, but that’s as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can’t eat.

          • oce 🐆
            link
            fedilink
            13 days ago

            The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

            It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -16
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

            No they are not. They eat the shit we cannot eat, they graze the majority of their lives and we use non potable water to water them. The feed we feed them is not made with anything that a human could consume. It’s roots/stalks/inedible plants. This bullshit that keeps being promoted by vegans that everything a cow can eat is bullshit.

            And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

            Because your entire point was that vegans consume less plants than anyone else, which is basically saying “vegans are still better than meat eaters” it’s more hilarious dick wagging from you chods.

              • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -9
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Lol I’m butthurt? Lol you vegans are fucking hilariously ignorant bunch. You’re like religious zealots too, all high and mighty with an ignorant levels of information being spewed to you.

                • swim
                  link
                  fedilink
                  113 days ago

                  This is the epitome of projection, FYI. All this wasted energy and impotent vitriol, railing against a non-existent evil (“the vegan industry?” seriously sad), defending the (actually malignant) status quo for free. It’s exhausting feeling so sorry for you

        • @NFord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          15
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Are you saying grass aren’t plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -163 days ago

            Because they’re not about minimizing suffering, it’s about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.

      • @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Maybe hundreds of years from now we can synthesize nutrients without involving any living cells. At that point, it could be seen as unethical to enslave, murder and eat billions of microbial cells. For the time being, our life still depends on other living things, so better get comfortable with having mixed feelings about survival.

        • LostXOR
          link
          fedilink
          33 days ago

          Technically we can, it’s just so expensive as to be completely out of the question.

          • @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            33 days ago

            Doing chemistry by mixing chemicals is like fumbling in the dark. You tend to have ridiculously low yield, because you can’t really control which reaction takes place. It’s just a game of probabilities, which makes this gamble really expensive.

            Living cells are doing chemistry the right way by combining specific materials and making specific products. Enzymes are very picky, but with them you can actually control the reactions. Making enzymes is just next level complexity and a story for another time.

          • @catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            33 days ago

            But they’re working on it!

            Personally, I’m still just waiting on lab meat.

      • El Barto
        link
        fedilink
        13 days ago

        Bacteria already release stress chemicals when their food is lacking, so…

    • Optional
      link
      fedilink
      -53 days ago

      This is exactly the response the author was hoping for.

          • El Barto
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            You’re right, I should have written “No, it isn’t.” Fixed.

            So, no, it isn’t the response the author was looking for.

            • Optional
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Fair.

              Disagree, but fair.

              There’s absolutely NO WAY, not even a scintilla of a percent, that the author did not expect the king kind of discussion we’re seeing here to take place. None.

  • @egerlach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    163 days ago

    I hear the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)

    Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)

    Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)

    How do you think that feels? (bet it hurts really bad)

    Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8’s genocide)

    Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables grow)

    We have to stop all this gardening (it’s dirty as hell)

    Let’s call a spade a spade (a spade is a spade is a spade is a spade is a…)

  • HotsauceHurricane
    link
    fedilink
    English
    73 days ago

    I remember this mythbusters episode. They basically detected that plants “might “ scream or signal to other plants. They got some weird outliers too.

    • @Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      33 days ago

      You misremember it a bit. They saw “activity” when the thing was connected to the plant. Then they moved the plant into a steel container and the readings stopped. They hypothesized that they detected something like vibrations from a busy street etc, not a plant “screaming”.

          • @boomzilla@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            The paper is from 2013. The number of animals in factory farming were ramped up since then.

            Then: She says crops not crop calories.

            “From the 41 crops analyzed in this study, 9.46 × 1015 calories available in plant form are produced by crops globally, of which 55% directly feed humans. However, 36% of these produced calories go to animal feed, of which 89% is lost, such that only 4% of crop-produced calories are available to humans in the form of animal products. Another 9% of crop-produced calories are used for industrial uses and biofuels[…]”

            55% + 9% = 64% = 2/3

            So you’re correct with the 2/3 crop calories(!) if we count the 9% biofuel/industrial stuff with it.

            But why is the following?

            “According to a 2011 analysis, 75% of all agricultural land (including crop and pasture land) is dedicated to animal production.”

            I’d suppose it’s because of this reasons: A. Pastures need a lot of space which for which often woods or rainforest are burned and biomes are destroyed. B. Probably the most eaten vegetable (potatoe) is very energy dense and has a lot less waste by-product and therefore needs a lot less space than animal feed like soy, wheat or corn.

            This is everything I need to know from your paper to say that the system of animal agriculture is fucked, wasteful and destroys nature and our health (not only because of the pandemics it causes):

            “Put another way, shifting the crops used for feed and other uses towards direct human food consumption could increase calories in the food system by 3.89 × 1015 calories, from 5.57 × 1015 to 9.46 × 1015 calories, or a ∼70% increase. A quadrillion (1 × 1015) food calories is enough to feed just over 1 billion people a 2700 calories per day diet for a year (which is 985 500 calories per year) [1]. Therefore, shifting the crop calories used for feed and other uses to direct human consumption could potentially feed an additional ∼4 billion people.”

            Pastures can be regenerated, btw: https://www.reddit.com/r/farming/comments/1ds3fvh/how_to_turn_pasture_into_a_garden/

            Edit: The latter is what the “Vegan Land Movement” is doing very successfully by rewilding pastures to wild lands again where a wide variety of wild life is finding a refugium now.

              • @boomzilla@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                011 hours ago

                Nope. I’m not shifting anything. You were by changing the subject from crops to crop calories without taking into account humans can grow calorie dense foods on relatively small space opposed to animal feed which needs a lot crops, land and produces a lot of plant waste and in addition is inefficient because only a fraction of calories come out of the slaughtered being compared to the initial calories in plants.

                All that while we cull millions of feeling beings in the worst possible way right now because of H5N1 (add that to the polycrisis) waste enormous amounts of resources for little protein and calories and destroy nature.

                Here have a look at some frail vegans, while the world burns, mate:

                💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪

                • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 hours ago

                  Here have a look at some frail vegans, while the world burns, mate:

                  your dunk-brained links to Reddit are not getting clicked

                • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 hours ago

                  the same crops that feed animals feed people. they eat fodder and industrial waste from the same fields that produce food that people eat. it’s a conservation of resources.