"poor living conditions" plants aren't alive unless you want to get into pseudo-science and terminological word play. Some biologists might agree with you, but a physicist would not.I honestly do find it strange that morally-aligned vegetarians care for animals but not plants, et al.; as though they're not against poor living conditions in themselves, only whether or not the beings in question are consciously aware of them. That's fair enough in all practicality, no use showing a blind man a painting, but I still find it rather disregardful.
How exactly are plants non-living?"poor living conditions" plants aren't alive unless you want to get into pseudo-science and terminological word play. Some biologists might agree with you, but a physicist would not.
They can't feel pain, and aren't aware of their surroundings in any way. It bugs me to kill them as well, but still... it's not comparable to the cruelty animals face.How exactly are plants non-living?
Being alive and living are two different things. Going by the dictionary plants are alive, but from a philosophical point of view they are separate. Someone in a catatonic state is alive, but not living. Being alive is not simply changing, moving, growing, reproducing or even performing actions. Living is being autonomous, at the least.How exactly are plants non-living?
What? I actually only know of a single female vegetarian/vegan. Whereas I know 5 males that are vegetarian. I have more female friends than male friends as well. Gender has nothing to do with it.I'm vegetarian because it's more girlie to be so. Seriously. You rarely see a vegetarian boy. Plenty of preachy, preconscious /vegan/ boys, for totes. But I bet if you think of the first vegetarian friend of yours that comes to mind? She'll be a girl.
Speaking as a cook, this is absolute bullcrap. I can guarantee there are a number of celebrity chefs that would disagree with this also, because of course, a celebrity's opinion is worth more than mine. Any chef that uses this as an excuse just can't admit they are too incompetent to create a fine dish without the use of meat. Sausage? Pork Fat? Are you kidding me? Veal stock and stinky cheese I will admit are a welcome addition to fine dining, but this guy is a tool."Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn.
To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.
Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. The body, these waterheads imagine, is a temple that should not be polluted by animal protein. It's healthier, they insist, though every vegetarian waiter I've worked with is brought down by any rumor of a cold."
~Anthony Bourdain, Chef
I know they are not sentient, it is simply a matter of fact that they may be treated poorly regardless of whether they can or will care. All life reacts to stimuli, merely at different 'levels'. I'm not out to say all life is necessarily worthy of its wellbeing, just that if we're going to apply a worth to beings beyond our own species, I don't see why it is only applied to animals.They can't feel pain, and aren't aware of their surroundings in any way.
I don't mean to be difficult but what purpose might this distinction have?Being alive and living are two different things. Going by the dictionary plants are alive, but from a philosophical point of view they are separate. Someone in a catatonic state is alive, but not living. Being alive is not simply changing, moving, growing, reproducing or even performing actions. Living is being autonomous, at the least.
It's important to make the distinction in general. In this case, the second point I made is more important. The fact plants have no brain or nervous system, pain is a feeling we humans can empathise with. Plants are too distant from this 'kind' of existence. A more accurate analogy for plants would be feeling guilty for allowing a shelf to become dusty, or trampling on a patch of flowers.I don't mean to be difficult but what purpose might this distinction have?
I didn't quote him because he's a celebrity or a chef. So, your opinion is just fine. I quoted it because I agree with it, find it humorous, and figure he worded what I want to say better than I wouldBeing alive and living are two different things. Going by the dictionary plants are alive, but from a philosophical point of view they are separate. Someone in a catatonic state is alive, but not living. Being alive is not simply changing, moving, growing, reproducing or even performing actions. Living is being autonomous, at the least.
Plants are only affected by "living conditions" biologically. They don't have a brain or a nervous system to process any form of pain; whereas animals do.
What? I actually only know of a single female vegetarian/vegan. Whereas I know 5 males that are vegetarian. I have more female friends than male friends as well. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Speaking as a cook, this is absolute bullcrap. I can guarantee there are a number of celebrity chefs that would disagree with this also, because of course, a celebrity's opinion is worth more than mine. Any chef that uses this as an excuse just can't admit they are too incompetent to create a fine dish without the use of meat. Sausage? Pork Fat? Are you kidding me? Veal stock and stinky cheese I will admit are a welcome addition to fine dining, but this guy is a tool.
"poor living conditions" plants aren't alive unless you want to get into pseudo-science and terminological word play. Some biologists might agree with you, but a physicist would not.
Most people wouldn't compare the life of a human to that of an animal; why compare the life of an animal to a plant? It's just not true that all organisms should be treated equal. Some people don't view animals as deserving of fair treatment, others do. It's because animals are simultaneously so far, yet so close to human beings. This is also why some people have different opinions on whether it's okay to eat fish, but not okay to eat mammals, or birds. It all comes down to your own personal philosophy. It's difficult to draw an objective line; hence disagreements.
They can't feel pain, and aren't aware of their surroundings in any way. It bugs me to kill them as well, but still... it's not comparable to the cruelty animals face.
There is actually such thing as a fruitarian though. They only eat things that can be harvested from plants without killing them. I don't see how that could be healthy though.
(Guess I better answer the question myself, so this isn't spam.)
I'm currently trying to become a vegetarian. I used to eat up to 7 pounds of meat a week, and as a kid I would say I was a carnivore as a joke... but as I've gotten older, it's gotten more and more disgusting. Beyond just being incredibly unhealthy, I just can't stand the idea of eating another living creature anymore, regardless if it's natural or not.
That's just my own personal choice though. If someone else wants to eat meat, the fact of the matter is that it is natural, so they can if they want. It's not up to me.
Being alive and living are two different things. Going by the dictionary plants are alive, but from a philosophical point of view they are separate. Someone in a catatonic state is alive, but not living. Being alive is not simply changing, moving, growing, reproducing or even performing actions. Living is being autonomous, at the least.
Plants are only affected by "living conditions" biologically. They don't have a brain or a nervous system to process any form of pain; whereas animals do.
What? I actually only know of a single female vegetarian/vegan. Whereas I know 5 males that are vegetarian. I have more female friends than male friends as well. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Speaking as a cook, this is absolute bullcrap. I can guarantee there are a number of celebrity chefs that would disagree with this also, because of course, a celebrity's opinion is worth more than mine. Any chef that uses this as an excuse just can't admit they are too incompetent to create a fine dish without the use of meat. Sausage? Pork Fat? Are you kidding me? Veal stock and stinky cheese I will admit are a welcome addition to fine dining, but this guy is a tool.