plants: "Plants are Sentient and Have Feelings Too" Flashcards
This deck parallels the briefing at: vbriefings.org/plants. Full citations are in the briefing.
About this Deck: “Plants are Sentient and Have Feelings Too.”
This deck parallels the briefing at: vbriefings.org/plants.
—There are no formal citations here, although sources may be mentioned. Full citations with links are provided in the briefing.
—It would be best to read the briefing before studying these cards. Reading the briefing first provides understanding and context.
What is the briefing titled ““Plants Are Sentient and Have Feelings Too” about?
The briefing provides several reasons why objections to veganism based on plant sentience or plant pain are unfounded.
Provide a high-level summary of the briefing on plant sentience.
The plant-sentience objection to veganism is flawed because plants lack the capacity to suffer or feel emotions, unlike animals, and eating animals causes more plant deaths than directly consuming plants because of agricultural inefficiency.
While the idea of plant sentience is often sensationalized, it does not compare ethically or scientifically to the well-established actual sentience of animals.
In context, what motivates the plant sentience-based objection to veganism?
This objection to animal rights and veganism is usually not from a concern for the well-being of plants, but to illuminate a perceived inconsistency.
If both plants and animals are sentient and have feelings, and if we abstain from eating animals for ethical reasons, then we must also abstain from eating plants.
What are the key points presented in the briefing on plant sentience?
- Eating animals kills more plants than eating plants.
- Plants differ from animals in ethically significant ways.
- There is no reason plants would experience pain
- Some plants depend on being eaten for the survival of their species.
- Visceral reactions differ with plants and animals.
- Plants can act intelligently without being sentient.
Why does eating animals kill more plants than eating plants?
Because raising animals for food is extremely inefficient—animals require large amounts of plant calories to produce a relatively small amount of edible animal calories because most of the calories are lost in metabolism and in growing non-edible parts (like bones, feathers, and skin).
According to the World Resources Institute, how many calories of plant feed does it take, on average, to produce one calorie of animal feed?
It takes on average 24 calories of plant feed to produce one calorie of food from animals.
What percentage of the world’s soy and grain used for food is fed to animals, and who said so?
Over 75%, according to the UN and UN data compiled by the “Our World in Data” group.
In what ethically significant ways do plants differ from animals (4)?
—Plants don’t suffer or feel pain.
—Plants cannot experience emotions.
—Plants have no self-awareness or sense of the future.
—Plants do not have desires, preferences, or interests.
Why can’t plants suffer or feel pain?
Because plants lack a brain and pain receptors, they cannot feel pain.
Plants may sense they are being eaten through mechanoreceptors, but they don’t care.
Why can’t plants experience emotions?
Emotions are processed in the hippocampus and amygdala regions of the brain—neither of which are present in plants.
Why do plants have no self-awareness or sense of the future?
Thinking requires a brain, and without thought, there can be no self-awareness or sense of the future.
Why is it that plants cannot have desires, preferences, or interests?
These traits require thinking, and thinking requires a brain.
Why is there no reason plants would experience pain?
Pain is a response to avoid tissue damage by withdrawing or fleeing, and since plants have a limited ability to withdraw or flee, there is no reason they would have evolved to feel pain.
Explain how some plants depend on being eaten for the survival of their species.
The indigestible seeds of the plants will be spread over a wide geographical area as the plants are eaten by animals and then deposited in the animals’ excrement.
Why do our visceral reactions differ with plants and animals?
Our visceral difference in reactions to harming plants versus animals shows we intuitively recognize animals’, not plants’, capacity to suffer.
For example, we all sense the difference between pulling up a dandelion and slitting the throat of a chicken.
Watching someone mow the lawn doesn’t evoke the same reaction as watching someone kick a dog.
Explain how plants can act intelligently without being sentient.
Plants exhibit intelligence through complex behaviors like responding to stimuli, communicating chemically, and optimizing resource use.
However, they lack a brain and the capacity for subjective experiences, which are essential for sentience.
What are some counterclaims that might arise when discussing plant sentience?
- You can’t prove that plants are not sentient, don’t feel pain, and don’t suffer.
- There are numerous articles showing that plants are sentient, feel pain, and suffer.
How might you respond to someone who says that you can’t prove that plants are not sentient, don’t feel pain, and don’t suffer?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I say that plants are sentient, for example, it’s up to me to prove that claim.
For example, if I say unicorns are real, then the burden of proof is on me to offer evidence that they are real, not on you to prove that they are not.
What is the difference between the burden of proof fallacy and the argument from ignorance fallacy?
(plant sentience briefing)
The burden of proof fallacy shifts the responsibility of providing evidence to others, while the argument from ignorance assumes a claim is true due to lack of evidence disproving it.
How might you respond to the claim that there are numerous articles showing that plants are sentient, feel pain, and suffer?
These are just claims, and they are not backed by science.
Because plant sentience is a fascinating topic with widespread interest and curiosity, it lends itself to clickbait, sensationalism, and misrepresentation of findings.
Name one scientific study that does a good job explaining why plants aren’t sentient.
The 2021 study published in Protoplasma, ‘Debunking a myth: plant consciousness’ critiques existing claims and misconceptions about plant consciousness and debunks the idea that plants possess sentience or conscious experience.
How did Leonardo da Vinci weigh in on Plant Sentience?
Leonardo da Vinci observed centuries ago that plants don’t feel pain, noting that animals sense pain to protect themselves, while immobile plants lack this need.
What should you always do when answering an objection based on plant sentience (or any objection)?
Try to respond briefly and steer the conversation back to the animals. These briefings provide detailed, cited responses, which you can share by inviting others to visit this website. This allows you to focus on the animals without covering all the details of an objection during the discussion.
What can you say to segue the conversation on plant sentience back to animal ethics?
—“Are you bringing this up because you really believe plants suffer, or are you using it to justify eating animals?”
—“Even if we assumed plants could suffer, we’d still have to ask: why add even more suffering by eating animals?”
—”If avoiding harm matters, wouldn’t it make sense to avoid the suffering we know exists rather than worrying about hypothetical suffering?”
What two questions can you ask if the topic of plant sentience or pain comes up during a conversation?
—Ask your interlocutor how they would personally react to seeing someone pull a weed versus seeing someone slit the throat of a pig.
—Ask your interlocutor by what mechanism a plant can feel pain given they lack a brain and pain receptors.
How might you respond when told that plants have intelligence?
“Yes, but those are biochemical pathways, not neural pathways—there’s a big difference.”
How could you show them show them that eating plants kills more plants this than eating animals?
Instead of debating whether plants feel pain, redirect the conversation to harm reduction.
—“Even if plants could feel pain, eating animals causes more plant deaths because running calories through animals is inefficient. Wouldn’t it make more sense to eat plants directly and cause less harm?”
—“If you’re concerned about plant suffering, the most plant-friendly diet is veganism, since it requires fewer plants to sustain us.”
Why? This turns their argument against them—instead of disproving plant sentience, it shows that veganism still aligns with their supposed concern.
What might you say to challenge their assumptions about plant sentence?
People assume that because plants react to stimuli, they must be sentient. But that’s not how sentience works.
—“Plants can respond to light and gravity, but so can bacteria and fungi—do you think mushrooms have feelings?”
—“Yes, but those are biochemical pathways, not neural pathways—there’s a big difference.”
—“Plants don’t have a brain, nervous system, or any way to process emotions.”
—”Why would they feel pain if they can’t react to avoid it?”
Why? This highlights the difference between reaction and sentience, making their argument fall apart.
How could you flip their belief against their arguments for plant sentience?
People instinctively treat plants and animals differently—because they know plants aren’t sentient.
—“If you saw someone mowing the lawn and someone else kicking a dog, would you feel the same way about both?”
—“No one protests salad bars. But we all recognize slaughterhouses as places of suffering. Doesn’t that tell you something?”
Why? This appeals to their own moral instincts instead of just facts.
How would you expose the moral irrelevant of the plant sentence argument?
Even if we pretended plants could suffer, would that justify harming animals?
—“If a tree could feel pain, would that make it okay to stab a pig?”
—“We know for certain that animals suffer. Even if plants did too, why would that justify causing even more suffering by eating animals?”
Why? This shows how illogical their argument is—even if plants could suffer, it wouldn’t justify harming animals.
How might you cause them to question their own assumptions about plant sentence?
Most people have never thought critically about this claim.
—“There’s no credible evidence that plants suffer, but overwhelming evidence that animals do. So why are we pretending these are equal?”
Why? This challenges them to rethink their position, rather than just sticking to a lazy talking point.
