r/MadeMeSmile • u/CalpurniaSomaya • Apr 10 '26

ANIMALS Could not be more adorable

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

34.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

675 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

69

u/carl3266 Apr 10 '26

You probably don’t want to hear that fish experience fear, stress, joy, and pain. They display complex behaviors, such as social bonding, intelligence, and even empathy.

43

u/ARQWERTY Apr 10 '26

Damn. I just read into this and you’re right. I’m not sure why I thought that. Thank you for educating me on this.

10

u/Contraposite Apr 10 '26

It was a common misconception that was spread around years ago. Same with the idea that goldfish have a 3 second memory.

-1

u/Doodlefish25 Apr 10 '26

Wait until you find out that plants feel

10

u/ARQWERTY Apr 10 '26

NOOOOO. I guess I’ll just die hahaha

27

u/ollobollo Apr 10 '26

Don't worry, plants are not sentient. They have no central nervous system, unlike fish, pigs, and almost every other animal.

7

u/statsasker Apr 10 '26

There's actually an interesting debate going on these days in science about the sentience of plants (and other organisms that do not have a nervous system, but are capable of learning and/or apparently complex/strategic behaviours, e.g. slime moulds).

This article sums it up quite well (it's open access) and has plentiful references to research on both sides of the debate, but my personal take on it is that it's not as simple as to state that plants lack a nervous system in order to claim that they're not capable of sentience. Of course, if anatomy is the limiting factor, then yes, plants won't have sentience because they do indeed lack a nervous system. However, the phloem system in plants is made of living cells and can transport electrical and chemical signals, much like the nervous system can, and some behaviours in the plant world paint them as remarkably conscious (and maybe even cognizant) of their environment. Perhaps the plants' way of interpreting and interacting with their environments is more akin to animals whose nervous systems don't rely on action potentials to function (e.g., nematodes, whose neurons don't "fire" in the way we think of when we think of nervous systems, but which instead rely on chemical gradients and graduated electric potentials to transmit information), but I feel that dismissing sentience off the bat on anatomical grounds limits the perspective on plant behaviour severely.

Personally, I think that, as more research is done, both on plants and even on machine learning models, our definition of "sentience" will have to evolve, or at least adapt, to either account for life that does not possess a nervous system, but whose behaviour indicates at least some degree of environmental and/or self-awareness, or to distinguish better between animal sentience and whatever we may wish to call what plants, slime moulds, and other organisms are doing. Reading sentience as phenomenal consciousness, as the article I cited does, the picture is at best murky at present.

7

u/AdWaste8026 Apr 10 '26

Even if we were to find out they do display some sense of sentience or whatever, considering only eating plants leads to less plants being eaten means the conclusion doesn’t really change.

1

u/statsasker Apr 13 '26

Sorry for the late reply, I rarely log into this account, but I don't think I agree with your point in the context of this thread - I was replying to a chain where the commenter was considering not eating plants if they were to find out that they feel. So pointing out that plants may be sentient/feel does change the conclusion/implication for that commenter, given that the chain of comments implies that sentience is a (presumably moral) line in the sand drawn when considering what they're willing to consume. They would still, technically, be able to consume any fruit, seeds, or other parts the plant grows for the "purpose" of spreading itself/attracting animals that can spread its seeds, just probably not things like leaves, roots, or other parts that the plant doesn't normally dispose of/needs to survive/would cause an injury/stress response. So if you're looking to avoid eating sentient beings, finding out plants possess sentience would definitely lead to (at least) a reconsideration of eating habits (no more herbs, maybe? No more onions?) to keep in alignment with that particular value.

If their standpoint is more utilitarian/environmental, though, then you're right, removing animals from the chain does lead to fewer plants being eaten overall, and therefore a better outcome in terms of reducing suffering and/or improving the environmental outlook. If you're looking to be environmentally conscious and/or reduce suffering as much as possible without impacting choices too severely, the conclusion doesn't really change by finding out plants are sentient.

2

u/scuddlebud Apr 10 '26

The tree in my yard had branches growing too low. I started snipping the ends of the branches when I could reach it with my loppers. The tree radically changed its growth trajectory. You can see a huge difference even on nearby branches that didn't get snipped but where growing the same direction.

-5

u/CV90_120 Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Vegans denying plant sensory complexity is no surprise to anyone.

10

u/szox Apr 10 '26

I believe you're being facetious because you're looking for excuses not to change your behavior, because you'd rather desperately search for some inconsistency than face truth in the face.

But if you aren't... and you really care about plant pain, eating animals requires much more plant material in the first place, because it's so fucking inefficient to go up the food chain.

1

u/CV90_120 Apr 10 '26

Do you own a car?

3

u/opinionatedalt Apr 10 '26

Ignoring their response and hitting them with a whataboutism is kind of proving their point.

-2

u/CV90_120 Apr 10 '26

It's a so called moral argument based on a false premise (plants being NPCs), as well as being bounded by personal convenience (doing as little 'harm' to animal type living organisms they have deigned to care about only to the extent that one is not inconvenienced). It's not whataboutism, it's defining the bounds of their so called 'morality'.

2

u/szox Apr 11 '26

That’s quite a change of topics to whether I'm... perfect? In a thread about piglets?

Whether I own a car or not doesn’t address the point: we recognize piglets and cows as capable of suffering and emotionally complex, yet still treat them as commodities and food.

Since we can’t avoid all harm, the relevant question is whether we reduce it where we reasonably can.

and no, I don't have a car but that's not really the point anyway

-12

u/Missrschealsfilthbox Apr 10 '26

Who care. What does and animals feeling have to do with how delicious they are. These little piggies are cute. But when they are 600 lbs and covered in pig shit they won’t be so cute and will be perfect for slaughter.