The whole “bovine” joke was hilarious on one hand and a little horrifying on the other. It got me thinking: how would I feel if an animal I was about to consume came up to me enthusiastically conveying its consent for being eaten? I will be horrified, just like Arthur! But why?

Will it be better to eat against its consent instead? Why?

Then… what about salad’s consent?! Interesting thought experiment…

I am presenting the joke in the form of three extracts from the text:

Extract 1:

"A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips. “Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?” It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them. Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox. “Something off the shoulder perhaps?” suggested the animal, “Braised in a white wine sauce?” “Er, your shoulder?” said Arthur in a horrified whisper. "

Extract 2:

“‘You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?’ whispered Trillian to Ford. ‘Me?’ said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes. ‘I don’t mean anything.’ ‘That’s absolutely horrible,’ exclaimed Arthur, ‘the most revolting thing I’ve ever heard.’ ‘What’s the problem, Earthman?’ said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal’s enormous rump. ‘I just don’t want to eat an animal that’s standing there inviting me to,’ said Arthur, ‘it’s heartless.’ ‘Better than eating an animal that doesn’t want to be eaten,’ said Zaphod. ‘That’s not the point,’ Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. ‘All right,’ he said, ‘maybe it is the point. I don’t care, I’m not going to think about it now. I’ll just . . . er . . .’”

Extract 3:

“I think I’ll just have a green salad,’ he muttered. ‘May I urge you to consider my liver?’ asked the animal. ‘It must be very rich and tender by now, I’ve been force-feeding myself for months.’ ‘A green salad,’ said Arthur emphatically. ‘A green salad?’ said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur. ‘Are you going to tell me,’ said Arthur, ‘that I shouldn’t have green salad?’ ‘Well,’ said the animal, ‘I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.’ It managed a very slight bow. ‘Glass of water, please,’ said Arthur.”

  • McKee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean plants to our knowledge are not sentient, so no harm done to “someone” when killing them, in the same way as there are no harm done to the rock when you throw it on the ground. Animals we eat on the other hand are sentient so there is clearly someone that is harmed. I really think non-human animals should be included in our sphere of moral consideration.

    Even if plants were somehow found to all be sentient, by eating them directly instead of feeding them to animals then eat the animals you would minimize the harm done.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean plants to our knowledge are not sentient, so no harm done to “someone” when killing them

      The same thing was said about animals for decades as well…

      I am not making a value judgement on what life is more important but you are.

      Our lives continue because other lives must end and that is the case if you are a full carnivore or vegan.

      • philthi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Full disclosure, I am not a vegan.

        However, I do know that not all plants we eat die as a result of being eaten, for example, eating apples from an apple tree does not kill anything - I suppose I can see that this is like eating eggs from a chicken.

        Another example could be eating the leaves of rocket lettuce (but choosing not to uproot it), or the stalks of celery or rhubarb is another example, in both cases the plant can return to complete health over time.

        Then there are some plants, such as grasses that require the ends of their blades to be eaten in order to be healthy.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you sure about the grasses and do you have some particular species in mind? As far as I know, they tolerate grazing, but it’s preferable for them to not be parcially eaten. Apple, on the other hand, are so delicious because they’re meant to be eaten (to spread the seads with the poop). Rocket lettuce definitely prefers not being eaten. The flavour we find nice was meant to deter us from eating the leaves.

      • McKee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I’ve stated above, even if we found plants to be sentient, you’d be killing less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to other animals and eating these animals. Just because lives must end for us to live does not mean you have to maximize the suffering caused.

        I’m clearly making a judgement on which life is more important, because something non sentient literally cannot have a judgement on life and thus cannot miss its life or be wronged when its life is taken.

    • ByroTriz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plants can think and likely feel pain. There’s a whole field of research on it.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why all the downvotes. This is at least partly true! Plant senses and communication research had been a taboo among scientists for many decades, but there was a breakthrough recently and we finally have some interesting results. It was proven that plants can sense soundwaves (like insect buzzing, they don’t care about music), light of different colors, carnivorous plants can taste (and decide whether they really caught their prey and should start digesting), they sense when they are harmed (a sense that serves the same purpose as our pain), they smell other plants and they have a sense of time and rythm. They can react to signals from other plants. Whether they think and feel pain depends on your definition of thinking and feeling pain (and to what degree your definition is anthropomorphic).

        • ByroTriz@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Plant sensing is well established scientific fact, but that’s not all. Experiments show they can learn from experience and remember things. Their intelligence is mostly hormonal so their reaction times is about 1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower than animals. Information processing happens in their system of root apexes, so that’s their “brain”

      • Bonehead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And communicate. You know that smell of a fresh cut lawn? Yeah, that’s grass screaming about being cut.