UndergroundGoblin

Seems like this Lemmy Account + the blogspot Blog is AI generated. Uses only generated Pictures, the formatting on this blog is kinda weird and the topics are very generic. But I could also be wrong.

I recently got my mom to download epub books. A small victory.

Probably. It's a shame that meat is so heavily subsidized. Without the subsidies, meat would be far too expensive for normal earners. In my country (Germany), for example, you pay 19% tax on oat milk and 7% on cow's milk. Because cow's milk is considered a staple food...🤡

"...plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness..."

Because I think it is wrong to kill an individual if it is not necessary. Calorie intake is not a legitimate reason if it can also be plant-based.

Here is my prove: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/

TL;DR: Abstract

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.

Why not?

We slaved colored people for ages. Woman had much less rights back in the days. We lived in caves for decades. Etc.

Just because we have been doing something for a very long time and it is socially accepted does not automatically make it right.

Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?

Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.

Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.

You could train a LoRa based on the images. Remember: Creating nudes of people without their consent is illegal.

TL;DR: 0.01873$ per stream.