Zitat:
"Pflanzen leiden doch auch"
Nein. Schweine können nicht fliegen, weil sie keine Flügel, Gasblasen, Rotoren oder sonstige Strukturen haben, die sie zum Flug befähigen würden. Entsprechend haben Pflanzen keine Nerven oder sonstige Strukturen, die sie befähigen würden, zu leiden.

Das wäre auch nicht sinnvoll, da z.B. Schmerzempfindung sich evolutionär entwickelt hat, um schädlichen Einflüssen zu entgehen (ein gebrochenes Bein schmerzt, wodurch es nicht so stark belastet wird; es gibt Menschen, die an einer Krankheit leiden, die sie schmerzunempfindlich macht, was ihr Leben sehr erschwert). Ein Kind, das durch schmerzhafte Erfahrung gelernt hat, keine heiße Herdplatte anzufassen, wird in Zukunft diese Gefahrenquelle meiden, Wiesenblumen können jedoch nicht vor grasenden Kühen fliehen.

Der Mythos von leidenen Pflanzen basiert primär auf einem Buch aus den 70ern mit dem Titel "The Secret Life of Plants" ("Das geheime Leben der Pflanzen"), das vor allem in Esoterikkreisen auch heute noch beliebt ist, ungeachtet der Tatsache, daß die darin genannten Experimente nicht reproduzierbar sind und die zitierten Quellen teils nicht existieren, teils gerade zu gegenteiligen Ergebnissen kommen.

Zitat:
Empfindungen? Für eine Empfindungsfähigkeit von Pflanzen gibt es keine wissenschaftlichen Belege. Es gibt Indizien, nicht aber eine ganze Indizienkette. Heute zu behaupten, sie könnten nichts empfinden, ist nach den vielen neuen Erkenntnissen genau so spekulativ wie das Gegenteil. Es ist uns die Gewissheit abhanden gekommen, den Pflanzen eine Wahrnehmungsfähigkeit abzusprechen. Immerhin wurde die Pflanze bisher in ihren Fähigkeiten, die Umwelt wahrzunehmen, weit unterschätzt.

Zitat:
Carnism is confusing

December 9, 2012

In an interview with ARZone, Dr. Melanie Joy discussed her theory on "carnism," which she defines as an invisible ideology of "meat"-eating. One of the hosts asks Dr. Joy why she rejects the more logical concept of speciesism. Her reply was that speciesism is "too abstract" and "confusing," but most people seem to "get" carnism.

I have to say, this response left me completely dumbfounded. Why the focus on flesh? To single out flesh as somehow more problematic makes no sense at all and amounts to nothing more than a glorified campaign for reductionism/vegetarianism. She insists that the term "carnism" entails all animal products. Having read her books, I can assure you, this is never made clear. Furthermore, she admits in this interview that she rarely mentions leather or wool. "Carnism" also excludes vivisection, companion animals, and animals used in entertainment.

One of the hosts asked her if she thought people left her lectures "getting it" or "confused" (An intentionally leading question--what author would ever admit that their audiences left confused?). She answered that she's had no problem with confusion at all and most people do indeed "get it." Well, yes, I'm sure they do, because vegetarianism [eben: als Gegensatz zu Vegetarismus wäre "Karnismus" vielleicht geeignet, AS] as a concept has been largely accepted in our culture for some years now. She's not proposing anything radical or new.

Joy recently launched the Carnism Awareness and Action Network--yet another welfarist organization that obscures veganism, promotes arbitrarily defined reductionism, and loudly displays "DONATE" buttons on its website. Clear anti-speciesist messages, of course, are thought to discourage donations--and as soon as an organization professionalizes, donations become key to its survival. Veganism is only rarely mentioned--but Joy assures us that veganism is the implied opposite to carnism.

Joy's argument is that carnism is somehow "dumbing it down" for people. She insists that speciesism (the correlative to racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, and ethnocentrism) is just too confusing. But rarely (if ever) does she make a clear case for veganism...or why exploiting animals not used for food is problematic...or even that exploiting animals for their skin, milk, or eggs is inherently tied to killing them for their flesh.

How her idea of "carnism" could possibly be more confusing, I don't know. Caring about animal suffering while simultaneously participating in their exploitation doesn't need yet another label--in social psychology, it's called "cognitive dissonance" and it is a result of speciesism and oppression.

This intentional confusion is even further aggravated by a recent article Joy wrote for One Green Planet where she downplayed the importance of the growing divide between abolitionist veganism and reductionist welfarism. Of course in her work, she rejects Francionian abolitionism and ignores veganism, so to recognize the important criticisms abolitionism has raised against her welfarist work would undermine her superfluous theory on "carnism." Like many welfarists, she ardently defends the counterproductive and ultimately disgusting work of reform and vegan-bashing and portrays abolitionists negatively to dismiss us. The chastising "divisive" label is really getting old, by the way. We are divisive, but not in the way Joy means it. Abolitionists see Joy and others like her as cogs in the animal welfare industrial machine, something fundamentally different from animal rights. Our divide from their corruption is something we are not sorry for in the least.

Skip the jargon, drop vegetarianism, make a clear, honest, and straightforward case for veganism and the rejection of speciesism. Muddled approaches to reductionism aren't helping our movement. And please, if you want to help animals, no need to donate--go vegan and get active.

Zitat:
I criticize Joy’s work on three major points. First, her argument offers nothing intellectually novel. Second, Joy’s conceptualization and critique of carnism is speciesist, counterintuitive, and is theoretically impotent. Third, her proscriptions for change are confusing and inappropriate.