Culture Blogs

Toward a Progressive Pagan Culture

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

The Vegan Pagan: Interstice the Second

As before, I've been following the Facebook conversations around my vegan blog entries, and this time I've noticed further discussion around the idea of plant sentience. Some of you have argued that plants are no different from animals and so the eating of plants and animals should be considered on equal footing.

How very animistic of you. I would expect no less from my Pagan community.

It's an interesting question and one deserving of its own space, so I've decided to offer a vegan perspective here in advance of my next major blog entry in the series.

For the sake of argument, let's presume that plants possess independent minds and thoughts of sufficient complexity that they can deliberately communicate with the world. From this premise, a plant-based diet would still represent the most ethical choice and the path of least destruction, because every single animal life requires the consumption of many plant lives. There are a number of peer-reviewed studies explaining feed to meat conversion ratios, but here's a handy chart from NPR that shows the amount of grain, forage and grazing land required to produce a quarter-pound hamburger:

Resources required to make a quarter pound hamburger.

Full NPR Broadcast and Image Credit

Therefore, if we believe plants are sentient, and our goal is to be ethical people who do the least harm to the fewest sentient beings, then we have no choice but to adopt a plant-based diet.

Now let's take this argument in a different direction. Again, let's presume plants are sentient. As sentient beings, they would want certain things from the world; sunlight, water and soil among them. Another important thing they would want is for us to eat them, go someplace else and shit out their seeds so that more plants can grow in our homemade fertilizer. That's right. If plants are sentient, we can observe by their behavior that they want for us to eat them. Now let's presume that animals are also sentient, and as sentient beings, they also want certain things from the world. By the same set of criteria, we can observe by their behavior that they do not want for us to eat them.

As proof of this assertion, I offer the following two videos. The first video depicts an Alberta grain harvest. At no time does the grain cry out or try to run away. The second video depicts a cow in a slaughter chute waiting to be prodded inside. In this case, the cow demonstrates foreknowledge of her fate, fear of death and a desire to flee. The second video isn't graphic, and I promise to provide you with a warning should I link to any graphic depictions of animal cruelty in this series. That said, I challenge you to not to look away from the things I show you in these entries. After all, if it's good enough for your plate, it ought to be good enough for your eyes, too.

  1. YouTube: Grain Harvest in Alberta
  2. YouTube: I am scared and don't want to die.

 So we must draw from our hypothetical exploration of plant sentience that:

  1. If plants and animals are the same, and we want to minimize the suffering of the beings who feed us, we should never eat animals.
  2. If plants and animals are the same, plants behave as though they want us to eat them, while animals do not.

However, we know that from a scientific perspective plants are not sentient. As vegan abolitionist Gary Francione puts it:

Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience. And this all makes scientific sense. Why would plants evolve the ability to be sentient when they cannot do anything in response to an act that damages them? If you touch a flame to a plant, the plant cannot run away; it stays right where it is and burns. If you touch a flame to a dog, the dog does exactly what you would do—cries in pain and tries to get away from the flame. Sentience is a characteristic that has evolved in certain beings to enable them to survive by escaping from a noxious stimulus. Sentience would serve no purpose for a plant; plants cannot “escape.” - A Frequently Asked Question: What About Plants?

That said, from a Pagan or metaphysical perspective, it's perfectly acceptable to have equal reverence for plant and animal life. But that doesn't mean the two kinds of life are equivalent. An apple is not a cow. They do not possess a similar biology, nor do they respond to the world in similar ways. The first contains the seeds of future apple trees meant to pass through our digestive systems and grow out of our shit. The second expresses its desire to live without suffering in ways that cross the species barrier and are fully understandable to us. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to conclude that if we have reverence for all life and care about the desires of all living beings, we should meet those living beings on their own terms? Shouldn't we eat the apple and leave the cow alone?

That's it for now. Many thanks for your time! I'll be back again in a couple of weeks with my next major blog entry in this series.

Last modified on
Tagged in: vegan veganism
C.S. MacCath is a writer of fiction, non-fiction and poetry whose work has appeared in Strange Horizons, Clockwork Phoenix: Tales of Beauty and Strangeness, Murky Depths, Witches & Pagans and other publications. Her poetry has been nominated twice for the Rhysling Award, and her fiction has received honorable mention in The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Sixth Annual Collection. Ceallaigh's first collection of fiction and poetry entitled The Ruin of Beltany Ring has been called 'wonderful, thoroughly engaging, always amazing', a book of 'tiny marvels' and 'well-worth reading'. At present, she's working on a science fiction series entitled Petals of the Twenty Thousand Blossom and a second collection of fiction and poetry.  


  • Ted Czukor
    Ted Czukor Tuesday, 16 September 2014

    In the 1990's an attendee of one of Swami Satchidananda's yoga workshops pointed out that scientific instruments had detected the noise (like a little cry) made by a blade of grass when it is cut - his point being that there was no difference between killing a plant and killing an animal. Swamiji took a moment to consider this information, then responded in his usual calm, loving and humorous manner, "Yes - it is true that plants also cry out when they are killed. But they don't cry as loudly."

  • Greybeard
    Greybeard Wednesday, 17 September 2014

    Over the years I've seen numerous such cost claims, but they are usually inaccurate. The price at retail reflects the sum total of all environmental and other costs of production, processing, transportation, storage, etc. One can do a very accurate comparison at our local market by comparing the price of ground beef with the price per pound of processed grain such as Cheerios or Wheaties. I checked a couple years ago and the Cheerios cost more per pound at retail. I haven't checked lately.

  • C.S. MacCath
    C.S. MacCath Wednesday, 17 September 2014

    Remember that the US meat, dairy and egg industries are heavily-subsidized by the federal government, so the retail cost of meat versus a processed food like Cheerios is not an accurate reflection of production costs.

  • Please login first in order for you to submit comments

Additional information