Switzerland Places Ban on the Humiliation of Plants

In an attempt to be on the cutting edge of the absurd, the Swiss government has added an amendment to their plant rights law. It is now illegal to humiliate a plant. "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne. "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?" If the Swiss have their way, nobody will be eating twice-shamed potatoes at my house anymore.

Comments

Big deal

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This is such a stupid story, because it relies on the stupidity of the audience to completely misunderstand what it's all about.

I'm sure conservatives like Pudge will be all outraged by it.

Re:Big deal

[pla]

This is such a stupid story, because it relies on the stupidity of the audience to completely misunderstand what it's all about.

Completely misunderstand? Did you read TFA? You don't need to misunderstand it to find the situation absurd:

the team published a treatise on "the moral consideration of plants for their own sake." The treatise established that vegetation has innate value and that it is morally wrong to partake in activities such as the "decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason."

So yeah, the jokes about potatoes may go a tad bit outside the scope of this law, but they actually don't miss the point. Why shouldn't I decapitate a roadside flower for the hell of it? Attributing ideas such as "dignity" to literally brainless creatures sounds just as absurd as the inevitable jokes about all our least-favorite veggies.

I suppose you could invoke vague and largely-religious issues such as the "sanctity of all life" in defense of this (part of the) law, but don't pretend it has merit on its own

Re:Big deal

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Completely misunderstand? Did you read TFA? You don't need to misunderstand it to find the situation absurd

Exactly what I'm talking about. What does this have to do with a Pope saying that condoms are unnatural? What does this have to do with programming plants to produce infertile seeds? What does this have to do with messing with any genetic codes at all?

If you find the situation absurd, then you're just not thinking. You're simply reacting to the specific absurd consequences without considering the reasoning which leads to the consequences.

Why should I not ejaculate into a piece of latex? Assigning ideas such as "dignity" to such actions as a Pope's idea of the "right way" to have sex sounds just as absurd as prohibiting the decapitation of dandelions.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

This is taking a huge toll on the "decapitate and ejaculate" roadside flower movement.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course condoms are natural. They grow on rubber plants.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they're both as absurd. However, the Pope doesn't actually pass laws (except maybe in Vatican city?). The Swiss government does. I'm not exactly sure why you want to ejaculate into latex when you think of the pope though...

Re:Big deal

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Sure there are differences. They are different things. The law was about some kind of weird dignity for plants, and there are other people who want dignity for other weird things - like cumshots.

Precedent?

[Randym]

Beat Keller is a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich. Keller recently asked permission of the government to conduct a field trial of a genetically modified wheat bred with a resistance to fungus. In order to actually gain permission to go ahead with the trial, he needed to hash out the potential threats to the dignity of the wheat. The majority of the panel agrees that genetically modified plants are ok, âoeas long as their independence, i.e., reproductive ability and adaptive ability, are ensured.â In other words, no forced sterility and terminator genes.

The interesting thing here is the implication of this decision. You could go several different ways. What about cutting-edge technology in algae development? The latest thing is to genetically modify algae genes to spew out large quantities of hydrocarbon chains: in essence, we've enslaved them to our needs by changing their natural life cycle: limiting their 'adaptive ability'. That's certainly an interference in their "right to independence".

We'll have to ban all lawnmowers, of course: cruelly slicing off the 'heads' of grasses every couple of weeks inhibits their ability to create and spread their seed: anything that limits reproductive ability is *explicitly* prohibited. And no more 'eating' seeds either: say good-bye to peanut butter, sprouts and bean soup. How *could we ever have had* limited plants' reproductive rights in such a barbarous way? And don't even get me started on bread: the enslavement of yeast to produce CO2, followed by the burning alive of those little cells is a horrible example of the casual way we treat plant cells.

Hang on, bacteria: someday our laws will protect even *your* polymorphous perversity. (Yeah, we don't like it -- but we'll tolerate it.) Antibiotics will be seen as the weapons of mass destruction that they are. Someday, little guys, you won't be judged on the basis of the sugars you display on your external cell membranes -- you'll be accepted for your essential bacterial dignity.

The most extreme ethical implication of this is that *any* use by us of vegetable matter *that didn't die a natural death* is an impingement of its rights. Therefore, the *moral* thing for us self-aware mammals to do is collectively starve to death; those who raise the 'necessity' argument are merely trotting out the "might is right" argument in new clothes. (Humamperialists!) From the point of view of the plants, we are merely parasites, and the sooner we off ourselves, the better. (And don't try to drag out that tired old speciest argument "We're symbionts, not parasites!" -- just moving seeds around hardly begins to make up for all the exploitation, degradation and -- yes, humiliation -- plants have had to suffer since the beginning of 'argiculturism'. There was CO2 before humans; there will be CO2 after humans.) It's *about time* vegetation got the respect it deserves. All power to the Eukaryotic Liberation Movement!