[hamdani yusuf]

To the maximum, this should apply to other species too. It is very difficult not to kill even a mosquito or a fly by accident, but we can at least restrict and not eat animals.

Why doesn't it apply to plants?

[hamdani yusuf]

Alas, not often enough, in the case of "leaders". I'm generally happy with the police and judiciary in the UK,. as long as they ignore (or preferably imprison) politicians and serve the public good.

Plato warned when no good people is willing to be a politician.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/879.Plato?page=1

“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

“The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.”

“In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.”

“Those who tell the stories rule society.”

[alancalverd]

Don Marquis (1916): "a politician is an arse upon which practically everything hav sat except a man".

But seriously, folks, Biology 101 taught you that an animal is a creature that cannot synthesise its body materials from inorganic matter, so every animal has to eat something that was previously alive. We are getting better at synthesising proteins from long-dead coal and oil, but direct synthesis of fats and proteins from CO2 is unlikely to feature in the diets of anyone but Martians in the near future. Therefore killing is essential. 

[hamdani yusuf]

Don Marquis (1916): "a politician is an arse upon which practically everything hav sat except a man".

But seriously, folks, Biology 101 taught you that an animal is a creature that cannot synthesise its body materials from inorganic matter, so every animal has to eat something that was previously alive. We are getting better at synthesising proteins from long-dead coal and oil, but direct synthesis of fats and proteins from CO2 is unlikely to feature in the diets of anyone but Martians in the near future. Therefore killing is essential. 

Ray Kurzweil believes that singularity is near. But near is a relative term. He thinks that it's within this century.
In another thread I quoted a research trying to synthesize various kind of food efficiently using genetically modified yeast. No other lifeforms are involved. It only needs light as energy source, which can be obtained naturally from sunlight, or artificially from LED.

[alancalverd]

The Pope believes all sorts of rubbish. I don't.

Yeast eats sugar and exhales carbon dioxide. It is an animal.

[marklivin]

To the maximum, this should apply to other species too. It is very difficult not to kill even a mosquito or a fly by accident, but we can at least restrict and not eat animals.

Why doesn't it apply to plants?

First, it has been proven that plants do not experience pain, at least on a global scale, the pain that animals or humans experience when they physically suffer. Second, I wrote about maximum empathy, not absolute.

[alancalverd]

Oh but they do. Why else would they respond to an insult? There's even evidence that plants communicate with each other when attacked. 

[hamdani yusuf]

The Pope believes all sorts of rubbish. I don't.

Yeast eats sugar and exhales carbon dioxide. It is an animal.

What's your problem with that?

[hamdani yusuf]

First, it has been proven that plants do not experience pain, at least on a global scale, the pain that animals or humans experience when they physically suffer. Second, I wrote about maximum empathy, not absolute.

Can you provide the source?
Differentiation between plants and animals are human construct. What's your most compelling reason for you to care about empathy?

[alancalverd]

Not a human construct but a definite distinction - see reply #82 above.

They are essentially complementary: plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen, animals burn plants in oxygen to release CO2. The dynamic balance between plants and animals is the basis of the ecosystem and many people believe it determines the surface temperature of the planet.

[Bored chemist]

It is an animal.

Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal
"Animals (also called Metazoa) are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia"

[hamdani yusuf]

Not a human construct but a definite distinction - see reply #82 above.

Do you assert that their definitions never changed?
Is there plant which can't photosynthesize? Is there animal that can?
A GMO can have 50/50 characteristics between plant and animal. How would you classify it?

[alancalverd]

The definitions have not changed. Why would they? This planet remains habitable because of the difference!

There are instances of codependence between plant and animal but the fundamental distinction remains, although fungi are now often assigned to a separate category.

Adding a fish gene to a tomato doesn't give it the capacity to eat other tomatoes, nor does it remove its ability to photosynthesise. Flesh-eating plants are a bit special, admittedly, but AFAIK they don't convert dead flies into CO2 to extract energy, rather to obtain mineral nutrients used in their CO2 -> cellulose conversion.

[Bored chemist]

The definitions have not changed.

Yes they have.
"The approach of classifying Protozoa within the context of Animalia was widespread in the 19th and early 20th century, but not universal.[7] By the 1970s, it became usual to require that all taxa be monophyletic (derived from a common ancestor that would also be regarded as protozoan), and holophyletic (containing all of the known descendants of that common ancestor). The taxon 'Protozoa' fails to meet these standards, and the practices of grouping protozoa with animals, and treating them as closely related, are no longer justifiable. The term continues to be used in a loose way to describe single-celled protists (that is, eukaryotes that are not animals, plants, or fungi) that feed by heterotrophy.[8] Some examples of protozoa are Amoeba, Paramecium, Euglena and Trypanosoma.[9]"
 From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protozoa

 You no longer have "single cell animals".

[Bored chemist]

Yeast eats sugar and exhales carbon dioxide. It is an animal.

although fungi are now often assigned to a separate category.

It seems you are learning, slowly.

[Bored chemist]

This planet remains habitable because of the difference!

No, because of "a difference".
Heterotroph vs Autotroph

But a world with photosynthetic organisms  and the occasional fire could be stable without anything eating anything.

[alancalverd]

Sounds like the future. An interesting sci-fi plot, and almost certain to win avant-garde book and film awards because buggerall happens!

anyway

A heterotroph (/ˈhɛtərəˌtroʊf, -ˌtrɒf/; from Ancient Greek ἕτερος héteros "other" and τροφή trophḗ "nutrition") is an organism that cannot produce its own food, instead taking nutrition from other sources of organic carbon, mainly plant or animal matter.

which fits my previous definition of animal.

[hamdani yusuf]

which fits my previous definition of animal.

It also fits for Rafflessia, which is not animal.
Btw. Is virus animal?

[set fair]

It's because we're all bastards.

[Bored chemist]

which fits my previous definition of animal.

It also fits my definition of unnecessary.