Botanical fruitarianism

[Colas D]

Dear friends,

I'm delighted to talk to like-minded people. My name is Cèdre Verdoyant and I'm an ethical fruitarian. I only eat fruits in the botanical sense of the term (so I do not eat seeds, cereals, or greens). I believe that like us, plants have feelings and emotions. They are our sisters and brothers. When we eat their leaves, stems, roots, or seeds, we harm them. On the contrary, when we eat their fruits and disperse their seeds away, we fulfil their wishes.

You may want to check out my new website on ethical fruitarianism:
https://www.purefruitarian.org

With all my friendship,
Cèdre Verdoyant

 

[Tom L.]

Welcome, @Colas D .

Botany is a major interest of mine, and it's true that fruit-bearing plants benefit when animals or humans eat their fruit and discard the seed a considerable distance away from the parent plant. The plant must use energy to make the fruit with the seed inside, but that sort of pays the animal for the dispersal service. The system doesn't always work perfectly. Sometimes the animal eats the seed too. Other times, the "fruit" is a burr or some other thing that has clingy bristles that don't feed the animal, but just help the seed hang on for the ride until it drops off someplace else.

I read recently that avocados wouldn't survive well these days if they weren't cultivated by humans. But supposedly, long ago, big ground sloths were the ones who dispersed avocados: they were the only herbivorous animals around back then who were big enough to eat the fruit and poop out the seed inside later, some distance away.

Okay- forget about cloning Tyrannosauruses or Velociraptors, like in "Jurassic Park". I want a herd(?) of ground sloths (and maybe some mastodons or mammoths or Steller's Sea Cows) (Hmmm... I wonder what mastodons or mammoths ate?... I suppose herds of them would really complicate plans for that pipeline between Canada and the U.S.)

 

[Lou]

Welcome, @Colas D .

Botany is a major interest of mine, and it's true that fruit-bearing plants benefit when animals or humans eat their fruit and discard the seed a considerable distance away from the parent plant. The plant must use energy to make the fruit with the seed inside, but that sort of pays the animal for the dispersal service. The system doesn't always work perfectly. Sometimes the animal eats the seed too. Other times, the "fruit" is a burr or some other thing that has clingy bristles that don't feed the animal, but just help the seed hang on for the ride until it drops off someplace else.

I read recently that avocados wouldn't survive well these days if they weren't cultivated by humans. But supposedly, long ago, big ground sloths were the ones who dispersed avocados: they were the only herbivorous animals around back then who were big enough to eat the fruit and poop out the seed inside later, some distance away.

Okay- forget about cloning Tyrannosauruses or Velociraptors, like in "Jurassic Park". I want a herd(?) of ground sloths (and maybe some mastodons or mammoths or Steller's Sea Cows) (Hmmm... I wonder what mastodons or mammoths ate?... I suppose herds of them would really complicate plans for that pipeline between Canada and the U.S.)

I think avocados would do fine without humans. avocados roll downhill, get moved around by flowing water or high winds.

Applying ethics to Not Eating Plants is sort of weird - but who am I too judge. I apply ethics to Not Eating Animals.

I can't remember the "botany" on this, but aren't a lot of the plants we harvest dead or dying anyway.? Like all the anuals. This would include maize, rice, sorghum, soya-beans, guinea corn, cowpea, sweet potato, cotton, tomato, yam.....
Seems like it should be ethical to eat plants that are dead or about to die. I'm concerned with the exploitation of animals. Are you like me concerned with the exploitation of plants? Seems like that wouldn't hold water. cultivating crops seems like a positive from the plants point of view. But maybe the oat plant like a cow would not approve of you stealing her babies.

Michal Pollan in the book, the Botany of Desire, even makes that argument that apples, tulips, cannabis and potatoes benefit from cultivation. With man expanding both their range, their diversity, and their numbers.

 

[Tom L.]

@Lou Hmmm... I think the annuals are almost at the end of their natural life span by harvest time. But I don't know if at least some of them would survive for a longer time if they were given protection from the cold. Tomatoes and jalapeno peppers are both grown as annuals where i live (Upstate New York), but I've overwintered both of these in a big sunny window. The jalapenos survived and produced delicious peppers for 3 years, although of course they went semi-dormant during the winter. A couple of the peppers didn't ripen until the holidays and the red jalapenos on the plants were definitely ornamental around Thanksgiving and Christmas. I've also read that lima beans are naturally perennial in their native habitat. (One of these winters, I'm going to plant a few pole beans and see if I can get them to grow in a big south-facing window I have). But I think corn dies a short time after the ears ripen, no matter what you do.

I'm not sure about yam and sweet potato; I forget whether these are roots or tubers (SHAME on me!!! Bad botanist!!!), but I think they can live for quite some time if they're not dug up and eaten.

 

[Colas D]

Welcome, @Colas D .

Botany is a major interest of mine, and it's true that fruit-bearing plants benefit when animals or humans eat their fruit and discard the seed a considerable distance away from the parent plant. The plant must use energy to make the fruit with the seed inside, but that sort of pays the animal for the dispersal service. The system doesn't always work perfectly. Sometimes the animal eats the seed too. Other times, the "fruit" is a burr or some other thing that has clingy bristles that don't feed the animal, but just help the seed hang on for the ride until it drops off someplace else.

I read recently that avocados wouldn't survive well these days if they weren't cultivated by humans. But supposedly, long ago, big ground sloths were the ones who dispersed avocados: they were the only herbivorous animals around back then who were big enough to eat the fruit and poop out the seed inside later, some distance away.

Okay- forget about cloning Tyrannosauruses or Velociraptors, like in "Jurassic Park". I want a herd(?) of ground sloths (and maybe some mastodons or mammoths or Steller's Sea Cows) (Hmmm... I wonder what mastodons or mammoths ate?... I suppose herds of them would really complicate plans for that pipeline between Canada and the U.S.)

Thanks Tom, all of that is true. I'm a Science teacher and I have an ardent passion for botany. too. Plants have evolved extraordinary strategies to disperse their seeds. Making burrs was a good idea. Trees like the sycomore have even evolved parachutes. Acorns roll down the hills by gravity. The coconut floats on the sea. My favourite remains the production of fruits as it is a symbiotic way to achieve seed dispersion.

 

[Colas D]

Welcome, @Colas D .

Botany is a major interest of mine, and it's true that fruit-bearing plants benefit when animals or humans eat their fruit and discard the seed a considerable distance away from the parent plant. The plant must use energy to make the fruit with the seed inside, but that sort of pays the animal for the dispersal service. The system doesn't always work perfectly. Sometimes the animal eats the seed too. Other times, the "fruit" is a burr or some other thing that has clingy bristles that don't feed the animal, but just help the seed hang on for the ride until it drops off someplace else.

I read recently that avocados wouldn't survive well these days if they weren't cultivated by humans. But supposedly, long ago, big ground sloths were the ones who dispersed avocados: they were the only herbivorous animals around back then who were big enough to eat the fruit and poop out the seed inside later, some distance away.

Okay- forget about cloning Tyrannosauruses or Velociraptors, like in "Jurassic Park". I want a herd(?) of ground sloths (and maybe some mastodons or mammoths or Steller's Sea Cows) (Hmmm... I wonder what mastodons or mammoths ate?... I suppose herds of them would really complicate plans for that pipeline between Canada and the U.S.)

Thanks Tom, that is all correct. I'm a Science teacher and botany is an ardent passion of mine too. Plants have evolved extraordinary strategies to disperse their seeds. Making burrs was a clever idea. Trees like the sycomore have endowed their seeds with parachutes. The acorn rolls down the hill by gravity. The coconut floats on the sea over long distances. But my favourite method remains the production of fruits as it is symbiotic and compassionate.

 

[Colas D]

I think avocados would do fine without humans. avocados roll downhill, get moved around by flowing water or high winds.

Applying ethics to Not Eating Plants is sort of weird - but who am I too judge. I apply ethics to Not Eating Animals.

I can't remember the "botany" on this, but aren't a lot of the plants we harvest dead or dying anyway.? Like all the anuals. This would include maize, rice, sorghum, soya-beans, guinea corn, cowpea, sweet potato, cotton, tomato, yam.....
Seems like it should be ethical to eat plants that are dead or about to die. I'm concerned with the exploitation of animals. Are you like me concerned with the exploitation of plants? Seems like that wouldn't hold water. cultivating crops seems like a positive from the plants point of view. But maybe the oat plant like a cow would not approve of you stealing her babies.

Michal Pollan in the book, the Botany of Desire, even makes that argument that apples, tulips, cannabis and potatoes benefit from cultivation. With man expanding both their range, their diversity, and their numbers.

Dear Lou, harvesting annuals is not acceptable from an ethical point of view. Suppose that someone falls very ill and is told by the doctor that he just has 1 more year to live. Would it be acceptable to kill that person after 6 months? Of course not! Besides, harvesting a field of wheat or barley wreaks havoc on the animals that have made this field their home. Monoculture is also a disaster in terms of biodiversity. Finally, no living creature wants to be killed. Potatoes do not like to be killed, no more than lettuces like to have their leaves chopped off!

 

[Lou]

Dear Lou, harvesting annuals is not acceptable from an ethical point of view. Suppose that someone falls very ill and is told by the doctor that he just has 1 more year to live. Would it be acceptable to kill that person after 6 months? Of course not! Besides, harvesting a field of wheat or barley wreaks havoc on the animals that have made this field their home. Monoculture is also a disaster in terms of biodiversity. Finally, no living creature wants to be killed. Potatoes do not like to be killed, no more than lettuces like to have their leaves chopped off!

Oh. Haven't you hear that the Secret Lives of Plants was a hoax?

Harvesting plants does not do as much damage to animals as once thought. Most of the animals simply run the other way. It does eliminate cover which is deadly to mice and moles. but the hawks and owls benefit.

A lot of the fruit you choose to consume is grown in monocultures. For instance the aforementioned avocado. and the almond.

I really can't disparage you for being considerate of plants, when I aspire to being considerate of animals. However I think not eating plants in consideration for their feelings is a step too far.

 

[David3]

Dear friends,

I'm delighted to talk to like-minded people. My name is Cèdre Verdoyant and I'm an ethical fruitarian. I only eat fruits in the botanical sense of the term (so I do not eat seeds, cereals, or greens). I believe that like us, plants have feelings and emotions. They are our sisters and brothers. When we eat their leaves, stems, roots, or seeds, we harm them. On the contrary, when we eat their fruits and disperse their seeds away, we fulfil their wishes.

You may want to check out my new website on ethical fruitarianism:
https://www.purefruitarian.org

With all my friendship,
Cèdre Verdoyant

.
Your definition of botanical fruits appears to be incorrect.

Per the Encyclopedia Brittanica, peas (legumes) and corn (cereal/grain) are also botanical fruits: fruit | Definition, Description, Types, Examples, & Facts
.

 

[David3]

Your recommended daily food intake is grossly deficient in protein, especially considering that you are highly physically active: What do I eat in a typical day? – Ethical fruitarianism . You recommend against eating leafy green vegetables, which are important sources of calcium. You recommend against eating beans, lentils, grains, nuts, seeds, potatoes, and vegetables. You recommend against vitamin B12 and D supplementation.

Your recommended diet, despite your claims, is dangerous.

You claim that bacteria are conscious. You are off your rocker.

Fine, believe what you want, but don't recommend your dangerous diet to people on this forum. You have been reported to the moderators.

 

[silva]

Frutiarianism is devoid of far too many necessary nutrients that are vital to human health. They are also unavailable to far too many countries!
Everything is food for some other species. If I could not get the proper nutrition for my species by eating plant based I would not be plant based

 

[Lou]

You recommend against vitamin B12 and D supplementation.

He did? maybe in another post

You claim that bacteria are conscious. You are off your rocker.

I didn't see that either. Must be in that Other Post.

Fine, believe what you want, but don't recommend your dangerous diet to people on this forum. You have been reported to the moderators.

Huh. And I thought I was a tad unsupportive.

 

[Lou]

If I could not get the proper nutrition for my species by eating plant based I would not be plant based

Come to think of it, neither would I. but I suppose it wouldn't matter because I would be dead.

 

[David3]

He did? maybe in another post

I didn't see that either. Must be in that Other Post.

Huh. And I thought I was a tad unsupportive.

.
It's on his website, which he included in his post.

I've lost patience with the fruitarian / "natural hygiene" crowd. I thought that recent resurgence ended with the decline of Doug Graham, Durianrider, and Freelee.
.

 

[Colas D]

Oh. Haven't you hear that the Secret Lives of Plants was a hoax?

Harvesting plants does not do as much damage to animals as once thought. Most of the animals simply run the other way. It does eliminate cover which is deadly to mice and moles. but the hawks and owls benefit.

A lot of the fruit you choose to consume is grown in monocultures. For instance the aforementioned avocado. and the almond.

I really can't disparage you for being considerate of plants, when I aspire to being considerate of animals. However I think not eating plants in consideration for their feelings is a step too far.

Thanks Lou, you are right, the Secret Lives of Plants was a hoax. Also, the "findings" of researcher Cleave Backster were completely bogus. These fake "revelations" have done a lot of harm to the field of plant neurobiology. But it doesn't mean that all research in this area must be dismissed without thorough consideration. People like Pr Stefano Mancuso and all the scientists of the LINV (International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology) are top scientists. They do not promote plant consciousness to sell books but on the basis of experimental evidence.

When it comes to harvesting cereals, I respect your opinion even though I strongly disagree. For the sake of the argument, let's suppose that most of the mice, shrews, insects, etc., make it through when a field is harvested (I seriously doubt it but let's say they survive). Does it make it OK to lay waste and ravage someone else's home?

You are right, fruit monoculture is terrible. It would be infinitely better to grow orchards with a wide variety of fruit trees. Ethical fruitarianism is far from being perfect but as opposed to veganism, it has the potential to become perfect.

Almonds are not fruits, they are seeds so I do not eat them. Avocadoes are mucus-forming fruits so I only eat very few of them.

In my perspective, veganism is a huge step forward. It widens our circle of compassion. However, we have to go a step further and include the plants in our circle of compassion. Our love for creatures must me all-encompassing.

 

[Colas D]

.
Your definition of botanical fruits appears to be incorrect.

Per the Encyclopedia Brittanica, peas (legumes) and corn (cereal/grain) are also botanical fruits: fruit | Definition, Description, Types, Examples, & Facts
.

Hi David, this is wrong. A fruits is the fleshy part that surrounds the seed. Technically, the seed comes from the fertilised ovule while the fruit comes from the ovary wall. So, peas are not the fruits, but the pods are. That is because they contain the seeds — the peas — that the plant uses to reproduce. Similarly, corn and cereals are not fruits either. You can look it up in any botany textbook.

 

[Colas D]

He did? maybe in another post

I didn't see that either. Must be in that Other Post.

Huh. And I thought I was a tad unsupportive.

Dear friends, I have put my blood test results on my website. Granted, I do not take any supplements (like vitamin B12 or vitamin D). But everyone can check on my website that I do not have the slightest deficiency. The lab has analysed 27 of my blood parameters (including B12, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, etc.) and all of them were perfectly right. I have made my blood test results public so that everyone can check for themselves whether or not I'm telling the truth. I have also published on my website the email that my GP sent me. In a nutshell, he said that all my results were excellent. He also said that he was flabbergasted and that I could carry on with my diet. He did not even recommend supplements. I appreciate that these facts go against your assumptions. You simply assume that a fruitarian diet is dangerous based on your moral beliefs. But the reality is different.
Here are my blood test results:

My blood test results – Ethical fruitarianism

www.purefruitarian.org

 

[Colas D]

Come to think of it, neither would I. but I suppose it wouldn't matter because I would be dead.

Humans are not herbivores but frugivores. Like the great apes, our closest relatives, we are designed to eat only fruits. The gorilla or the orangutans only eat fruits in normal times. In case there is a food shortage, they add leaves and roots to their diet, and can even go for the odd rodent. However, when given the choice, they always choose fruits over anything else.

 

[Colas D]

Frutiarianism is devoid of far too many necessary nutrients that are vital to human health. They are also unavailable to far too many countries!
Everything is food for some other species. If I could not get the proper nutrition for my species by eating plant based I would not be plant based

Eskimos cannot eat a plant-based diet. They eat what is available to them — seal blubber and fish. Whenever we can, we have the moral duty to move to a place where we can live ethically.

 

[David3]

Hi David, this is wrong. A fruits is the fleshy part that surrounds the seed. Technically, the seed comes from the fertilised ovule while the fruit comes from the ovary wall. So, peas are not the fruits, but the pods are. That is because they contain the seeds — the peas — that the plant uses to reproduce. Similarly, corn and cereals are not fruits either. You can look it up in any botany textbook.

.
Not true.

Per Valencia College botany education materials, legumes and nuts are both fruits:

(2) Legume, composed of a single carpel and splitting along two sutures

(6) Nut, a hard, one-seeded fruit, generally formed from a compound ovary, with the pericarp hard throughout

Link: Fruit Types and Classification of Fruits