What are some interesting facts about India's Royal people?

Link:  http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-interesting-facts-about-India-10

Answered By:  Trez Jain, Genius, upcoming millionaire, stunter, amateur hacker!

Something about Indian royalty —

1.  Krishna Raja Wodeyar IV, the Maharaja of Mysore, had ordered a customized Rolls Royce to shield his servants from the sun.

Crafted in 1911, the car recently went under the hammer in August 2011 and fetched over ₤400,000. At the time of his death in 1940, the maharaja was one of the world's wealthiest men and was valued at nearly ₤35billion.

2.  Nawab of Junagarh was said to have owned 800 dogs, each with its individual human attendant.

And that's not all! When two of his favourite dogs mated, he is said to have spent nearly Rs. 20-30 lakhs in “wedding” celebrations, and also went on to proclaim the day as a state holiday.

3.  The last Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Usman Ali Khan used the "Jacob Diamond," the fifth largest diamond in the world as a humble paper weight!

The diamond is of the size of an ostrich egg, weighs 184.97 carats, is valued at over ₤5million and is currently owned by the Government of India.

4.  King Jai Singh of Alwar had ordered a fleet of Rolls Royce only to use them as cleaning cars for transporting the city's waste.

It is said that the king was insulted by a Rolls Royce salesman on his visit to London because of which he decided to buy and use the luxury cars as garbage trucks! That's one hell of a way to prove a point, and, of course, he did stop the ordeal but only after Rolls Royce tendered an official apology.

5.  The Udaipur family was so fascinated with crystals that the chairs, thrones, tables and even the fans of their palace were studded with it.

6.  In 1926, Cartier received a trunk full of precious stones and jewelry belonging to Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala, who wanted them to be remounted in Parisian style.

The creation that emerged is the world famous Patiala necklace that still remains one of the grandest pieces of jewelry ever made by Cartier, perhaps even by any other jewelry brand.

7.  The gate of the Lalbagh Palace in Indore was crafted in London and then was shipped all the way to Indore!

8.  The first president of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad entered the Rashtrapati Bhawan on the silver chariot owned by the Maharaja of Patiala.

9.  The luxury mega-brand, Louis Vuitton, always took pride in crafting something unique for Jagatjit Singh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala.

An avid traveller, Jagjit Singh owned over 60 large Louis Vuitton trunks that would hold his clothes, paraphernalia, swords, turbans, suits, shoes and elaborate traditional dresses.

10.  American consulate in South Bombay was earlier the property of Maharaja Amar Sinh Zala of Wankaner.

Spread over 10,000 square yards, the Wankaner House, was built in the 1930s. It was sold for Rs. 18 crores ($ 4 million) in 1957 to the American government as the royal family was not able to maintain such a big property and there was huge tax due. Another property, Amar Building on Firozsha Mehta Road in Bombay, also belonged to the Wankaner royals. It was sold for Rs. 19 crores ($ 4.2 million) to the Government of India and now houses the foreign exchange department of the Reserve Bank Of India.

11.  Cooch Behar's Maharani Indira Devi had ordered 100 pairs of shoes, some diamond studded, from Italian shoemaker Salvatore Ferragamo, one of the most famous designers of the 20th century.

12.  Maharaja Sawai Madho Singh II had ordered the craftsman of Jaipur to create two huge sterling silver vessels so that he could carry  Ganga Jal  along with him on his trip to England.

The vessels were made from 14,000 melted silver coins without soldering and are officially recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's largest sterling silver vessels.

Edit - Got some more about Indian Nawabs!

1.  Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan was listed as the 5th richest man in recorded history.

Fath Jang Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan Asaf Jah VII, was ranked at number 5 in the Forbes All-Time Wealthiest of 2008 with a net worth of 210 Billion USD. Just to give you a comparison, Bill Gates was ranked 20th. His jewel collection alone stood at an estimated worth of £2 Billion.

To strike you with just an example of how wealthy he was, he used a diamond, "The Jacob Diamond", that weighed 185 carats and was worth £55 Million as a paperweight.

Source: Wikipedia

2. Nawab of Junagadh, Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III held parties and weddings for his dogs.

Nawab Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III Rasul Khanji, the last nawab of Junagadh, was known for his love for animals. He owned over 300 dogs and celebrated their birthdays and marriages lavishly. Not just that, he worked to prevent the extinction of the Asiatic Lions by preserving Gir Forest. 

3. Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan had over 15,000 full-time employees

When he died in 1967, he had exactly 14,718 employees, with 3000 Arab men alone guarding him at his palace, 28 employees to get drinking water, and 38 to dust the chandeliers. Not just that, he had several employees who would grind walnuts and had a few more to prepare beetle nuts for him to chew. 

4. Nawab of Awadh, Lucknow employed over 20,000 people during a famine to ensure they didn't starve.

Nawab Muhammad Yahiya Meerza Amani Asaf-ud-Daula, was the Nawab of Awadh in 1783 but under the rule of the British. This is when a famine hit his reign. In order to employ people so they don't starve, he started the construction of the now famous tourist attraction Bada Imambara. He paid 20,000 people and made sure the construction lasted as long as the famine did.

5. Nawab Wajid Ali Shah is the reason behind the popularity of Kathak as a dance form

It was because of his great passion and love for poetry, rahas and kathak that Lucknow became to be known as the cultural center where the most talented musicians, poets and dancers at the time performed. He performed Kathak, his lyrical compositions and Rahas at the biggest tourist attraction of Lucknow today, Qaisarbagh Baradari.

What are some of the most peculiar words you've come across?

Link: http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-most-peculiar-words-youve-come-across

E.g.: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, although fictional but many people tend to use at many occasions, mostly in writing..

Answer By:  Shuchi Mittal, Spontaneous. Eccentric. Realistic.

Well, here are some cool words that I came across—

Nillionaire- Someone having little to no money.

Dysania- The state of finding it hard to get out of bed in the morning.

Petrichor- The way it smells outside after rain.

Overmorrow- The day after tomorrow.

Lalochezia- Emotional relief gained by using vulgar language.

Triskaidekaphobia- Fear of number 13.

Pluviophile- Lover of the rain.

Nyctophilia- Love for the dark.

Technocamping- Vacation from digital technology.

Eccedentesiast- Someone who only pretends to smile.

Defenestration- Throwing a person out of the window.

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia- The fear of long words.

Is Baahubali overhyped?

========================================================================

Answered By:  Sumit Suryakant Kamat, Mechanical engineering student, football enthusiast, like to drum

Baahubali has been widely appreciated and even compared with the likes of 300 and other prominent sword and sandals movies. But I feel that this comparison is often unnecessary and unfair to both sides as Baahubali is the first film of the genre at such a huge scale in India.

Let us start with the comparison with 300. Zack Snyder is a master at screen adaptations of graphic novels. Do go through the graphic novels, 300 by Frank Miller and  Watchmen by  Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons (Illustrator/Letterer) and John Higgins (Colorist).
 Watch how each frame is brought to the screen. It develops the appropriate atmosphere for a movie goer like me and delight to the comic fan.

Baahubali has great visuals as well. From the waterfall scenes to the Mahishmati Kingdom as well as the duel between Kattapa and Baahubali.

Now let us compare the scenes. In the large scale scenes both the directors depict each still remarkably well. But it is the small scale scenes in which Jack Snyder rises. From the use of filters and the background score, Jack snyder bring intensity and imerssiveness to each scene which is hard to replicate even in Hollywood by other directors. This is where Baahubali fails some time. 

But, we have to consider that Zack Sneider has a well developed storyboard at hand in comparison to SS Rajamouli who has to develop it from scratch. So a point goes to Baahubali.

---

Storyline and character development
This is one of few aspects of the movie that disappointed me at a few instances, but let us start with the notable scenes.

The ascent of Shiva to the top of the waterfall is impressive not only in a visual way, but also metaphorically. It symbolises the growth of the character and his success through years of persistence and hard work. He was able to conquer his Everest only when he was ready.

The love of a person towards his mother is one which any person can identify with and through the course of the movie this particular aspect of the character strikes a chord with the audience. Baahubali and Shiva's empathy towards the people or even animals makes them worthy of becoming the hero and champion of the common man.

The character of Sivagami by Ramaya Krishnan was particularly impressive, her expressions were top-notch and made her the strong individual that she was meant to be.

Kattapa symbolising immense loyalty and vigor and Bhallala Deva (the antagonist) are well developed characters in the context of the movie.
Avantika and Devesana have great potential as well, so we have to wait and watch.

The war scenes were impressive as it showed why Baahubali was admired and revered and Bhallala Deva despised later on. At the same time the war strategy depicted was pretty good. In my view this was the strongest part of the movie . 

---

There were many things that I liked it but at the same time few aspects of  the story disappointed me as well.

The romance between Avantika and Shiva felt almost forced. It often felt comical and unnecessary at that point of time. Instead of developing the relationship between these two characters in a short span of time, they could take time in developing it through mutual admiration and respect.

Few scenes were not needed at all. The taming of the poorly animated bull by Bhallala Deva was an eye sore to say the least. The director could display this character's strength in a better way. There were various other opportunities to bring the toughness of this character on screen. 

The songs could have been avoided as it seemed to break the flow of the movie. But then I remember how my mother complains when there are no songs in a movie. So, I guess this is what India wants.

Some of the scenes were inefficient and lacked the punch required. The rebels didn't seem strong as a group but this may be attributed to the writer watching a dubbed movie.

CGI and other factors
The CGI was not upto the mark as I had really high expectations, especially the bull as mentioned earlier. 

During the war sequence, the CGI also could have been better. The collision of the weapon (attached to Bhallala Deva's cart) with the opposing army felt too unrealistic. 

Also, the scenes where Baahubali or the characters jumped around could be performed with the help of strings or by a parkour practitioner to bring fluidity to the scene instead of the CGI.

Though being a small issue the age difference was not noticed well between some of the characters indicating an inept makeup department. But at the same time the costume designs were outstanding. Not too shiny or over the top and staying true to the region's culture as was said by the director himself.

---

Budget comparison 
As an admirer of low budget movies like Primer, I never liked the idea of comparison of budget and turnouts as a measure of success. Even I consider it to be a sin to compare such movies, but here it goes.

300- 65 million usd 
Lord of the rings trilogy- 358 million usd 
Gladiator- 103 million usd 
Baahubali- 40 million usd ( the beggining and the conclusion), the budget may increase as mentioned by Balaji Ch.

If we consider these figures the money has been effectively used in Baahubali for a movie of this scale, though it can't be compared to the others.

---

I enjoyed the movie to some extent, though I feel it could have been better.
Again, I wish to stress that I have watched a dubbed version and would gladly like to watch the movie again with the intended vocals and subtitles.

What would be the chances of Pakistan launching a nuclear strike against India? And what would be steps taken by India and other world powers after such a drastic step?

=================================================================

I am sure that even the Pakistani military is not stupid enough to launch nuclear attacks but as an Indian living near a rogue nation allow me to be less than 100% confident.

Pakistan originated from the assumption that India as a secular state is bound to fail and is increasingly feeling that we have proved that very assumption wrong. Pakistan is in a mess economically and culturally. The indoctrinated jihadists are running amok in the state and India seems poised to join the ranks as a superpower in the near future. Strategically though it is covertly and overtly supported by China and the USA. USA, as it needs to have 'allies', even unreliable ones like Pakistan, in its middle East policy, cannot be relied upon to support India although it might make efforts to broker a peace. China fearing India's rise might use Pakistan as a proxy similar to the USA use of Afghanistan against the USSR in the 70s and 80s.

Nationalistic pride aside, according to Pakistan surges ahead of India in nuclear stockpile: Report - The Times of India
 Pakistan has a few more nuclear weapons than India and China has many more. So flattening out Pakistan without sustaining tremendous loss on our side is out of the question. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is no laughing matter and blind nationalism should not be involved with it. 

Moreover, it will be the poor Pakistani public who has been suffering under their inept governments and disproportionately powerful military that would bear the brunt. The actual culprits, ie the military heads would be hidden in bunkers and already planning to make a cry for help in the UN and project themselves as a victim just like their cries of being victims of terrorists that they created and trained. (I have seen a video

Link: https://youtu.be/Z__lyS-wI7c
of a former ISI head going on record in a British television show terming the countless Pakistani civilians killed by terrorists that they trained as collateral damage and who seemed convinced that their policies could not have gone any better. Hence I would not be surprised if they really do take India down with their own citizens.) 

Given the open threats of nuclear warheads given by people like Musharraf over the seemingly straightforward issue of tackling terrorist groups across the border, I wouldn't bet on the sanity of the Pakistani high command. Fighting a losing battle with time, the Pakistani establishment might try to launch a suicidal attack on India.

What I would like to know is what are the defenses that we have against that kind of a situation? Are there any defenses available with other countries that may disable the warheads in air and will they be deployed in India's or even Pakistan's defense? Can embargoes on the offending party/parties be counted upon and which nations would be involved? Will the UN step in and what good might that do? What would the fallout of such a war be, what will we lose and would there be any chance of rebuilding our possibly lost economy?

___________________________________________________________
================================================================

Answered By:  Pratik Dash, Misguided missile, iconoclast and loose cannon

Almost zero. I will Divide my answer into Three points to answer all the questions raised.

1. Second Strike Capability
Pakistan sure rattles her missiles a lot, but is very unlikely that they would consider a nuclear assault, tactical or strategic, on India  because Pakistan knows that India has a serious second strike capability. 

In nuclear strategy, a second-strike capability is a country's assured ability to respond to a nuclear attack with powerful nuclear retaliation against the attacker.
 
In layman terms it means that means that Even if Pakistan somehow does the impossible and destroys all Indian missile silos and Missile launch sites with a massive and accurate preemptive nuclear strike without Indian Fighter Jets first blowing their missiles to crap on the launchpad,  India would still possess a formidable nuclear retaliation.

This primarily comes in the form of nuclear tipped - submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) . 

Nuclear submarines are almost invisible once they dive in. They can stay underwater for months on end, making them invisible to aerial and satellite surveillance.  They can carry powerful ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. India's latest nuclear submarine The Arihant is all set to receive K-15 missiles which can carry nuclear warheads and strike up to 700 kms in enemy territory. We are also developing the K-4 missile which extends the attack radius to 3000 km bringing almost all the Pakistani cities under strike range.  The Brahmos Supersonic Ramjet Cruise missile is being adapted to be used from a submerged platform. This will have a short range, but will be able to evade almost any missile defense system in existence due to it's massive speed in excess of Mach 2.8 . With the Brahmos in our Arsenal, we can strike fast before any defense can be conducted. We are developing a significantly faster version of this missile and tests will commence from 2017.

In case of a massive first strike by Pakistan, a nuclear submarine like Arihant can slip in near Pakistan silently and lay waste to Karachi and other cities. Pakistan imports lots of arms, ammunition and oil through Karachi,  so a decisive strike on Karachi would totally cripple Pakistan and bring them to their knees. This was proved in 1971 after the Indian navy achieved Naval Superiority and Damaged the Karachi Port in the brilliant Operation Trident dealing a massive blow to Pakistan and ultimately was one of the major factors which brought them to the table to discuss terms.

We are also developing missiles which can be launched from the air and can carried by strike fighters or light bombers. In case of a nuclear attack by Pakistan,  IAF aircraft operating from South or East India(Pakistani missiles effectively cover most of North India only)  can easily strike and destroy Pakistani bases and cities. Longer Range standoff missiles are being developed which would give Our aircraft the ability to strike at Pakistani cities without crossing the border allowing them to strike without engaging the Pakistani Air defense. Basically Standoff missiles are the missiles or bombs  which may be launched at a distance sufficient to allow attacking  personnel to evade defensive fire from the target area.  The Brahmos Cruise Missile is being adapted right now to be used by Aircraft. Traveling at supersonic speeds, it can evade Pakistani Defenses, if any with ease.

This combined with our nuclear submarines and missile silos completes a comprehensive nuclear triad of Defense. In case of a nuclear attack however small we can respond massively and effectively from land, air and sea, completely overwhelming the opponent's  defenses and laying waste to their cities.   

​
​
​​
​A nuclear assault by Pakistan may destroy some parts of India and kill all of her leaders, but the combined Indian counterstrike by the Navy,  army and airforce would turn all of Pakistan into a boiling nuclear wasteland devoid of life. Indian Nuclear Policy states that India will never ever use it's Nuclear weapons to strike first. However any Nuclear assault however small on India from Pakistan would invite a complete nuclear response from our side which will wipe Pakistan off the map. 

2. Ballistic Missile Shield

You also mention if there are any ways to protect India from a nuclear strike. The Indian Government for many years has been developing a Ballistic Missile Shield to counter the threats from China and Pakistan. 

It is a double-tiered system consisting of two interceptor missiles,  namely the Prithvi Air Defence missile for high altitude  interception, and the Advanced Air Defence  Missile for lower  altitude interception. The two-tiered shield should be able to intercept  any incoming missile launched 5,000 kilometres away.

​
​
​Tests have been carried out and the Shield is quite effective. It is not yet operational but thanks to the successful tests it would be implemented soon. 

Both missiles will have to work in tandem to achieve a high probability of knocking out the enemy missile. Most of Pakistan's missiles are pretty obsolete, so the Shield can effectively stop a lot of the Pakistani ballistic missiles with ease. Further Developments are being made and a new Prithvi Missile which is faster and reaches higher is in development. The US has also agreed to cooperate with India. The US has a very effective Missile defense Shield with the Patriot Interceptor Missile system. Hopefully the US will share some of the know how of Anti-Ballistic missiles with us helping us develop a even better Missile shield. 

The DRDO may also look into a Laser based Missile shield developed by Israel called the Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL.  The prototype weapon was roughly the size of six city buses, made up of  modules that held a command center, radar and a telescope for tracking  targets, the chemical laser itself, fuel and reagent tanks, and a  rotating mirror to reflect its beam toward speeding targets. The Israeli Military has shot down several Katyusha Rockets using the Laser system.

​
The laser system will be more affordable than Interceptor missiles. A single Interceptor missile costs almost 5-6 crore. Also advanced smart missiles can evade Interceptors by confusing them with decoy missiles. To successfully strike a enemy missile down you need to first at least two long range interceptor missiles, in addition tobthis you need to keep a short range missile ready just in case, the other two fail. This adds up to a very high cost. 

A laser system will consume electricity to fire and will be drastically cheaper at just probably Rs 5000 a shot. Also Lasers travel at the speed of light so countermeasures won't work that well against it. It will be slightly more expensive to build them, but their operating costs will be low and their effectiveness will be more with less reaction times.

 

​
3. UN Embargoes,Sanctions and Military Intervention
A Pakistani First strike will also invoke a UN embargo and Harsh Sanctions on Pakistan. Pakistan depends on the world market for most of it's oil and a embargo on Pakistan will lead to the Pakistani army being stopped dead on it's tracks. Also without food and other essential Imports, Public anger in Pakistan may lead to violent strikes, Mutinies and coups against the government in Power.

The UN may also consider a Full scale Military Intervention in Pakistan to stop any further attacks. The US is closer to India nowadays and they are frustrated with Pakistan being unable to act decisively on terrorist camps on it's soil. The US would jump at a chance to destroy these camps and would almost certainly intervene militarily. Pakistan would be crushed in a matter of days. 

What about China?

China is anything but stupid. Supporting Pakistan to conduct a nuclear attack on India will result in a crisis of an unprecedented nature for China. To Understand better consider an analogy-

A Man commits the murder of an innocent man. You participate in it by encouraging him . The police would book you as an accomplice to murder and put you in the locker with the Murderer. You would lose all your reputation for your friend. 

China here is the accomplice, Pakistan the Murderer, India the victim and the UN is the Police.  They will book China as a Rogue state and cancel dealings with China and impose Sanctions. All the ASEAN Countries(Association of South East Asian Nations) will jump on the US bandwagon to throw out China from the World Economy. The Chinese Economy will be Blown to shreds. As Inflation increases over the falling Yuan, The Army would mutiny and Strikes would break out. 

​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The ASEAN Countries

The West will suffer for a while without cheap Chinese goods but soon South Korea and the ASEAN Countries will take up the role of China . As China rots, The South east Asian countries Prosper hugely. 

Also, a Nuclear war in it's neighborhood, will result in most of Western china being covered in Radioactive dust. Most people would have to be evacuated placing a huge toll on it's economy. It may also lead to a localized Nuclear Winter Situation, in which the Dust will Block out the Sun, resulting in Crops failing and Temperatures rapidly falling, resulting in a Harsh Cold Climate across most of China and South East Asia. This would be totally unacceptable for China at any cost.

Another Reason why China will not help Pakistan, is the Threat of Escalating a Local Nuclear war to a Global One. Basically this scenario will suck in bigger Powers like The US, NATO and Russia leading to an unpleasant domino effect and Start WW3. This is Exactly how WW1 started and such a situation is totally plausible, Only this Time with Nuclear weapons. This will Obviously lead to Doomsday and Armageddon for the entire world.

Due to these Reasons, I am Certain that China will stay out of the UN's way and will not support Pakistan. If Pakistan goes Rogue , I am Actually say with Confidence that China will back the UN.

History Suggests that in the murky world of Geopolitics  "You are a friend only till you become a liability" .


Conclusion
I am certain of the fact that Pakistan's Generals know all about these scenarios and hence the only thing they can do is rattle their missiles in anger knowing that India would win both a conventional and a nuclear war. Hence I think it is quite Unlikely that Pakistan would choose to begin a nuclear war with India. Even if she does, God Forbid, India and the world will turn Pakistan into a barren wasteland straight out of a Mad Max Movie.
 
In short, They may start the war, but we shall end it.

References-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Who supported Kalam to become president of India? I mean which political party?

=================================================================

Answered By:  Muralidhar Kovvali

''The morning of 10 June 2002 was like any other day in the beautiful environment of Anna University, where I had been working since December 2001. I had been enjoying my time in the large, tranquil campus, working with professors and inquisitive students on research projects and teaching. 

As I was walking back, Prof A Kalanidhi, the vice chancellor of Anna University, joined me. He said that my office had received many telephone calls during the day and someone was frantically trying to get in touch with me. As soon as I reached my rooms, I found the telephone was ringing. When I answered, a voice on the other end said, ‘The prime minister wants to talk to you.’

While I was waiting to be connected to the PM, Chandrababu Naidu, who was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, called me on my cellphone. He told me to expect an important call from the prime minister, adding, ‘Please do not say no.’

While I was talking to Naidu, the call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee  materialized. He said, ‘Kalam, how is your academic life?’ 'It is fantastic,’ I answered. Vajpayee continued, ‘We have some very important news for you. Just now, I am coming from a special meeting attended by leaders of all the coalition parties. We have decided unanimously that the nation needs you as its Rashtrapati. I have to announce this tonight. I would like to have your concurrence. I need only a “Yes”, not a “No”.

Vajpayee said, ‘After you agree, we will work for a consensus.’

Over the next two hours, I must have made thirty telephone calls to my close friends. Among them were people in academia and friends in the civil services and in politics too. One view that came across was that I was enjoying an academic life, which is my passion and love, and I shouldn’t disturb it. The second view was that this was an opportunity to put forth the India 2020 vision in front of the nation and Parliament, and that I must jump at it.Exactly after two hours, I was connected to the prime minister. I said, ‘Vajpayeeji, I consider this to be a very important mission and I would like to be an all-party candidate.’

He said, ‘Yes, we will work for it, thank you.’The same day, Vajpayee consulted with Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the opposition leader, about the choice of candidate. When Mrs Gandhi asked whether the NDA’s choice was final, the prime minister responded in the affirmative. After due consultation with her party members and coalition partners, Mrs Gandhi announced the support of the Indian National Congress (INC) to my candidature on 17 June 2002. I would have loved to get the support of the Left parties also but they decided to nominate their own candidate''

Source: scroll . in

Why is killing a plant to eat not cruel, whereas killing an animal is?


========================================================================

Answered By:  Scott Graham, Working, studying and generally accepting that I know almost nothing about th...

I'm not a vegan and I've a feeling that this is just a troll question, but allow me to answer anyway.

1. Plants don't have a nervous system that allows them to feel pain. Some plants can react to stimulation, such as emitting chemicals when getting eaten etc but there is no evidence of a system that would be comparable to that of an animals in allowing the plant to feel pain. This is the main ethical problem vegetarians and vegans have i.e. I feel pain, I don't like pain, I don't want to inflict that same feeling on others. This is the basic principle of empathy.

2. Many plants have evolved to entice animals to eat them (or more specifically parts of them).

Fruits are the perfect example of this. The plant is often propagated by animals eating it's fruit and disposing of the seeds elsewhere. Plants evolved to have fruit that tastes good and changes colour to indicate when they are ripe.

Not a fruit I know, but my favourite example of ripening as the berries become ripe at different times, showing the contrast.

=================================================================

Answered By:  Chiranjeevi Alti, Test Engineer

Originally Answered: Why is killing a plant for food considered OK, but not killing an animal for food?

Short version

The same reason killing of human beings by an intelligent alien race for whatever reason is not considered OK no matter how desperate the situation is.

Did you just say the lives of both human being and an animal are the same?
Not really, i think everyone should have a right to live. I believe in live and let live.

Long version

Questions like this always start a fight between vegetarians/vegans and non-vegetarians. I am just trying to answer a question and not pointing any fingers. So here goes some points that always get me thinking and clarifications for any queries i might get in the comments section

• You don't really kill a plant for food, you just consume the fruit/root/flower/seed/leaf etc which can always grow back. The same is not true for an animal, it will bleed to its death!

• Consumption of a fruit is essential in order to get the seed out so it can sprout and continue the life cycle. That's how nature is!
• We don't have to kill animals for food (except in extreme cold weather where no plants survive) when there are enough plant products to feed the whole planet.

That's not true! If we don't eat animals, they would outpopulate us and eat all the plants/plant products

• A cow typically yields 8-12 calves in its normal average lifetime of 15-20 years. Cows in dairy farms are raped (artificial insemination) so they can give milk all their life (less than 5 years) while yielding about 5 calves. They are fed grain (farmed by cutting down rain forests endangering several species) and injected with hormones to accelerate growth thereby increasing weight to make a profit on beef. Cow population would have been smaller and their grain and water consumption minimal if they were never dairy farmed!

I don't believe you!
Dairy business is a multibillion dollar industry. Get your facts from Google.

• 16 pounds of grain roughly converts to 1 pound of meat. All that grain could be used much more efficiently if it were fed directly to people. Farmed animals use more than half the water consumed in the US. This will be a serious problem in the future and the UN recently urged a global move to a meat and dairy-free diet.
• Animals are sentient beings (beings capable of feelings) that raise younger ones and share familial bonds very similar to humans. We don't possess any dominion over them.

=================================================================

Answered By:  Mehul Parikh

Has anyone considered that plants and trees produce "fruits" to be intentionally consumed by animals so their seeds can be excreted (or pollen can be transported) and give "birth" to another tree or plant to bear more "fruits"? This event is a necessity for the ecosystem to continue.  Does an animal produce more babies for the intentional consumption by another animal?  Some animals do produce multiple offspring (like fish, reptiles, and insects) to assure the survival of their species when predators can get to the young, but, this again is the natural scheme to balance the natural ecosystem. ... Only the modern human intentionally (and artificially) breeds various animals in abundance for their milk, for their meat, and for their skin/bones/oils.  They do the same for plants and trees.

Ancient civilizations, the current aborigines of any land, and many animals had (and still have) the proper philosophy: respect all things in this world... take/use what you need to survive - not whatever you can get your hands on...

I am a vegetarian. I respect my omnivore friends, but in general, I don't believe in the "greed" and "gluttony" mentality which results in cruelty or extinction to any animal and an imbalance to the natural ways of things.  All this modern man-made "conditions" will be detrimental to the entire earth - ultimately all humans will suffer.

=================================================================

Answered By:  Marcus Geduld, Shakespearean director, computer programmer, teacher, writer, likes dinosaurs.

Marcus has 300+ answers in Human Behavior.

I'm a utilitarian. Which means, roughly, my ethical system seeks to minimize the amount of unhappiness and suffering in the world and maximize the amount of happiness. 

I also believe that, while fallible, the most reliable guide we have to Nature is Science. 

Science suggests some animals can feel pain and suffer. It also suggests plants can't. 

Which is why I find it more ethical to kill and eat plants than animals.