An Erewhonian Philosopher on Vegetable Rights

Let me leave this unhappy story, and return to the course of events among the Erewhonians at large. No matter how many laws they passed increasing the severity of the punishments inflicted on those who ate meat in secret, the people found means of setting them aside as fast as they were made. At times, indeed, they would become almost obsolete, but when they were on the point of being repealed, some national disaster or the preaching of some fanatic would reawaken the conscience of the nation, and people were imprisoned by the thousand for illicitly selling and buying animal food.

Let me leave this unhappy story and return to events among the Erewhonians as a whole. They passed law after law imposing harsher punishments on people who secretly ate meat. But the people found ways around each law as soon as it was made. At times, the laws were almost forgotten. But just as they were about to be repealed, a national disaster or a fanatic’s preaching would stir the nation’s conscience again. Then thousands of people were imprisoned for illegally buying and selling meat.

About six or seven hundred years, however, after the death of the old prophet, a philosopher appeared, who, though he did not claim to have any communication with an unseen power, laid down the law with as much confidence as if such a power had inspired him. Many think that this philosopher did not believe his own teaching, and, being in secret a great meat-eater, had no other end in view than reducing the prohibition against eating animal food to an absurdity, greater even than an Erewhonian Puritan would be able to stand.

About six or seven hundred years after the old prophet died, however, a philosopher appeared. He did not claim to communicate with an unseen power. Yet he laid down the law as confidently as if such a power had inspired him. Many think that this philosopher did not believe his own teaching and was secretly a great meat-eater. They think his only aim was to make the ban on eating animal food seem absurd. He wanted to make it more absurd than even an Erewhonian Puritan could stand.

Those who take this view hold that he knew how impossible it would be to get the nation to accept legislation that it held to be sinful; he knew also how hopeless it would be to convince people that it was not wicked to kill a sheep and eat it, unless he could show them that they must either sin to a certain extent, or die. He, therefore, it is believed, made the monstrous proposals of which I will now speak.

Those who take this view believe he knew the nation would never accept laws it regarded as sinful. He also knew he could not convince people that killing and eating a sheep was not wicked. He could only convince them if he showed them that they must either sin to some extent or die. For these reasons, it is believed, he made the monstrous proposals I will now describe.

He began by paying a tribute of profound respect to the old prophet, whose advocacy of the rights of animals, he admitted, had done much to soften the national character, and enlarge its views about the sanctity of life in general. But he urged that times had now changed; the lesson of which the country had stood in need had been sufficiently learnt, while as regards vegetables much had become known that was not even suspected formerly, and which, if the nation was to persevere in that strict adherence to the highest moral principles which had been the secret of its prosperity hitherto, must necessitate a radical change in its attitude towards them.

He began by expressing profound respect for the old prophet. He admitted that the prophet’s defense of animal rights had done much to soften the national character. It had also broadened the nation’s views on the sanctity of life in general. But he argued that times had changed. The country had learned the lesson it needed to learn. Much had also been discovered about vegetables that had not even been suspected before. The nation’s strict adherence to the highest moral principles had been the secret of its prosperity so far. If the nation was to continue to uphold those principles, these discoveries required a radical change in its attitude toward vegetables.

It was indeed true that much was now known that had not been suspected formerly, for the people had had no foreign enemies, and, being both quick-witted and inquisitive into the mysteries of nature, had made extraordinary progress in all the many branches of art and science. In the chief Erewhonian museum I was shown a microscope of considerable power, that was ascribed by the authorities to a date much about that of the philosopher of whom I am now speaking, and was even supposed by some to have been the instrument with which he had actually worked.

It was indeed true that much was now known that had not even been suspected before. The people had no foreign enemies and were quick-witted and curious about the mysteries of nature. As a result, they had made extraordinary progress in all the many branches of art and science. In the chief Erewhonian museum, I was shown a powerful microscope. The authorities dated it to around the time of the philosopher I am discussing. Some even believed it was the instrument he had actually used.

This philosopher was Professor of botany in the chief seat of learning then in Erewhon, and whether with the help of the microscope still preserved, or with another, had arrived at a conclusion now universally accepted among ourselves—I mean, that all, both animals and plants, have had a common ancestry, and that hence the second should be deemed as much alive as the first. He contended, therefore, that animals and plants were cousins, and would have been seen to be so, all along, if people had not made an arbitrary and unreasonable division between what they chose to call the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

This philosopher was a professor of botany at the leading university in Erewhon at the time. Using either the microscope still preserved or another one, he had reached a conclusion now universally accepted among us. That is, all animals and plants share a common ancestry. Plants should therefore be regarded as just as much alive as animals. He argued that animals and plants were cousins. People would have seen this all along if they had not drawn an arbitrary and unreasonable division between what they chose to call the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

He declared, and demonstrated to the satisfaction of all those who were able to form an opinion upon the subject, that there is no difference appreciable either by the eye, or by any other test, between a germ that will develop into an oak, a vine, a rose, and one that (given its accustomed surroundings) will become a mouse, an elephant, or a man.

He claimed that no difference could be detected, either by sight or by any other test, between certain germs. These were germs that would develop into an oak, a vine, or a rose, and those that would become a mouse, an elephant, or a man in their usual surroundings. He demonstrated this to the satisfaction of all who were able to judge the matter.

He contended that the course of any germ’s development was dictated by the habits of the germs from which it was descended and of whose identity it had once formed part. If a germ found itself placed as the germs in the line of its ancestry were placed, it would do as its ancestors had done, and grow up into the same kind of organism as theirs. If it found the circumstances only a little different, it would make shift (successfully or unsuccessfully) to modify its development accordingly; if the circumstances were widely different, it would die, probably without an effort at self-adaptation. This, he argued, applied equally to the germs of plants and of animals.

He argued that a germ’s development was shaped by the habits of the germs it descended from. It had once formed part of those germs and shared their identity. If a germ found itself in the same circumstances as its ancestors, it would act as they had. It would grow into the same kind of organism as they had. If circumstances were only slightly different, it would try to adjust its development accordingly, whether successfully or not. If circumstances were very different, it would die, probably without trying to adapt. He argued that this applied equally to the germs of plants and animals.

He therefore connected all, both animal and vegetable development, with intelligence, either spent and now unconscious, or still unspent and conscious; and in support of his view as regards vegetable life, he pointed to the way in which all plants have adapted themselves to their habitual environment. Granting that vegetable intelligence at first sight appears to differ materially from animal, yet, he urged, it is like it in the one essential fact that though it has evidently busied itself about matters that are vital to the well-being of the organism that possesses it, it has never shown the slightest tendency to occupy itself with anything else. This, he insisted, is as great a proof of intelligence as any living being can give.

He therefore connected all animal and plant development with intelligence. This intelligence was either spent and now unconscious, or still unspent and conscious. To support his view about plant life, he pointed to how all plants have adapted to their usual surroundings. He admitted that plant intelligence seems, at first, to differ greatly from animal intelligence. Yet he argued that the two are alike in one essential respect. Plant intelligence has clearly concerned itself with matters vital to the well-being of the organism that possesses it. But it has never shown the slightest tendency to concern itself with anything else. He insisted that this is as great a proof of intelligence as any living being can give.

“Plants,” said he, “show no sign of interesting themselves in human affairs. We shall never get a rose to understand that five times seven are thirty-five, and there is no use in talking to an oak about fluctuations in the price of stocks. Hence we say that the oak and the rose are unintelligent, and on finding that they do not understand our business conclude that they do not understand their own. But what can a creature who talks in this way know about intelligence? Which shows greater signs of intelligence? He, or the rose and oak?

“Plants,” he said, “show no interest in human affairs. We will never get a rose to understand that five times seven is thirty-five. And there is no point talking to an oak about changes in stock prices. So we say that the oak and the rose are unintelligent. Because they do not understand our business, we conclude that they do not understand their own. But what can a creature who talks this way know about intelligence? Which shows more signs of intelligence? He, or the rose and oak?

“And when we call plants stupid for not understanding our business, how capable do we show ourselves of understanding theirs? Can we form even the faintest conception of the way in which a seed from a rose-tree turns earth, air, warmth and water into a rose full-blown? Where does it get its colour from? From the earth, air, &c.? Yes—but how? Those petals of such ineffable texture—that hue that outvies the cheek of a child—that scent again? Look at earth, air, and water—these are all the raw material that the rose has got to work with; does it show any sign of want of intelligence in the alchemy with which it turns mud into rose-leaves? What chemist can do anything comparable? Why does no one try? Simply because every one knows that no human intelligence is equal to the task. We give it up. It is the rose’s department; let the rose attend to it—and be dubbed unintelligent because it baffles us by the miracles it works, and the unconcerned business-like way in which it works them.

“And when we call plants stupid for not understanding our business, how well do we understand theirs? Can we even begin to imagine how a rose seed turns earth, air, warmth, and water into a fully grown rose? Where does it get its color? From the earth, air, and so on? Yes, but how? And what about those petals, with their indescribable texture? What about the color that surpasses a child’s cheek? And the scent? Look at earth, air, and water. These are all the raw materials the rose has to work with. Does the rose show any lack of intelligence in the alchemy by which it turns mud into rose petals? What chemist can do anything comparable? Why does no one try? Simply because everyone knows that no human intelligence is equal to the task. We give up. It is the rose’s business, so let the rose take care of it. And let us call the rose unintelligent because it baffles us with the miracles it performs, and with the calm, businesslike way it performs them.

“See what pains, again, plants take to protect themselves against their enemies. They scratch, cut, sting, make bad smells, secrete the most dreadful poisons (which Heaven only knows how they contrive to make), cover their precious seeds with spines like those of a hedgehog, frighten insects with delicate nervous systems by assuming portentous shapes, hide themselves, grow in inaccessible places, and tell lies so plausibly as to deceive even their subtlest foes.

“Look, too, at how much trouble plants take to protect themselves from their enemies. They scratch, cut, sting, smell bad, and produce the most dreadful poisons. Heaven only knows how they manage to make those poisons. They cover their precious seeds with spines like a hedgehog’s. They take on alarming shapes to frighten insects with delicate nervous systems. They hide themselves, grow in places that are hard to reach, and tell lies convincing enough to fool even their cleverest enemies.

“They lay traps smeared with bird-lime, to catch insects, and persuade them to drown themselves in pitchers which they have made of their leaves, and fill with water; others make themselves, as it were, into living rat-traps, which close with a spring on any insect that settles upon them; others make their flowers into the shape of a certain fly that is a great pillager of honey, so that when the real fly comes it thinks that the flowers are bespoke, and goes on elsewhere. Some are so clever as even to overreach themselves, like the horse-radish, which gets pulled up and eaten for the sake of that pungency with which it protects itself against underground enemies. If, on the other hand, they think that any insect can be of service to them, see how pretty they make themselves.

“They lay traps coated with sticky birdlime to catch insects. They persuade insects to drown themselves in pitchers made from their leaves and filled with water. Others turn themselves into living rat traps, which spring shut on any insect that lands on them. Others shape their flowers like a certain fly that steals a great deal of honey. When a real fly comes along, it thinks the flowers are already claimed and goes elsewhere. Some are so clever that they even outsmart themselves. Take horseradish, which gets pulled up and eaten for the very sharpness that protects it from underground enemies. If, on the other hand, they think an insect can be useful to them, see how pretty they make themselves.

“What is to be intelligent if to know how to do what one wants to do, and to do it repeatedly, is not to be intelligent? Some say that the rose-seed does not want to grow into a rose-bush. Why, then, in the name of all that is reasonable, does it grow? Likely enough it is unaware of the want that is spurring it on to action. We have no reason to suppose that a human embryo knows that it wants to grow into a baby, or a baby into a man. Nothing ever shows signs of knowing what it is either wanting or doing, when its convictions both as to what it wants, and how to get it, have been settled beyond further power of question. The less signs living creatures give of knowing what they do, provided they do it, and do it repeatedly and well, the greater proof they give that in reality they know how to do it, and have done it already on an infinite number of past occasions.

“If knowing how to do what you want, and doing it repeatedly, is not intelligence, what is? Some say that a rose seed does not want to grow into a rosebush. Why, then, in the name of all that is reasonable, does it grow? The seed is probably unaware of the desire driving it to grow. We have no reason to suppose that a human embryo knows it wants to grow into a baby. Nor do we have reason to suppose that a baby knows it wants to grow into a man. Nothing ever shows signs of knowing what it wants or does when its convictions are settled beyond all question. That is true of its convictions about both what it wants and how to get it. Living creatures may show little sign of knowing what they do. But as long as they do it repeatedly and well, the less they show, the more they prove something. They prove that they really do know how to do it, and have done it infinitely many times before.

“Some one may say,” he continued, “‘What do you mean by talking about an infinite number of past occasions? When did a rose-seed make itself into a rose-bush on any past occasion?’

“Someone may say,” he continued, “‘What do you mean by an infinite number of past occasions? When has a rose seed ever turned itself into a rosebush before?’

“I answer this question with another. ‘Did the rose-seed ever form part of the identity of the rose-bush on which it grew?’ Who can say that it did not? Again I ask: ‘Was this rose-bush ever linked by all those links that we commonly consider as constituting personal identity, with the seed from which it in its turn grew?’ Who can say that it was not?

“I answer this question with another. ‘Was the rose seed ever part of the identity of the rosebush it grew on?’ Who can say it was not? Again I ask: ‘Was this rosebush ever linked to the seed it grew from by all the links we usually regard as making up personal identity?’ Who can say it was not?

“Then, if rose-seed number two is a continuation of the personality of its parent rose-bush, and if that rose-bush is a continuation of the personality of the rose-seed from which it sprang, rose-seed number two must also be a continuation of the personality of the earlier rose-seed. And this rose-seed must be a continuation of the personality of the preceding rose-seed—and so back and back ad infinitum. Hence it is impossible to deny continued personality between any existing rose-seed and the earliest seed that can be called a rose-seed at all.

“Suppose rose-seed number two is a continuation of the personality of its parent rose-bush. And suppose that rose-bush is a continuation of the personality of the rose-seed it grew from. Then rose-seed number two must also be a continuation of the personality of that earlier rose-seed. That earlier rose-seed must likewise be a continuation of the personality of the seed before it. And so it goes back and back forever. Therefore, we cannot deny that any existing rose-seed shares a continuous personality with the earliest seed that could be called a rose-seed.

“The answer, then, to our objector is not far to seek. The rose-seed did what it now does in the persons of its ancestors—to whom it has been so linked as to be able to remember what those ancestors did when they were placed as the rose-seed now is. Each stage of development brings back the recollection of the course taken in the preceding stage, and the development has been so often repeated, that all doubt—and with all doubt, all consciousness of action—is suspended.

“The answer to our objector, then, is easy to find. The rose seed did what it now does through its ancestors. It is linked to them so closely that it can remember what they did when they were in its present state. Each stage of development brings back the memory of the course taken in the previous stage. This development has been repeated so often that all doubt is suspended. And with all doubt, all awareness of action is suspended too.

“But an objector may still say, ‘Granted that the linking between all successive generations has been so close and unbroken, that each one of them may be conceived as able to remember what it did in the persons of its ancestors—how do you show that it actually did remember?’

“But an objector may still say, ‘Granted, all successive generations have been linked so closely and continuously that each may be thought capable of remembering what it did in the persons of its ancestors. But how do you show that each generation actually remembered?’

“The answer is: ‘By the action which each generation takes—an action which repeats all the phenomena that we commonly associate with memory—which is explicable on the supposition that it has been guided by memory—and which has neither been explained, nor seems ever likely to be explained on any other theory than the supposition that there is an abiding memory between successive generations.’

“The answer is: ‘By the action each generation takes. This action repeats all the phenomena we commonly associate with memory. It can be explained by assuming that memory has guided it. It has not been explained by any other theory. Nor does it seem likely ever to be explained except by assuming that memory persists between successive generations.’

“Will any one bring an example of any living creature whose action we can understand, performing an ineffably difficult and intricate action, time after time, with invariable success, and yet not knowing how to do it, and never having done it before? Show me the example and I will say no more, but until it is shown me, I shall credit action where I cannot watch it, with being controlled by the same laws as when it is within our ken. It will become unconscious as soon as the skill that directs it has become perfected. Neither rose-seed, therefore, nor embryo should be expected to show signs of knowing that they know what they know—if they showed such signs the fact of their knowing what they want, and how to get it, might more reasonably be doubted.”

“Can anyone give an example of a living creature whose actions we can understand doing something incredibly difficult and intricate, time after time, with perfect success, without knowing how and without ever having done it before? Show me such an example, and I will say no more. But until then, I will assume that actions I cannot observe are governed by the same laws as those I can. An action becomes unconscious as soon as the skill that directs it has been perfected. Therefore, we should not expect a rose seed or an embryo to show signs that it knows what it knows. If it did show such signs, we would have more reason to doubt that it knows what it wants and how to get it.”

Some of the passages already given in Chapter XXIII were obviously inspired by the one just quoted. As I read it, in a reprint shown me by a Professor who had edited much of the early literature on the subject, I could not but remember the one in which our Lord tells His disciples to consider the lilies of the field, who neither toil nor spin, but whose raiment surpasses even that of Solomon in all his glory.

Some of the passages already given in Chapter XXIII were clearly inspired by the one just quoted. I read it in a reprint shown to me by a professor who had edited much of the early literature on the subject. As I read it, I could not help remembering the passage in which our Lord tells his disciples to consider the lilies of the field. They neither work nor spin, yet their clothing surpasses even Solomon's in all his glory.

“They toil not, neither do they spin?” Is that so? “Toil not?” Perhaps not, now that the method of procedure is so well known as to admit of no further question—but it is not likely that lilies came to make themselves so beautifully without having ever taken any pains about the matter. “Neither do they spin?” Not with a spinning-wheel; but is there no textile fabric in a leaf?

“They toil not, neither do they spin?” Is that so? “Toil not?” Perhaps not, now that the process is so well established that there is no further question about it. But lilies probably did not learn to make themselves so beautiful without ever taking pains over it. “Neither do they spin?” Not with a spinning wheel. But is there no woven fabric in a leaf?

What would the lilies of the field say if they heard one of us declaring that they neither toil nor spin? They would say, I take it, much what we should if we were to hear of their preaching humility on the text of Solomons, and saying, “Consider the Solomons in all their glory, they toil not neither do they spin.” We should say that the lilies were talking about things that they did not understand, and that though the Solomons do not toil nor spin, yet there had been no lack of either toiling or spinning before they came to be arrayed so gorgeously.

What would the lilies of the field say if they heard one of us declare that they neither work nor spin? I think they would say much the same as we would if we heard them preach humility using the Solomons as their text. They might say, “Consider the Solomons in all their glory. They neither work nor spin.” We would say the lilies were talking about things they did not understand. The Solomons may not work or spin, but plenty of work and spinning went into dressing them so splendidly.

Let me now return to the Professor. I have said enough to show the general drift of the arguments on which he relied in order to show that vegetables are only animals under another name, but have not stated his case in anything like the fullness with which he laid it before the public. The conclusion he drew, or pretended to draw, was that if it was sinful to kill and eat animals, it was not less sinful to do the like by vegetables, or their seeds. None such, he said, should be eaten, save what had died a natural death, such as fruit that was lying on the ground and about to rot, or cabbage-leaves that had turned yellow in late autumn. These and other like garbage he declared to be the only food that might be eaten with a clear conscience. Even so the eater must plant the pips of any apples or pears that he may have eaten, or any plum-stones, cherry-stones, and the like, or he would come near to incurring the guilt of infanticide. The grain of cereals, according to him, was out of the question, for every such grain had a living soul as much as man had, and had as good a right as man to possess that soul in peace.

Let me return to the Professor. I have said enough to show the general direction of his arguments that vegetables are simply animals under another name. But I have not presented his case in anything like the detail he gave the public. His conclusion, or the conclusion he pretended to draw, was that killing and eating vegetables or their seeds was no less sinful than killing and eating animals, if that was sinful. He said people should eat only vegetables or seeds that had died naturally. These included fruit lying on the ground and about to rot, or cabbage leaves that had turned yellow in late autumn. He declared that this and similar garbage was the only food anyone could eat with a clear conscience. Even then, anyone who ate apples or pears had to plant the seeds. The same was true of plum stones, cherry stones, and the like. Otherwise, the eater would come close to being guilty of infanticide. In his view, cereal grains were out of the question. Every grain had a living soul, just as a human did, and had just as much right to keep that soul in peace.

Having thus driven his fellow countrymen into a corner at the point of a logical bayonet from which they felt that there was no escape, he proposed that the question what was to be done should be referred to an oracle in which the whole country had the greatest confidence, and to which recourse was always had in times of special perplexity. It was whispered that a near relation of the philosopher’s was lady’s-maid to the priestess who delivered the oracle, and the Puritan party declared that the strangely unequivocal answer of the oracle was obtained by backstairs influence; but whether this was so or no, the response as nearly as I can translate it was as follows:-

Having cornered his fellow countrymen at the point of a logical bayonet, he left them feeling there was no escape. He then proposed asking an oracle what should be done. The whole country had great confidence in this oracle and always consulted it in times of special perplexity. It was whispered that a close relative of the philosopher was lady's maid to the priestess who delivered the oracle. The Puritan party declared that secret influence had secured the oracle's strangely clear answer. But whether that was true or not, the response was, as nearly as I can translate it, as follows:

It was clear that this response sanctioned at any rate the destruction of vegetable life when wanted as food by man; and so forcibly had the philosopher shown that what was sauce for vegetables was so also for animals, that, though the Puritan party made a furious outcry, the acts forbidding the use of meat were repealed by a considerable majority. Thus, after several hundred years of wandering in the wilderness of philosophy, the country reached the conclusions that common sense had long since arrived at. Even the Puritans after a vain attempt to subsist on a kind of jam made of apples and yellow cabbage leaves, succumbed to the inevitable, and resigned themselves to a diet of roast beef and mutton, with all the usual adjuncts of a modern dinner-table.

Clearly, this response allowed people to destroy plant life when they needed it for food. The philosopher had also argued convincingly that what applied to vegetables applied equally to animals. So, although the Puritan party protested furiously, the laws banning meat were repealed by a large majority. After several hundred years of wandering in the wilderness of philosophy, the country reached the conclusions that common sense had reached long before. Even the Puritans tried in vain to live on a kind of jam made from apples and yellow cabbage leaves. They finally gave in to the inevitable and accepted a diet of roast beef and mutton, with all the usual accompaniments of a modern dinner table.

One would have thought that the dance they had been led by the old prophet, and that still madder dance which the Professor of botany had gravely, but as I believe insidiously, proposed to lead them, would have made the Erewhonians for a long time suspicious of prophets whether they professed to have communications with an unseen power or no; but so engrained in the human heart is the desire to believe that some people really do know what they say they know, and can thus save them from the trouble of thinking for themselves, that in a short time would-be philosophers and faddists became more powerful than ever, and gradually led their countrymen to accept all those absurd views of life, some account of which I have given in my earlier chapters. Indeed I can see no hope for the Erewhonians till they have got to understand that reason uncorrected by instinct is as bad as instinct uncorrected by reason.

You would think the Erewhonians would have been wary of prophets for a long time after the old prophet led them such a dance. The Professor of botany had also solemnly proposed to lead them in an even madder dance. I believe his proposal was a sly one. You would think they would have distrusted prophets, whether or not they claimed to communicate with an unseen power. But the desire to believe that some people really do know what they claim to know runs deep in the human heart. Such people can spare others the trouble of thinking for themselves. Before long, would-be philosophers and enthusiasts for new ideas became more powerful than ever. They gradually led their countrymen to accept all those absurd views of life that I described in my earlier chapters. Indeed, I see no hope for the Erewhonians until they understand that reason unchecked by instinct is as bad as instinct unchecked by reason.