3 ms·
I don't think this is about anthropocentrism. Death and cancer are reasonably well-defined concepts across a vast range of species. Plants do get cancers, it's
by n4r9 7y ago
I don't think this is about anthropocentrism. Death and cancer are reasonably well-defined concepts across a vast range of species. Plants do get cancers, it's just nowhere near as fatal as it is for humans.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoTitle of the piece: Why plants don’t die from cancer. If the title were "Why cancer is nowhere near as fatal in plants as in humans," then your rebuttal would hold water. But that's not the title, so it has no bearing on my critique of the actual title.
- n4r9 7y agoForgive me if I'm being ignorant or pedantic. Is your criticism that the title fails to clarify that it's using generalised notions of death and cancer? I personally found that I automatically translated the title to > Why DNA mutations associated with abnormal division of cells in plants do not correlate with high fatality rates This was surprising to me because a priori I didn't see why plants should cope with abnormal growth any better than humans. This made the question intriguing. The explanation that plant cells are designed so that dead cells can be quickly replaced and that cells are surrounded by rigid walls was gratifying in a way that "question is too anthropocentric" isn't.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoYou know, it's not hugely important. Have a great day.