2 ms·
while I do agree that sometimes this seems a bit newagey or, to use an obvious word, "treehugger", I've grown to appreciate the insights from the true believers
by xhkkffbf 5y ago
while I do agree that sometimes this seems a bit newagey or, to use an obvious word, "treehugger", I've grown to appreciate the insights from the true believers. I don't always go as far as they do, but I do find there are plenty of surprises with plants.
When researchers opened their eyes and looked, they could find concrete proof that plants often communicated and nurtured their young. They shared and built communities. They worked together to fight enemies. Sure, they don't use the same tactics as animals, but if you look at their progress in the abstract, it's easy to see how they're not sedentary or stupid.
- tgv 5y agoThat's projection at its worst. Just because you can map some concept vaguely on behavior of some species, doesn't mean it is doing that, nor does it imply that it thus deserves to be treated as human. > but if you look at their progress in the abstract Good thing we don't eat abstract plants then.
- xhkkffbf 5y agoIt is not projection. When you ask the question in an abstract way, it opens you up to seeing in way that's not clouded by preconception (something you seem to be doing.) Do trees pass sugars on to their offspring? Yes. Is that projection? It was validated with scientific methods that tracked deuterated hydrogen. But you can see it as some kind of wacko imagination if you want to be a science denier. And if you go back, you'll see I didn't say that plants should be treated like humans. Maybe you're the one with an imagination?