4 ms·

The New York Times is relying on their audience's ability to understand that plants are not conscious beings. "Mournful cries" is just an evocative way of descr

• Dalewyn 2y ago
  >plants are not conscious beings. Is that founded on a basis of scientific fact, or Human Superiority Complex?
  • richardw 2y ago
    It’s a fair assumption because there’s no genetic benefit to being a smart plant. Why would nature make that? Opposable thumbs mean we have the ability to use smarts, so genetics walked the path to consciousness over many generations. A smarter horse is fine and all but not that beneficial. Being faster or stronger or sexier is probably better. Same with a plant: get more nutrients or sunlight. There are cheaper ways than being smart to do that.
    • quonn 2y ago
      Right, but intelligence/smarts and consciousness are not the same.
      • richardw 2y ago
        See my sibling comment. Neither give any benefit over just sitting there and being a plant.
    • techas 2y ago
      It is not clear if there is a evolutionary benefit for human to be conscious. Although here we are…
    • tripper_27 2y ago
      Define "smart". And explain how "smart"=="conscious" I can agree that there is no genetic benefit to being able to move at the speed animals move, because that's not how plants obtain food or avoid being eaten. Thus no need for nerves or a CNS to coordinate movement.
      • richardw 2y ago
        Take either of them and tell me why nature would have optimised for that rather than other features, like leaves. Energy isn't infinite so genetic changes optimise for easier-to-achieve ends rather than somehow jumping past all animals to evolve smarts or consciousness without evidence of many precursor adaptations. Also why would a smart (or conscious) plant not have eventually learned to use some of that to do something that improves survivability. Like strike out, or hide down, or anything more than "somewhat grow towards the light or nutrients over time". It's a nice fun exercise to argue with people while imbibing your drug of choice, but it's utterly unlinked to anything else we see in nature. We're not idiots, we would have seen evidence by now.
  • quonn 2y ago
    We know for a fact that for humans consciousness only exists in parts of the brain and can be turned off using drugs, sleep and accidents. It is almost certainly the same for all animals with a brain. Given the fact that plants have no brain it is a reasonable assumption they have no consciousness. It may be wrong, but given all evidence it is, so far, the best assumption. We usually call assumptions based on our best current understanding scientific facts.
    • tripper_27 2y ago
      Alternative hypothesis: Given that plants do not have a central nervous system, it is reasonable to expect they have a distributed consciousness. Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts. I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
      • block_dagger 2y ago
        Can you cite those studies please? Very interested.
      • addicted 2y ago
        > it is reasonable to expect they have a distributed consciousness. Why would it be reasonable to expect they have any consciousness? What would plants do with such a consciousness that they’re wasting scarce energy on both operating and building the biological structures to maintain consciousness? They can’t move. They can’t take active actions. Why would they develop a consciousness that does nothing but makes them aware of their implementing doom without allowing them to act on it? > Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts. You know what would be really useful to evolve to survive the loss of body parts? Not suffering and feeling pain when you do, or even being aware that you just did. Especially when not being mobile in anyways you can’t do anything about it. > I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics Citation needed. Actually I’ll make it even easier. Start with studies that show plant awareness in the first place, before you show studies showing it can be switched off.
  • hyperliner 2y ago
    The scientific consensus is that, given that plants don’t have a nervous system, that they can’t process sensory input that is integrated and that produces some experience, coupled with the lack of subjective experience and the chemistry-based explanations for observed behaviors (such as following light etc), under the current definition of “consciousness”, plants are not conscious.
    • someothherguyy 2y ago
      > chemistry-based explanations for observed behaviors Not very convincing, there are chemistry-based explanations for why humans have behavior as well. > that they can’t process sensory input You just said they do (*-tropism). > the lack of subjective experience How do you know what its like to be a plant?
      • hyperliner 2y ago
        [dead]
  • addicted 2y ago
    Yes, there is no evidence to believe they are “conscious” (well, not exactly sure what is meant by conscious here since that word is closely related to religious beliefs in many cases, but assuming it means sentient), they lack all known biological features that could possibly lead to sentience, and there has been no evidence found so far to suggest there is any sentience among plants. Also, considering they’re rooted to the ground and cannot move there is no evolutionary advantage to sentience (and actually there are massive disadvantages since it will use energy for sentience which serves no purpose). Now, just because there isn’t an evolutionary advantage, or even if it’s an evolutionary disadvantage to a property doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t exist, but given that there’s no other reason to believe it does exist this is just another piece of the puzzle that shows it doesn’t even need to exist.
    • saagarjha 2y ago
      I feel like a view that sentience requires something to be motile is pretty narrow-minded. A plant is honestly a better human in the sense that it gets all day to sit and think about things, something which only some Hacker News commenters can compare to :)
    • someothherguyy 2y ago
      > conscious here since that word is closely related to religious beliefs in many cases How so?
• jart 2y ago
  I don't know about you, but I already feel enough guilt about how we eat animals. I even feel bad about throwing away a stuffed animal. We don't need some journo shoving another knife through our collective hearts about eating vegetables.
  • amaurose 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • lukas099 2y ago
      > That day will come You act so sure, yet your own post betrays that you know it’s not based on current evidence (“waiting for the day…”).
      • amaurose 2y ago
        [dead]
    • saagarjha 2y ago
      I think your view on this imagined scenario says a lot more about yourself than how vegetarians reacting to plant suffering would about themselves.
      • amaurose 2y ago
        [dead]
  • 9dev 2y ago
    There’s a really simple way to rid you of the first kind of guilt, though…
  • haswell 2y ago
    I don’t think we should anthropomorphize plants to the point where we feel guilty about eating them, but I do think society as a whole is missing a kind of fundamental respect for nature and discounts the complexity and interestingness of plant life. In a world where conserving nature is simultaneously increasingly difficult and increasingly important, I don’t mind a bit of artistic license when it comes to descriptions of plant life if it leads to more awareness and more people thinking twice about plants and how we treat natural ecosystems. Obviously there’s a balance to be struck though.