What are your thoughts? Is this bunk? If so, then why?!
Answers:
this behaviour is more along the lines of chemical signals!.!.!.such as in some poisonous plants can chemically communicate that there are predators and they can release there toxins onto their leaves to avoid being eaten!.!.!.!.like i said is more or chemically talking rather than actually saying!.!.!.hey man whats up!.!.!.not much!.!.!.got drunk!.!.!.you!? lol but it still is a sort of communication
Edit: Michael!.!.!.!.our brains chemically communicate with our bodies to tell us to do things like move!.!.!.that is a form of communication!.!.!.!.if you understood it you would realise that communication is not just verbal!.!.!.!.but chemical aswell
EDIT scottie the study is not saying they can talk!.!.!.but communicate through chemical signals!.!.theres a big difference!.!.we all know they cant actually talk but can communicate on a chemical level
EDIT michael!.!.!.communication does not have toi be intellectual!.!.!.!.for instance!.!.!.!.antibodies chemically communicate through the use of receptor sites on thier surface that bind with viruses when they come into contact!.!.!.the antibody is just communicating on a chemical levelWww@FoodAQ@Com
Edit: Michael!.!.!.!.our brains chemically communicate with our bodies to tell us to do things like move!.!.!.that is a form of communication!.!.!.!.if you understood it you would realise that communication is not just verbal!.!.!.!.but chemical aswell
EDIT scottie the study is not saying they can talk!.!.!.but communicate through chemical signals!.!.theres a big difference!.!.we all know they cant actually talk but can communicate on a chemical level
EDIT michael!.!.!.communication does not have toi be intellectual!.!.!.!.for instance!.!.!.!.antibodies chemically communicate through the use of receptor sites on thier surface that bind with viruses when they come into contact!.!.!.the antibody is just communicating on a chemical levelWww@FoodAQ@Com
The article uses words like " internal network", "tubes", "Cables", "communication connections" to describe things most people call "roots"!.
All these terms are used in the first 3 paragraphs which suggests to me that the author is trying to create a sense of some communication network before telling us the science!. They are "setting the scene" is a biased way - thats not how science normally does it
The experiment about catipllars is nonsense!. It says the catapillars chose to go to a plant without damaged leaves saying "“[They] understand plant defense language very well "!.
How on earth do the "scientist" know that !! It sound like kindergarden science to me!.
The effect of chemical production described can be entirely driven by mechanical changes to the plant, nothing to do with communication, response to pain or any thought process!.
Using phrases like "external signal of impending herbivore danger and transmit it to the other members of the network" is laughable for a scientist
I've seen a few question here about plants feeling pain and have not seen the "evidence" before!. To be honest, i had no idea this evidence was so poor!. Its a quite an enlightening article in that respect, thanks for that
I notice the authors previous published work has all been about space travel, no history of publications about plants!.
I see answers here that talk about chemical communication!. Sorry, thats a mechanical/chemical reaction - nothing to do with communication!.
We might as well say bi-metal strips "communicate" when they are heated!.
errr, sorry, how can you claim a chemical reaction is communication !?!? If you drop a block of sodium in water is it "communicating" when it fizzes around !? If you want to believe that, good for you, there is nothing anyone can say to re-buff such lack of science or logic!.
For it to be communication, it requires decision making, thought and understanding!. The brains chemical SIGNALS would not be communication without a decision making and feedback process!.
"communcation" is a process of exchanging information, the dictionary says it requires feedback, its designed to create shared understanding, uses a common language!.!.!.!.plus many other descriptions!.!.!.none of which relate to simple, passive, mechanically controlled chemical changes!.
Its nonsense to attribute the word "communication" to such physcial changes in a plant structure
I've explained all i need to explain, the article is rubbish, you asked for our thoughts, if you don't want them, don't ask!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
All these terms are used in the first 3 paragraphs which suggests to me that the author is trying to create a sense of some communication network before telling us the science!. They are "setting the scene" is a biased way - thats not how science normally does it
The experiment about catipllars is nonsense!. It says the catapillars chose to go to a plant without damaged leaves saying "“[They] understand plant defense language very well "!.
How on earth do the "scientist" know that !! It sound like kindergarden science to me!.
The effect of chemical production described can be entirely driven by mechanical changes to the plant, nothing to do with communication, response to pain or any thought process!.
Using phrases like "external signal of impending herbivore danger and transmit it to the other members of the network" is laughable for a scientist
I've seen a few question here about plants feeling pain and have not seen the "evidence" before!. To be honest, i had no idea this evidence was so poor!. Its a quite an enlightening article in that respect, thanks for that
I notice the authors previous published work has all been about space travel, no history of publications about plants!.
I see answers here that talk about chemical communication!. Sorry, thats a mechanical/chemical reaction - nothing to do with communication!.
We might as well say bi-metal strips "communicate" when they are heated!.
errr, sorry, how can you claim a chemical reaction is communication !?!? If you drop a block of sodium in water is it "communicating" when it fizzes around !? If you want to believe that, good for you, there is nothing anyone can say to re-buff such lack of science or logic!.
For it to be communication, it requires decision making, thought and understanding!. The brains chemical SIGNALS would not be communication without a decision making and feedback process!.
"communcation" is a process of exchanging information, the dictionary says it requires feedback, its designed to create shared understanding, uses a common language!.!.!.!.plus many other descriptions!.!.!.none of which relate to simple, passive, mechanically controlled chemical changes!.
Its nonsense to attribute the word "communication" to such physcial changes in a plant structure
I've explained all i need to explain, the article is rubbish, you asked for our thoughts, if you don't want them, don't ask!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Plants "communicate" through chemical or electrical "signals"!. As there is no brain, the sensations or stimuli cannot be processed into "feeling"!. Therefore there is no pain and no suffering!. There is no conscious effort by the plant in this example!. The cutting of the leaf simply releases a chemical and the entire phenomenon is a product of evolution!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
interesting article!
i've heard similar things about plants before!.!.!.i know that some scientists have long claimed that plants have primitive nervous systems!. honestly, they probably do have some sort of nervous system or at least a response system!. anything that is given life does, really!.
if you're wanting to know specifically how it affects vegetarians and vegans, my stance will remain until there is definitive proof that plants suffer in the same manner that animals do!. i don't believe they have that capability, but i would certainly be open to hearing about it if there is more evidence in the future!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
i've heard similar things about plants before!.!.!.i know that some scientists have long claimed that plants have primitive nervous systems!. honestly, they probably do have some sort of nervous system or at least a response system!. anything that is given life does, really!.
if you're wanting to know specifically how it affects vegetarians and vegans, my stance will remain until there is definitive proof that plants suffer in the same manner that animals do!. i don't believe they have that capability, but i would certainly be open to hearing about it if there is more evidence in the future!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I have always felt that the vegetable world was more interconnected that some like to believe!. Articles such as this should totally shake veg*ns world!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
well, i get the feeling that you are jumping from this article to the "plants have feelings therefore it is ok to eat meat" argument!. But this is quite the leap of logic!. Essentially, all the article talks about is that when a leaf of certain types of plants are eaten, these plants have a defense system that helps to keep further infestation at bay, and the most interesting thing about this system is that it transfers from neighboring plants!. this by no means implys feelings or even real communication for that matter, all that is required is one simple stimulus that can spread from one plant to another!. The article might use leading words like "communication" to try to draw people to that conclusion, the research seems to point to a much more primitive response!.
The next thing that is wrong with this is the type of plants involved!. Strawberries, while they dont want bugs to eat their leaves, do want animals to eat thier fruit as it spreads their seeds!. And we dont eat clover!.
Oh and the last thing, of course, is that if plants do have feelings, the best way to save plants is to not grow meat!. the amount of plants eaten by an animal to create flesh for you to eat is far more than if you just ate the plant!. so, the best way to save the plants is also by going vegetarian!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The next thing that is wrong with this is the type of plants involved!. Strawberries, while they dont want bugs to eat their leaves, do want animals to eat thier fruit as it spreads their seeds!. And we dont eat clover!.
Oh and the last thing, of course, is that if plants do have feelings, the best way to save plants is to not grow meat!. the amount of plants eaten by an animal to create flesh for you to eat is far more than if you just ate the plant!. so, the best way to save the plants is also by going vegetarian!.Www@FoodAQ@Com