Even supposing plants has no nervous system to feel pain, if one were to base the feeling of pain as a basis for whether life be taken; that is very superficial appreciation of life. By your reasoning, different treatment be accorded to that which deserves. Doesn’t this also mean that the “survival of the fittest” can apply and vulnerable animals without intelligence be subjugated by humans as the top of the food chain.

This attempt at weighing the scale and justifying yourself is indeed as how the next line I would quote from the author summarises:

“In order for us to maintain our way of living, we must, in a broad sense, tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves. It is not necessary that the lies be particularly believable. The lies act as barriers to truth.”

In order to live on, creatures have to take from something else. It is the natural law that we have to take from others to gain. Currently, this talk of religion and eating plants as if the plants deserve it and were created to be eaten… now that is hogwash, a simple delusion that man created to ease his guilt he must take a life to replenish his own. Even if you were to disagree plants have feelings by the experiment given by the author above, you cannot certainly deny it has a life. Any religion would tell you for one, all life are equal. The truth is however, you just have to do what you have to do for your own selfish purposes and be honest to yourself. If it is any consolation, when we die, our body in terms replenishes the earth, the plants and the animals (possibly humans) too, and that is excluding what good we do sustaining ourselves on the lives of others or in general terms “energy” of others.

It’s chronn disease by the way … if its a choice between the medicine and the man, it really is the selfish decision of man to take the life of the plant isn’t it? did the plant give consent? And to say different properties, different treatment as to compare it with man having their glasses, plants not; Why can’t we give plants their legal place to soil and peace, science would tell you plants have nociceptors and they too have mechanism by which they propagate their species throughout the eons. The answer is simply selfishness and not because of some God-given righteousness to humans who have to justify their every fault, thank god animals don’t adopt this nonsense.

Just because you don’t understand the interactions of mother nature and the plants, you call us humans being social animals worth speaking of? It is this mentality that drives greenhouse effects and pollutions all over the world, killing the world and possibly a place of future living for our descendents! Social animals indeed (selfishly hording inanimate objects as if the Earth has no life). By comparison, we are not even a significant part to the Earth other than by our own selfish desires and wake of destruction!

Different properties, different needs you say. Do accord some respect to proper discussion as they deserve than simply barging in like a small kid who did not have his opinion accepted, throwing a tantrum with no science! It’d be better if the trees that give you breath and the plants that give you life decided it did not need to be around you either!

How childish, racist and immature!

Give me a fucking break. Fuck this nihilism. Everything is everything! I hate you white assholes appropriating and obfuscating religions. PLANTS DO NOT FEEL PAIN. Plants may feel something, and I dont doubt that they do, but they do not feel pain. That’s so fucking idiotic and Holocaust-stupid that I can’t even believe people of any caliber attempt it.

Plants do not have nervous systems. A lot of animals do. You dont think this means different treatment? If a person has a fucking disease (oh, for example, Chron’s (or maybe fucking Cronies’), and a medicine will help them, should a plant get the medicine or the person? This is just ecological fucking insanity. To different organisms goes different needs. Humans have eyes and plants dont, should plants get glasses? What sense does this make?! Humans are social animals (I can’t wait to see how this gets pathetically equivocated), so humans have a biological (and physiological and psychological and etcological) need to be around other people. Do plants have a need to be around humans?

Different properties, different needs.

Fuck this conservative bullshit.

Thanks for the comment! I always wondered what the Caretaker class was like.

Here’s an example of an exercise. We’re in my sit spot. In turn my partner and I each communicated with the plants in the area and asked what needed to be removed first. We both identified the same plant both times we did it. This is in an area with hundreds of possible plants.

After that class it was hard to mow the lawn or trim the hedges.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Slime mould solves maze puzzle

Benjamin Shender
http://www.aftermathblog.wordpress.com/

This from Wikipedia: There are four basic strategies plants use to reduce damage by herbivores. By escaping or avoiding herbivores in time or in place; growth in a location where plants are not easily found or accessed by herbivores. By tolerating herbivores; diverting the herbivore to eat non-essential parts of the plant, or developing an enhanced ability to recover from the damage caused by herbivory. By encouraging the presence of natural enemies of herbivores, which in turn protect the plant from herbivores. Finally, plants protect themselves by confrontation; the use of chemical or mechanical defenses, such as toxins that kill, repel or reduce plant digestibility by herbivores. These defenses can either be constitutive, always present in the plant, or induced, produced in reaction to damage or stress caused by herbivores.

I feel there is a great problem when one sees a certain type of life as less important than one other type, or even less important than the rest.