IF animals have rights
then must not plants and trees too have rights
after all we eat both
who are we to set the course of plant evolution in favor of human existence
just because we DONT KNOW if plants feel pain or that plants have a desire to live are we justified in denying rights of the plants
By promoting conservation of forests we are just serving our own needs and not exactly the tree or the forest's needs
DO we know of their needs at all?
Simply put, humans are higher up on the food chain... stuff it plants.
Can you spell, "environmentalist"?
1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed.
2) Plants have rights; when they are endangered they are protected, and we do try to save them when they are sick.
And, just like some animals, they taste delicious...!
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed. |
Sucks for grass then doesn't it? | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed. |
No we don't. Please give me an example of a study which shows they do. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed. |
No we don't. Please give me an example of a study which shows they do. |
I agree with Bikerman, we don't know if it's PAIN that they feel. Everything reacts when harmed. If you came and pointed a gun at my head, I wouldn't feel pain, but I would still react. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed. |
No we don't. Please give me an example of a study which shows they do. |
Sample
Note that I'm not saying that they have complex mental processes, just that there is a definite reaction. How do you define pain exactly?
HMWell you can't plainly define it, just like you can't plainly define what 'happiness' is.
There's mental pain, physical pain, psychological pain, etc...
Not every reaction is pain.
Sorry.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | 1) We do know that plants feel pain. A number of studies have shown that they do react when harmed. |
No we don't. Please give me an example of a study which shows they do. |
Sample |
That's not a study, it's an anecdote. | Quote: |
Note that I'm not saying that they have complex mental processes, just that there is a definite reaction. How do you define pain exactly?
|
If you are saying that plants feel pain then you ARE saying that plants have complex mental processes. Pain would be defined along the lines of an unpleasant sensation whose physical component is caused by nerve stimulation...
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:54 pm; edited 1 time in totalIs it needed to have a complex mental processes to feel pain?
WE know that most non humans feel pain from observation physical writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of the pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition,
and neurological electrical impulse and prostaglandin accumulation etc.,
Higher plants are generally unable to synthesize arachidonic acid, and thus, do neither form prostaglandins
Instead, plants utilize linolenic acid for the synthesis of prostaglandin
intercellular communication in higher plants is present and recently brassinosteroids and jasmonates have been known to contribute here they are similar to Animal prostaglandins that is as close as one can come to PAIN and Plants
But very recently there have been reports of prostaglandin in plants
Let me tell one thing
do we know that plants cant think?
Hypothesis : Plants can think
How do I prove it wrong?
I'm not convinced that prostoglandinin production would be enough in itself. There would, surely, need to be a complete mechanism which would include nerves or receptors to detect pain; a chemical or electrical pathway to transmit the signal; and a processing mechanism to convert the electrical or chemical signal into a response or 'perception'
My statement, which I stand by, is that we absolutely DO NOT KNOW that plants feel pain.
As for whether plants think....It would first be necessary to define 'think'.
Has anyone read one of Roald Dahl's short stories, in which the guy (a character) invents something which can plants make sounds? And he hears someone cutting a tree, and the tree screams, and the guy becomes really weird and obsessive over plants.
Anyone read that story?
You are probably thinking of "The Sound Machine", but this is not really the correct forum or the correct thread to discuss the book since it is entirely fictional. 1) Sorry about the sample being an anecdote; nonetheless there does seem to be a lot of evidence that plants do seem to experience something when they are being destroyed. And that's after you ignore the psychic research and other...just plain wrong stuff.
2) How is pain a "higher function"? Also, if we don't even know if plants can think in the first place, and we have some evidence that they react to pain, why can't we accept that?
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) Sorry about the sample being an anecdote; nonetheless there does seem to be a lot of evidence that plants do seem to experience something when they are being destroyed. And that's after you ignore the psychic research and other...just plain wrong stuff. |
Well, I've not seen any such evidence so until I do I will maintain my current position.
| Quote: |
| 2) How is pain a "higher function"? Also, if we don't even know if plants can think in the first place, and we have some evidence that they react to pain, why can't we accept that? |
If you look back you will see that I highlighted the word 'feel'. Feeling pain is certainly a higher function since it implies the ability to perceive and all that implies.
Simply reacting to a stimulus does not imply 'feeling'. If I smash a sledgehammer into a car it will produce a response in the car - metal will bend. We would not, however, wish to assert that the car is feeling anything... | Bikerman wrote: |
I'm not convinced that prostoglandinin production would be enough in itself. There would, surely, need to be a complete mechanism which would include nerves or receptors to detect pain; a chemical or electrical pathway to transmit the signal; and a processing mechanism to convert the electrical or chemical signal into a response or 'perception'
My statement, which I stand by, is that we absolutely DO NOT KNOW that plants feel pain.
As for whether plants think....It would first be necessary to define 'think'. |
I think Bkier' s absolutely right when he/she says that DO NOT KNOW
But there is significant evidence that plants communicate chemically to avoid stress ( biotic and abiotic )
a simple example is when a there is a pest attack in a crop community plants synthesize chemicals to ward off attack at the same time to warn other plants in the community to synthesize then in advance
there is enough evidence for signal transduction in plants although not in the way Biker would describe it
and again biker is right about the ambiguity in the definition of thought
Here it is interesting to note that plant are immobile there is an intricate biochemically mechanism to ward of stress which although is not equivalent to pain entirely
| Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 1) Sorry about the sample being an anecdote; nonetheless there does seem to be a lot of evidence that plants do seem to experience something when they are being destroyed. And that's after you ignore the psychic research and other...just plain wrong stuff. |
Well, I've not seen any such evidence so until I do I will maintain my current position.
| Quote: | | 2) How is pain a "higher function"? Also, if we don't even know if plants can think in the first place, and we have some evidence that they react to pain, why can't we accept that? |
If you look back you will see that I highlighted the word 'feel'. Feeling pain is certainly a higher function since it implies the ability to perceive and all that implies.
Simply reacting to a stimulus does not imply 'feeling'. If I smash a sledgehammer into a car it will produce a response in the car - metal will bend. We would not, however, wish to assert that the car is feeling anything... |
The analogy is not perfect that is to say that the dent in the car is due to impact
where as in plant if you would do much the same ( although at a lower scale Not a sledgehammer please)there is a chain of biochemical reactions which include a simple res ponce to stimuli and also an intricate mechanism to heal the wound ( in case may be caused by physicial damage by humans or fungi bacterial or virus or any a abiotic agent)
I would like to draw your attention to ( if you are interested of course to an article by yours truly )
(http://www.agriculture.frih.net/files/Plant&Soil_282_21-26.pdf) entitled Countering UV-B stress in plants: Does Selenium have a role? Plant and Soil 282:21- 26
I "feel" and "think" again that the word "feel" is as poorly defined as is "thought" what do you think Biker?
If feel is just "perception" then plants to feel or rather "perceive" eh?I'll be happy to look at this paper later today. You are obviously something of an expert in this area which I would certainly not claim to be.
I'll come back to the points made when I've read your article, but I'll quickly deal with the issue of 'feeling'.
Obviously the word 'feel' can be used in many different ways - from a simple description of 'touch' to a complex description of emotional states. Here, I think, we are using it in the sense of 'perceive' and the appropriate definition would be along the lines of
"The sensation involving perception by touch".
This is, I think, a fair definition in this context as it doesn't assume emotions.
So the first part of the question is do plants have the necessary mechanisms to 'sense' touch. You appear to be saying that they do and I'm willing to accept your word for that at this point (I'll read the paper, as I said).
The second part of the question is do plants 'grasp' this in a way which we would understand as perception. This has to be more than a simple response to stimulus. Perception implies awareness which in turn implies a mentality. It's possible to set up an experiment whereby a particular stimulus results in a chain of responses. A simple example would be toppling dominoes where various devices and gimmicks can be included in the topple. A better example might be a chain of chemical reactions.
We would not, however, say that perception was involved because the system would simply respond to the stimulus in a predetermined manner with no 'awareness' and produce a deterministic outcome in each case.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| you are obviously something of an expert in this area |
Actually I am not an expert it is just that I am considered an expert well thats what scientific peer world is made up of!
what's more important here is I am just earning a living doing this stuff LoL!
Domino toppling eg is a good one
but here it is purely physical
where as in plants we see a biochemical chain of events which can be reversible depending on the stimulus
just like you added that up with chemical reaction
true but to degree of reversibility is remote without addition stimuli in the case of domino
not so remote in the chemical reaction case
and is very much possible in the biochemical reaction without additional stimuli
Infact thats what the plant tries ( to heal the wound )
All plants can very definitely sense touch but the response is at a microcosm unobservable to the human eye in normal time
The best example for the human eye is of Mimosa Pudica you all must have heard of the plant "touch me not" the response is nyctinastic movement
Like you said for thought it I guess holds good for emotion as well it is just that we don't know if plants have emotions but we do know that animal emotions as to a good extant caused by biochemical and hormonal turnover rates and actually the same happens in plants only thing is that the expression is not overt as we perceive the word overt ( in effect the plant does not do physical writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling) but attempts to avoid the source of the stress again not easily observable at the macro level
In I dare say that the plants have evolved a better method to cope up with stress by intricate biochemical methods simple because they cannot move
The animal just moves away first and only when this does not serve the purpose does biochemical response comes ( though not as a rule). That is to say the inability to move has helped the plant to evolve a better defense mechanism inspite of no immune or nervous system ( that we know of) (maybe there are analogues system with the same or even better function yet to be discovered in plants { that's what we are all working for now very hard ( I mean plant scientists)
It is only that we consider only a mental response as a genuine response whereas the plant's mentality is not exactly as we would picture animal mentality.The main difference I see, in simple terms, is that animals have a 'central processing unit' in the brain. This coordinates responses to various stimulii. As we move up from very simple animal forms we also see degrees of 'awareness' and 'consciousness'.
This is a tricky area - the whole area of consciousness and perception is still poorly understood, but my feeling is that some sort of awareness is necessary to 'feel' pain rather than simply produce a bio-chemical response to a stimulus.
I'm struggling to come up with a suitable analogy or example...perhaps we could consider the case of an unconscious human - say someone under deep anaesthetic undergoing an operation.
Various autonomic processes will still function, wounds will still clot, some reflexes will still operate. Does the person feel pain?
I guess not The person may not feel pain just because the biochemical precursors and the neurons and likes are numbed up by some biochemical agents again (anesthesia)
Hey now you added a new word to the already difficult words we are having a tough time comprehending (consciousness)
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I guess not The person may not feel pain just because the biochemical precursors and the neurons and likes are numbed up by some biochemical agents again (anesthesia)
Hey now you added a new word to the already difficult words we are having a tough time comprehending (consciousness) |
LOL...yes, and it's a BIGGIE. Consciousness is, to me, one of the great scientific frontiers which we are only now beginning to understand.
So, to return to the point, if a person whose processing capabilities (let's call it 'mentality' to avoid getting bogged down in issues of emotion etc) are numbed by drugs doesn't really feel pain, even though all the mechanisms are in place (in terms of receptors/nerves, transmission network AND a mentality), then can we say that an organism without a mentality cannot feel pain?
I think we can, but I'm ready to consider other views. | Bikerman wrote: |
then can we say that an organism without a mentality cannot feel pain?
I think we can, but I'm ready to consider other views. |
Can we ? that is pain as humans understand it
I will get back... too many posts in the last couple of days
I need a break!hahah I hope this is all intended as a joke. plants having any more rights than they have today would be ridiculous.
The original post raises an interesting question.
In my opinion, I would say no, plants shouldn't have rights. For a living organism to deserve rights, I would say that it first would have to be aware of its own existence. I have heard some people argue that fish don't feel pain. I have no idea if this is true or not, but if fish simply react to circumstances, such as dodging a predator, with no thought involved, then they are also unaware of their existence and shouldn't qualify to have rights.
Plants don't feel pain. We know pain is caused by harmful exterior stimuli traveling through nerves and being interpreted in the brain.
The bottom line is plants don't have a brain/nerves/feelings so they should not have rights. Even the traps of the Venus Flytrap operate with no real consciousness, its all just a reaction in the plant tissue.
Another thought; for a living organism with no means of mobility to experience pain would be a waste. When animals feel pain, they will move to escape what is causing it. Plants can't move so why would they develop the means to feel an unpleasant sensation? It would not contribute to a higher rate of survival among those that can sense it since plants have no mobility.
What rights are we speaking of? Rights such as being protected by "endangered species" such things? Plants have to be protected for the sake of ecosystems and the biosphere. Humans are part of the biosphere. Therefore, it's in our best interest to protect plants, so all the technicalities are kind of useless rhetoric in my opinion.
I thought the original post was talking more about taking their feelings into consideration. Like my friend for instance who used to spend his time throwing machetes at a tree in his yard, "PETP" would have him hung for that! 
like i always say " love the smell of napalm in the morning" 
I think it is okie to eat animals/plants, for as long as we are doing to eat them. Not to wear them or anything like that. Hey, WE are more important thatn animals and plants. So importnt that we live.
But we dont need animal fur to survive, so leave the poor buggers alone
I think it is okie to eat animals/plants, for as long as we are doing to eat them. Not to wear them or anything like that. Hey, WE are more important thatn animals and plants. So importnt that we live.
But we dont need animal fur to survive, so leave the poor buggers alone
