Do Plants have feelings too? Questioning the moral upper hand of vegetarianism and veganism

[Guest guest]

Natalie Angier is author of 'The Beautiful Basics of Science'. I have been a

vegetarian for the past eighteen years but I am convinced that plants have

some kind of feelings, maybe not on a level comparable to animals, but they

do possess them. There is a lot to question about treating plants the way we

do as inanimate objects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1 & 8dpc

Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

By NATALIE ANGIER

December 21, 2009

 

I stopped eating pork about eight years ago, after a scientist happened to

mention that the animal whose teeth most closely resemble our own is the

pig. Unable to shake the image of a perky little pig flashing me a brilliant

George Clooney smile, I decided it was easier to forgo the Christmas ham. A

couple of years later, I gave up on all mammalian meat, period. I still eat

fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions

are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try

the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer. Food choices are

often like that: difficult to articulate yet strongly held. And lately,

debates over food choices have flared with particular vehemence.

 

In his new book, “Eating Animals,” the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer

describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, oblivious slacker who

“waffled among any number of diets” to “committed vegetarian.” Last month,

Gary Steiner, a philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed page

of The New York Times that people should strive to be “strict ethical

vegans” like himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, including

wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and finery is nothing less

than “outright murder,” he said, Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “eternal

Treblinka.”

 

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and

“strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to

being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in

my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled

aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that

scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to

the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the

environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally

to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed

researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much

fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and

vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding

of our stubborn animal minds.

 

When plant biologists speak of their subjects, they use active verbs and

vivid images. Plants “forage” for resources like light and soil nutrients

and “anticipate” rough spots and opportunities. By analyzing the ratio of

red light and far red light falling on their leaves, for example, they can

sense the presence of other chlorophyllated competitors nearby and try to

grow the other way. Their roots ride the underground “rhizosphere” and

engage in cross-cultural and microbial trade.

 

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of

Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues,

they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical

signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight,

hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally

think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

 

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They

are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the

University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where

insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves,

specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the

predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated

to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune

response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

 

“I’m amazed at how fast some of these things happen,” said Consuelo M. De

Moraes of Pennsylvania State University. Dr. De Moraes and her colleagues

did labeling experiments to clock a plant’s systemic response time and found

that, in less than 20 minutes from the moment the caterpillar had begun

feeding on its leaves, the plant had plucked carbon from the air and forged

defensive compounds from scratch.

 

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some

of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication —

their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries

for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large

predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and

tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from

within.

 

Enemies of the plant’s enemies are not the only ones to tune into the

emergency broadcast. “Some of these cues, some of these volatiles that are

released when a focal plant is damaged,” said Richard Karban of the

University of California, Davis, “cause other plants of the same species, or

even of another species, to likewise become more resistant to herbivores.”

 

Yes, it’s best to nip trouble in the bud.

 

Dr. Hilker and her colleagues, as well as other research teams, have found

that certain plants can sense when insect eggs have been deposited on their

leaves and will act immediately to rid themselves of the incubating menace.

They may sprout carpets of tumorlike neoplasms to knock the eggs off, or

secrete ovicides to kill them, or sound the S O S. Reporting in The

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Hilker and her

coworkers determined that when a female cabbage butterfly lays her eggs on a

brussels sprout plant and attaches her treasures to the leaves with tiny

dabs of glue, the vigilant vegetable detects the presence of a simple

additive in the glue, benzyl cyanide. Cued by the additive, the plant

swiftly alters the chemistry of its leaf surface to beckon female parasitic

wasps. Spying the anchored bounty, the female wasps in turn inject their

eggs inside, the gestating wasps feed on the gestating butterflies, and the

plant’s problem is solved.

 

Here’s the lurid Edgar Allan Poetry of it: that benzyl cyanide tip-off had

been donated to the female butterfly by the male during mating. “It’s an

anti-aphrodisiac pheromone, so that the female wouldn’t mate anymore,” Dr.

Hilker said. “The male is trying to ensure his paternity, but he ends up

endangering his own offspring.”

 

Plants eavesdrop on one another benignly and malignly. As they described in

Science and other journals, Dr. De Moraes and her colleagues have discovered

that seedlings of the dodder plant, a parasitic weed related to morning

glory, can detect volatile chemicals released by potential host plants like

the tomato. The young dodder then grows inexorably toward the host, until it

can encircle the victim’s stem and begin sucking the life phloem right out

of it. The parasite can even distinguish between the scents of healthier and

weaker tomato plants and then head for the hale one.

 

“Even if you have quite a bit of knowledge about plants,” Dr. De Moraes

said, “it’s still surprising to see how sophisticated they can be.”

 

It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants

are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the

sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Natalie Angier's article " Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts

Like to Live, Too " could scarcely be greater biological poppycock.

 

In truth, Brussels sprouts, like every other plant with

pollen, fruits, or edible tubers, have evolved specifically to be

eaten by animals in some manner, because animals are in fact an

essential element of their reproductive systems.

 

Wind is also a pollinator, but most pollination --

especially for species that discriminate in what else they exchange

reproductive material with -- is done by insects, birds, & bats,

who are lured to plants by means of edible or seemingly edible parts.

The animals then move the pollen to other plants of the same species

and insert it where it needs to go, without the colossal waste

occasioned by wind pollination.

 

Edible fruits and tubers are an even more sophisticated

reproductive mechanism. What they do is induce the animal to ingest

whole seeds, then poop them out in new habitat with a dollop of

fertilizer, to ensure healthy growth.

 

Most plants try to avoid having their leaves consumed, since

leaves are their eating mechanisms. The leaves are the part of a

plant that is most likely to be inedible, even toxic. But their are

major exceptions to this rule, too, especially among the grasses,

whose leaves and grain work together like fruit and seed: a ruminant

eats the grass and grain together, but fails to digest all of the

grain, and the remainder germinates in poop.

 

Wolf Clifton, my son with Kim Bartlett, in one of his first

utterances at about age 2, observed out of nowhere one afternoon

that, " The difference between plants and animals is that animals

don't want to be eaten. "

 

I had not considered this rather obvious distinction before,

but in the ensuing 18 years I have found it to be a universal truth.

Animals evolved animation in the first place to evade predators. No

animal has evolved parts meant to be eaten, except in the case of

some insects and arachnids whose body parts are eaten by their own

mates and offspring as part of the reproductive process.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

[Guest guest]

As I respect the wisdom of your two year old Clifton, I am not buying the

argument that plants want to be eaten and animals don¹t. Sea plants are a

good example, as they set up symbiotic relationships with animals for

protection, just as land plants do with insects. If plants wanted to be

eaten, then why would they evolve defences

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory#Plant_evolutio

n)? Seems like they would forgo that, and instead focus on just growing

juicier bits for the pleasure of others.

 

But what makes the whole discussion laughable is that everything that

reproduces on this planet is either born to be eaten, or to eat others, and

most cells fall down in the middle, doing both. Humans have figured out a

way to make the process more favourable for themselves (military defences

against being eaten, and genetic engineering to produce more to eat). Fungi

and Protists live between the plant and animal world, devouring whatever

they can and also doing everything they can to avoid being eaten. So it

seems that no matter what the basic makeup of your cell is, nothing enjoys

being eaten.

 

I guess that leaves one standing on the moral high ground with just one

option: starve yourself and get it over with, thus providing many other

organisms a well-balanced and well-deserved meal.

 

Jigs in Nepal

 

 

Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:36:11 -0800

<aapn >

Re: Do Plants have feelings too? Questioning the moral upper

hand of vegetarianism and veganism

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natalie Angier's article " Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts

Like to Live, Too " could scarcely be greater biological poppycock.

 

In truth, Brussels sprouts, like every other plant with

pollen, fruits, or edible tubers, have evolved specifically to be

eaten by animals in some manner, because animals are in fact an

essential element of their reproductive systems.

 

Wind is also a pollinator, but most pollination --

especially for species that discriminate in what else they exchange

reproductive material with -- is done by insects, birds, & bats,

who are lured to plants by means of edible or seemingly edible parts.

The animals then move the pollen to other plants of the same species

and insert it where it needs to go, without the colossal waste

occasioned by wind pollination.

 

Edible fruits and tubers are an even more sophisticated

reproductive mechanism. What they do is induce the animal to ingest

whole seeds, then poop them out in new habitat with a dollop of

fertilizer, to ensure healthy growth.

 

Most plants try to avoid having their leaves consumed, since

leaves are their eating mechanisms. The leaves are the part of a

plant that is most likely to be inedible, even toxic. But their are

major exceptions to this rule, too, especially among the grasses,

whose leaves and grain work together like fruit and seed: a ruminant

eats the grass and grain together, but fails to digest all of the

grain, and the remainder germinates in poop.

 

Wolf Clifton, my son with Kim Bartlett, in one of his first

utterances at about age 2, observed out of nowhere one afternoon

that, " The difference between plants and animals is that animals

don't want to be eaten. "

 

I had not considered this rather obvious distinction before,

but in the ensuing 18 years I have found it to be a universal truth.

Animals evolved animation in the first place to evade predators. No

animal has evolved parts meant to be eaten, except in the case of

some insects and arachnids whose body parts are eaten by their own

mates and offspring as part of the reproductive process.

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Re the plant feelings - Read Lyall Watson....I think it was 'Supernature'

when he put forward a number of convincing and referenced instances. A good

read no matter what he writes about.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Peter

 

Peter Dickinson

 

On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jigs Gaton <herojig wrote:

 

>

>

> As I respect the wisdom of your two year old Clifton, I am not buying the

> argument that plants want to be eaten and animals don¹t. Sea plants are a

> good example, as they set up symbiotic relationships with animals for

> protection, just as land plants do with insects. If plants wanted to be

> eaten, then why would they evolve defences

> (

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory#Plant_evolutio

> n)? Seems like they would forgo that, and instead focus on just growing

> juicier bits for the pleasure of others.

>

> But what makes the whole discussion laughable is that everything that

> reproduces on this planet is either born to be eaten, or to eat others, and

> most cells fall down in the middle, doing both. Humans have figured out a

> way to make the process more favourable for themselves (military defences

> against being eaten, and genetic engineering to produce more to eat). Fungi

> and Protists live between the plant and animal world, devouring whatever

> they can and also doing everything they can to avoid being eaten. So it

> seems that no matter what the basic makeup of your cell is, nothing enjoys

> being eaten.

>

> I guess that leaves one standing on the moral high ground with just one

> option: starve yourself and get it over with, thus providing many other

> organisms a well-balanced and well-deserved meal.

>

> Jigs in Nepal

>

> Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>>

> Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:36:11 -0800

> <aapn <aapn%40>>

> Re: Do Plants have feelings too? Questioning the moral

> upper

>

> hand of vegetarianism and veganism

>

> Natalie Angier's article " Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts

> Like to Live, Too " could scarcely be greater biological poppycock.

>

> In truth, Brussels sprouts, like every other plant with

> pollen, fruits, or edible tubers, have evolved specifically to be

> eaten by animals in some manner, because animals are in fact an

> essential element of their reproductive systems.

>

> Wind is also a pollinator, but most pollination --

> especially for species that discriminate in what else they exchange

> reproductive material with -- is done by insects, birds, & bats,

> who are lured to plants by means of edible or seemingly edible parts.

> The animals then move the pollen to other plants of the same species

> and insert it where it needs to go, without the colossal waste

> occasioned by wind pollination.

>

> Edible fruits and tubers are an even more sophisticated

> reproductive mechanism. What they do is induce the animal to ingest

> whole seeds, then poop them out in new habitat with a dollop of

> fertilizer, to ensure healthy growth.

>

> Most plants try to avoid having their leaves consumed, since

> leaves are their eating mechanisms. The leaves are the part of a

> plant that is most likely to be inedible, even toxic. But their are

> major exceptions to this rule, too, especially among the grasses,

> whose leaves and grain work together like fruit and seed: a ruminant

> eats the grass and grain together, but fails to digest all of the

> grain, and the remainder germinates in poop.

>

> Wolf Clifton, my son with Kim Bartlett, in one of his first

> utterances at about age 2, observed out of nowhere one afternoon

> that, " The difference between plants and animals is that animals

> don't want to be eaten. "

>

> I had not considered this rather obvious distinction before,

> but in the ensuing 18 years I have found it to be a universal truth.

> Animals evolved animation in the first place to evade predators. No

> animal has evolved parts meant to be eaten, except in the case of

> some insects and arachnids whose body parts are eaten by their own

> mates and offspring as part of the reproductive process.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> <

> anmlpepl%40whidbey.com <anmlpepl%2540whidbey.com>>

>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]