If meat-eaters are held responsible for murdering animals, shouldn’t vegetarians take responsibility for slaughtering plants?
When confronted with this statement, most vegans & animal rights activists will ridicule you by proclaiming that plants don’t feel pain. Plants are not sentient beings because they do not have any nervous system or neurons or a brain. Hence no pain signals can be transmitted. Thus there is no suffering in plants. They will immediately add that since plants can’t run away from pain, they don’t have any reason to feel pain.
All these thinking are too anthropomorphic, in my opinion. These are the people who have too much faith in Science and only believe in what has been proven by Science but are closed to the possibilities of what scientists couldn’t discover or prove thus far. They can’t imagine different forms of lives in this Nature. Have you ever seen any image depicting an alien who haven’t got two legs, two hands or two eyes? How limited are we with our creativity!
A sentient life can exists entirely differently as compared to a human physiology. But most people are so anthropomorphic in their thinking and perception that they can’t imagine anything else.
What's sentience?
It is defined as the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. On this ground, vegans differentiate between beings that can feel pain and suffer vs. those who can’t. Thus plants are categorized as insentient while most animals are said to be sentient. But how can you tell about the intensity of pain and suffering felt by an other being?
For this too we resort to Argument By Analogy, which can’t be said to be the ultimate truth with any certainty. There is still no concrete evidence that plants don’t feel pain.
So how can you insult plants by categorizing them as insentient beings? Just for the sake of saving animal lives, plants don’t deserve such mislabelling.
So how can you tell someone is in pain?
Let’s try to understand pain. There are basically two components of pain:
(i) Nociception: This is the ability to detect noxious stimuli which generates a reflex response in the body of the being to escape from the source of that stimuli. Let me clarify here that the concept of nociception does not imply or associate any “feeling” with it. It’s just a reflex action in response to a stimulus.
(ii) Suffering: Suffering is the actual subjective experience of pain, which is the result of emotional interpretation of nociceptive experience. This experience can be an internalized one or a one-off experience.
Now there is no known way to verify the existence of subjective suffering. So here we use Argument By Analogy to compare our own physiological and behavioral reactions with those of other beings like animals. And we look for similar physiological and behavioral responses in plants too. But we often forget that plants have completely different physiology than us. So anthropomorphism comes into play again and we conclude that plants can’t feel!
What do religions say about it?
For thousands of years, religious doctrines have dominated our thinking and perception. Many religions explicitly say that plants are sentient beings just like us.
Hinduism:
In the Hindu epic Mahabharata (Shanti Parva, Section – 184), in an answer to Bhardwaj, Bhrigu elaborately describes:
'Without doubt, though possessed of density, trees have space within them. The putting forth of flowers and fruits is always taking place in them. They have heat within them in consequence of which leaf, bark, fruit, and flower, are seen to droop. They sicken and dry up. That shows they have perception of touch. Through sound of wind and fire and thunder, their fruits and flowers drop down. Sound is perceived through the ear. Trees have, therefore, ears and do hear. A creeper winds round a tree and goes about all its sides. A blind thing cannot find its way. For this reason it is evident that trees have vision.
Jainism:
Jainism not only describes plants as conscious and sentient beings but it laid a detailed guidelines for which plant should not be consumed or which part of the plants should be consumed to cause the least violence to them. E.g. All root-plants like onion, potato, ginger, garlic, carrot, radish, beetroot etc. were forbidden.
Jainism categorize all living beings from one-sensed organism to five-sensed organism to map them on an evolutionary map. These five senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and sound are based on the five sensory organs and all living being attain these senses with their evolution in this respective order. They classify plants as lower beings with only one sensory organ for touch. So yes, they can feel the touch and hence can feel the pain. So they are sentient being.
Buddhism:
Buddhism has five aggregates concept to completely explain a sentient being’s mental and physical existence.
The five aggregates or heaps are:
form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)
So yes, plants are sentient beings.
...And What does Science says?
You would be surprised to learn that scientific community had never been unanimous on this issue. But of late, scientists have scaled up their research to learn the deeper secrets of a plant’s life. Gradually through their efforts, new startling facts about the sentience of plants are being revealed to the humanity with each passing day.
Even Charles Darwin in the later years of his life became passionate about the sensory capabilities of the plant roots. He along with his some Francis demonstrated through their several experiments that root of a young plant could sense light, moisture, gravity, pressure and several other environmental aspects and then accordingly chose the optimum trajectory for its roots.
So far we only used to talk about 5 senses but it seems that plants have extra senses …err, I don’t mean ESP here, but having a perception of gravity, pressure and a sense of direction & distance to reach water is something unheard of in humans and animals.
In his book “The Power of Movement in Plants”, Charles Darwin stated:
“It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle . . . having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense organs and directing the several movements.”
Michael Pollan, the author of popular books, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” & “The Botany of Desire” says plants have all the same senses as humans, and then some. In addition to hearing, taste, for example, they can sense gravity, the presence of water, or even feel that an obstruction is in the way of its roots, before coming into contact with it. Plant roots will shift direction to avoid obstacles.
Plant Neurobiology is now an emerging field of research. Now you may say that this term “neurobiology” is a misnomer as plants don’t have any neuron or brains. But there are possible homologies between neurobiology and phytobiology. Michael Pollan explains this beautifully. In his own words,
"They have analagous structures. They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."
Plants don't have nerve cells like humans, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.
Animal biologist Monica Gagliano’s experiment goes as far as to suggest that plants can learn. She set up a contraption to drop a mimosa plant (a.k.a. touch-me-not plant) without hurting it. Plant’s leaves collapsed after every drop. But after 5-6 drops, plant stopped responding in this way as if it understood that it’s futile to respond this stimulus as it was not unsafe for it. And what’s more interesting is that she retested this upto a month to check that plant could remember this in its memory for as long as a whole month. Compare this to bees who forget similar dishabituation test results in just 48 hours.
So do plants actually feel pain?
To this question, Pollan gives out an interesting fact that plants do respond to anesthetics.
"You can put a plant out with a human anesthetic. ... And not only that, plants produce their own compounds that are anesthetic to us."
According to Pollan, our perception of plant intelligence is hindered by our own sense of time. He explained this with a time-lapsed video of a bean plants trying to climb a metal pole. Even before reaching the pole, plant seems to know where the pole is located. One plant even ceded a pole when it found that another plant was first to discover it.
Yes, trees are social beings too. You will find a collection of published articles for several recent developments and observations related to plant neurobiology at the Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior’s website.
Have a glance at some of the interesting articles linked from this website:
German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too
Theory of ‘smart’ plants may explain the evolution of global ecosystems
So Why Should We Not Kill Animals Instead Of Plants?
Irrespective of the sentience, we need to understand that animals are not the primary source of our food. Since all the farmed animals are fed plants throughout their lives, consumption of one animal means indirectly consuming all those plants which were fed to those animals all their lives.
It takes about 100 calories of grain to produce just 12 calories of chicken or 3 calories worth of beef. So consuming animals is not efficient in any-which way. Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. In the United States, where just 27 percent of crop calories are consumed directly. more than 67 percent of crops goes to animal feed. On a global scale, about 40% of the global crop calories are used as livestock feed. This proportion is set to rise to 48–55% by 2050. Livestock systems occupy 45% of the global surface area with a value of at least $1.4 trillion.
Therefore by consuming animals, we kill many more plants in comparison to directly feeding on them. So eating plants is in the best interest for plants as well as animals (humans included).
Animal farming is not a sustainable practice. It is responsible for major share of climate change & global warming, water scarcity, rain forest destruction, species extinction, ocean dead-zones, desertification, land & water pollution, top-soil depletion, food insecurity and many more critical problems looming on our very existence.
Animals are much more evolved and complex organism than plants and hence can be said to be more sentient than plants according to our present knowledge.
Taking nutrition directly from plants is physiologically more desirable and is naturally a healthier option.
By sparing animal lives and by not inflicting avoidable pain & suffering to innocent beings, positively impact our mental & spiritual health too.
So does it really matter whether plants are sentient or not?
You are wise to make better choices for yourself irrespective of this fact. Ain’t you?
*******
References:
Skandha
Plants too have Feelings and Responses
Argument By Analogy
The Intelligent Plant
New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants
Video: Do Bean Plants Show Intelligence?
Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior’s website
How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
Livestock and Climate Change by Philip Thornton, Herrero and Polly Ericksen
Agriculture: Food vs. Feed
By 2050 crops will feed more animals than humans
*******
I can't agree that plants experience pain the way we do if they can even feel anything at all. We don't pretend people feel pain when under anesthesia. We don't pretend they feel anything. When they wake up they will also confirm this.
Would you go under surgery without anesthesia?
Cells present in animals are reactive to stimuli without any sentience occuring. The immune system cells are one example.
Vegetable cells operate on the same chemical reactions that animal cell operate on yet those chemical reactions don't give rise to sentience or consciousness on their own. I don't see any basis to infer the opposite when those chemical reactions are observed in plants.
Yes, you are free to agree or not to agree. But this is the anthropomorphism I was referring to, here -"the way we do" kind. I'm not talking about the intensity of pain experienced as it's entirely subjective. If they have any capacity to feel, then intensity / degree of feelings can vary greatly from individual to individual.
The feelings like pain, joy, love, hate, fear are all emotions. And "mind" is not a physical organ that one can verify its existence in any being. Chemical reactions are merely the result and not the cause of it. So my question to you is, "If vegetable cells operate on the same chemical reactions that animal cells operate on, then why can't we assume sentience in both? What makes you believe in the absence of sentience in plants?"
Sentience is absent for most people under general anesthesia or more precisely when some parts of our brain aren't showing a certain activity. There's no such organ in plants.
Why we should expect sentience from plant when we can demonstrate sentience is not there when the brain doesn't show a certain activity? Sometimes more activity can show more consciousness just like sometimes our brain can shut off to certain stimuli.
If plants are conscious then it would be akin to when we're under anesthesia and thus if you ask me, I chose to inflict "this" on plants any time over inflicting unnecessary pain to conscious animals.
If we want to consider there is sentience when under general anesthesia we can but it's not of the same quality of normal day sentience and for this reason we use anesthesia for surgery.
Again, we are looking for some organ called "brain" in plants because we (assume to) experience sentience through this organ. I agree that plants are not exact copy of humans or animals, and that's why they are called plants. But that doesn't mean they need a organ called "nose" to breathe, "eyes" to see or "liver" to digest food. They have got their own ways to do things.
E.g. even if plants don't have eyes, they have got photoreceptor cells. Most of our conscious vision stems from photoreceptors in the retina in our eyes. But how about extraocular photoreceptors? Plants have got it.
Visual cells in animals detect light using a proteins, called opsin. But recently, a a second class of light-sensitive molecules called cryptochromes was discovered.. And they were at first discovered in plants! And they have a distinct evolutionary history. While plant cryptochromes have ancient evolutionary history whereas animal crptochromes evolved relatively recently. Check the whole paper here. Cryptochromes are named so because their functions and methods of action are still poorly understood. So who knows what they can do for plants!
I don't disagree about what you experience under anesthesia or without anesthesia. But that is what YOU experience. This doesn't imply anything about plants as what they would be experiencing with or without anesthesia.
So to your question, why we should expect sentience from plant, I'd like to say because of the fact that plants are a different creature altogether. They have got different systems and since it's not similar to us, it's not sufficient reason to not to expect sentience from them.
You know, plants don't have legs and thereby can't move? This was the very ground to term them non-living objects earlier. According to your logic it was fair enough as we see all living beings (except plants) have ability to move but plants do not. So why consider them living beings!
I completely agree @xyzashu! There is a growing body of evidence to show that even without what we would traditionally call a brain, plants actually experience all the same senses humans do and are able to understand what is being done to and around them. In other words, they are scientifically aware and can make logical decisions based on that awareness. By logical decisions, I mean that they do not just take the first option given to them, but they actually weigh the options and choose, all this without a brain! As you so clearly states, humans use a brain to do this, cephalopods use a combination of detached nervous system and brain, plants use neuron-like receptors in the roots and who know what else, since we are just starting to understand how they think.
One study I think both of you might find interesting, given that @teamsteem speaks about anesthesia, is that it has been shown that plants are affected to anesthesia in a way that is comparable to the way humans react. A study published in the Annals of Botany suggests that the action of anesthetic at cellular and organ levels are similar in plants and animals, which opens to new questions on sentience. Read the study here.
As a researcher on plant intelligence and plant music and communication currently studying under Prof. Stefano Mancuso, the scientist that coined the term plant neurobiology as is leading the way in proving scientifically plant intelligence, I am thrilled to see this conversation. Excited to see where it goes....
Yes and I think I've covered a bit about the effects of anesthesia on plants in this post. But thanks a lot for pointing to the exact study.
I found your blog & your research field interesting. Following you now to read more about this field from your own experiences and discoveries 😊
Thank you! Following you, as well. You did a great job bringing together the research.
This is an important topic. I understand that there is ultimately only one being in existence, manifesting through innumerable forms. This means that all plants are a form of consciousness, just like us and animals.
Pain is a message that personal limits are being exceeded and thus the will is being over-ridden. If I WANT you to eat me, then is it a problem for you to eat me?
How do we know if a plant or animal want us to eat them? What signals might they give us?
Have you ever seen a cow trying to force itself into your mouth? Or do we see birds flying straight towards shooters with guns aimed at them, trying to get shot? I have never seen either of these. I have though seen (repeatedly) animals trying to get as far away as possible from humans since they perceive them as predators and these animals choose to live.
Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that are brightly coloured to attract our attention? Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that are sweet tasting and smelling to attract our attention?
Have you ever seen a plant produce fruits that contain seeds that when eaten pass through the digestive tract and further propagate the species of the plant?
I have seen all of these and this is because many plants are food baring plants, specifically - they produce food that is specifically intended and designed to be consumed.
The only problem with modern veganism is that many have not considered that if we kill the plants then we are not really respecting life. It is possible to live a vegan diet that only consumes parts of plants that are intended to be consumed. That is how to be balanced.
By giving examples of fruits & seeds, you make a good case for fruitarianism.
I also respect your opinion with regard to modern veganism. It's a step ahead and is very much like the philosophy of Jainism.
Jainism is the only example of an 'ism' that I have found on Earth that deeply resonates with me, yes - though I don't know a lot about it yet.
I think fruitarianism is a good choice, though we might be best served by also bringing in other plants too. Many plants die each year whether we eat them or not - so it seems a little short sighted to remove them from our diet because they don't produce fruit
While it is easy to make mental leaps for and against veganism, I find that if you think of all life as an interconnected web, we will find that there is a natural balance that starts to emerge. In Damanhurian philosophy, we are omnivorous, giving each person the opportunity to eat in harmony with the planet and their own bodies. In our experiences, if raised with love, care, and respect, plants and animals when harvested in gratitude, naturally give of themselves. It is when we become gluttonous and eat beyond our needs that we start to enter into problems. In my personal experience, as I dove deeper into my study into plant intelligence, the more I felt the need to come into contact with my food before it ever reached my plate. I have now participated in the growth of pigs, chickens, rabbits, fruit trees, vegetables... and this connection has lead me to eat more in harmony with their cycles, not overeat (because why would I disrespect them by taking more than I need), eat seasonally, increase my gratitude, and feel more nourished. In turn, I have learned personally and with the aid of people that work even closer with these beings than I do, that when it is time, the plant or animal will willingly give of him/herself, as a parent gives selflessly to care for a child.
I strongly disagree with you on animals giving themselves off naturally. Irrespective of your love, care & gratitude towards them, when you try to "harvest" (what a euphemism!!!) them for your food they try to escape and run away as much as they could to save their own life. One's own life is dearest to all beings. No one wants to lose their lives. If it is so, why does an animal never jump in the fire to become food for you? Why do they cry and suffer at the time of slaughter? Why do they try to run away from the site of slaughter in case they find an opportunity to do so?
Where's the harmony in witnessing the blood? Do a kid feel excited and happy when witnessing the process of slaughtering? In fact, I've seen them crying in horror. Many adults can't even see the video recordings of slaughter houses.
So when you talk about eating beyond our needs, I'd say eating animals is beyond our needs when we can get all our nutritional requirements fulfilled from plants. How can you justify eating animals while being in harmony with nature?
I've studied biographies of several saints and prominent personalities like Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, Swami Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. But never found anyone consuming meat. In fact they were very vocal against consuming meat in favour of harmony.
Does any human parent ever willingly give of himself / herself or his/her child to a carnivorous animal as a gratitude and to demonstrate our harmony with nature and life?
I can completely understand your reaction, never having witnesses what I am talking about. In my case, I see animals that choose--and I do believe based on my personal experiences that they are choosing--to follow the person who is going to transform them into food. There is no crying, there is no coercing, there is trust between two beings. Honestly, I would be skeptical myself, had I not been a part of it.
Just last week, one of our pigs was slaughtered, this weekend the other one will be. It is done out in the open, and there is no crying in horror, because the two people that are doing it are doing it with love. They have an intimate relationship with the animal, caring for it for more than a year, as do I, since I frequently go visit and and spend time with this magnificent creature.
And in this same way, I feel that plants also give themselves. Talking about vegetarianism as if it is better than eating animals negates the argument about plant intelligence. If plants and animals are sentient, then how can we believe that there is a difference eating one over the other?
You are talking something mystical and out of this world. Perhaps, intense love for food may blind someone to the sufferings & plight of others, I dunno! But I know there may be exceptions everywhere ...may be one animal didn't cry in horror (though I doubt), but I feel this couldn't be generalized to every animal you have got.
Regarding your query:
I'd request you to read the last section of the post once again:
"So Why Should We Not Kill Animals Instead Of Plants?"
I read your post, but then in your previous comment you state that eating animals is eating beyond our needs because we can get everything we need from plants. You contradict yourself between article and comment, hence why I ask the question. Just like you say that every saint is a vegetarian (which I disagree with, but not important enough to argue about) as a reason why we should not eat animals, but then start this last comment saying that my comment mixes science and mysticism. Which way do you want it, mixed spirituality and science or separate. It is your article, so you can choose, but you can't use both yourself then call out the contributors for using both, as well. :)
My comments are based on science and spirituality both personally applied in the physical. I happen to be both a scientist in this field and live in a spiritual community rooted in action. Where does your base come from?
This was a really interesting article.
The last part about animals was quite a bit off though. Animals have always been our primary food source.
Chickens and cows should not be eating grains. They should feed on their natural diet. The problem is intensive farming. They feed cheap corn to the animals which results in a less healthy animal. This lack of adequate nutrition is passed on down the food chain. Proper farms treat their animals well, care for them, provide their natural diet, which results in a higher quality food at the end of it.
Global surface area. If governments encouraged people to return to more natural farming methods, they could utilise land for animal grazing, land that cannot be farmed for crops (too hilly, for example).
Digestion of meat is much easier and far more efficient (and nutritious) than plant matter. Calories don't mean anything. It's about 2 things:
Nutrient density
Nutrient availability
So, even if, on paper, a plant looks to have a massive hit of an essential nutrient, whether the human can assimilate that is another matter. Gorillas have to eat their own shit to make sure they get essential nutrients from the plant matter (it's to do with the bacteria in the colon breaking down plant material, pre-digesting it, so to speak).
Yes, Star Wars (for one example) :P
Do you think it’s possible to feed 7 billion mouth without intensive farming? How much space do you require to relocate over 70 billion land animals who are slaughtered every year to a free-range farm, as you say?
Do you think anyone’s slaughter / murder could be called a good treatment?
How many animals such land can support in your assessment? And do you know over-grazing is the cause of forest destruction? Forest can never regrow on lands being used for grazing.
Meat is harder to digest. Ever wondered, why meat is heavier on digestive system than veg? How long is it before you feel hungry after devouring meat compared to after eating veg? And nutritious!!! About 90% of the antibiotics being consumed in USA are consumed by farmed animals. Growth hormones, steroid, various artificial supplements and GMO food is part of their regular diet. Their residual component in meat is major cause of serious diseases. And whatever nutrients are there, they aren’t in the bio-available form. Animal food is highly acidic. Our intestine is 3-4 times longer than carnivores, so in the long 48 hours of digestive path, you would only have rotten meat in your body.
Meat has zero fiber whereas plants have zero cholesterol. Make your own choice!
I don’t think any proof is required for this statement with millions of people thriving on plant-based diet for centuries. All your statements are but fallacies. You may be aware that even WHO is in favour of the adoption of a vegan diet.
When you talk about coprophagous animals like Gorilla and the bacteria processing in the body, it’s a true that all digestion is breaking down of food and is accomplished through the help of billions of microbes in our body. The only problem was with Vitamin B-12 which is produced in lower part and cannot be easily observed by our intestines. So coprophagy could solve this problem for some. But if you keep your body healthy with a balanced and healthy diet, many colonies of bacteria can develop and it has been reported that B-12 can be absorbed by the intrinsic factor as it is required in very minuscule amount. Today what you get from animals is too fed them through supplements and is not natural. So concerned people can directly supplement it, if needed.
BTW, good to know that you know aliens better than the most! You are probably an exception in this case 😊.
Great Post, hats off to you.
Thank you for reading!
ooh interesting! I agree that plants RESPOND to stress, and they also communicate when they are stressed. They are also VERY conscious, i believe that is true.
now DO they feel pain.. means do they feel. If something is conscious, it doesn't mean that it can feel. It is my opinion that they cannot feel, in any ways that resembles how we perceive pain.. Since the concept of pain does indeed require a brain.. WE feel pain in our minds, not our bodies. SO i dont really think plants feel pain in any way relevant to considering if its OK to eat them or not...
HAving said ALL that, the ONLY thing that we were clearly meant to eat is Fruit. So perhaps the only way to be 100% non violent is to be a fruitarian.. or indeed a breatharian...
nice post.. got my brain going!
Again we are anthropomorphising here. It's not essential to feel in exactly the same way as us. How an individual feel and perceive is purely subjective depending on his / her mind.
It's interesting to note that you apparently differentiate between "responding to stress" and "feeling stress". I'm curious to know what is the basis of this conclusion that they don't "feel" stress. Or did I misinterpret you here?
You make a great point that we feel pain in our minds and not in our bodies. But presence or absence of mind can not be easily ascertained as mind is non-physical.
Personally, I believe some pain is internalized from our past experiences and some depend on how our mind reacts instantaneously. And probably internalized emotions can also be demonstrated by AI technology or the intelligent machines of the future.
BTW do you believe in breatharian? Many say that it's a pseudo-science.Although I know some examples who claim to be surviving this way but still don't know if everyone of us can adopt such a path. Would love to know about your thoughts on it.
well, the basis on my conclusion/ theory that they dont FEEL stress is that they are not wired to feel.. they are wired to respond.. which is different..
a stone is conscious too, but im sure the lapping of seas on them and their erosion also causes no feeling of pain.
regards breatharianism.. it is not pseudo science, it is beyond science.. science is just starting to understand how this can be possible.. i have met and know several breatharians.. it is really not a miracle when you understand prana and even some modern day physics.. but it is not for everyone and you have to breath in the right way to be able to do it ...
That sounds interesting.
The knowledge you are having about this topic is really great!!
Thank you for appreciating this piece! I'm still learning and am open for discussion here.
Let me know how you accumulated so much knowledge? Are you a lecturer teaching Biology?
I mean Botany and Zoology??
Not at all! I don't have any formal degrees or jobs.
Frankly speaking, I don't have much knowledge. All these are just information. And you can easily acquire information about anything if you have got two things:
...And you will become an expert in that field of interest 😉
Yes, I agree....Internet, Google etc etc. :).
But not only about this post. I have read so many of your posts. Generally I just upvote first, and I keep the reading pending, and I sit with it whenever I have free time. But this post made me read your words again and again. It may take some more time to understand so many things there, and to digest it fully!! :)
But really I appreciate you for sharing much knowledgeable post, here on this platform...
👌👍🙏
WOW, I can't thank you enough for showering so much love upon me with your words here. Thanks for reading all my posts!
Actually, I'm quite lazy in typing and writing. So I tend not to explain things in detail. I also think it will make my posts too lengthy and boring.
So you can always ask me to clarify anything in comment section and I'll try my best to do that.
Great article :) I just wanted to reply because I am currently reading The Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggart and in it there are experiments which seem to prove that plants not only respond to stress, they respond to human thoughts and other sentient beings emotional reactions.
So they KNOW what is going on around them, even to the point where they can identify different individual people and animals, who spend time with or around them.
Does that mean they can feel pain? I highly doubt it. Would they not have evolved some form of mechanism by now, which protects them better, prevent them from being eaten or harmed?
I don't profess to know anything in depth on this subject (I'm no scientist!) but I' certainly open to opinion on this :)
good post
I got knowledge about plants and animals, after I read this article. You have a lot to explain about animals and plants many people do not think of plant complaints, long before humans have crops already ada.banyak say animals and plants just as food for humans.
Thanks for your visit!
It's a misconception that animals are food for humans.
thanks for the correction
You have received an upvote from STAX. Thanks for being a member of the #steemsilvergold community and opting in (if you wish to be removed please follow the link). Please continue to support each other in this great community. To learn more about the #steemsilvergold community and STAX, check this out.