The Intelligence of Plants

The complexity and interrelatedness of life on earth (and beyond if applicable) provides a good reason to honor and respect all types of life in various respects. This is a thing I get out of an article on plant intelligence addressed in an earlier comment. Darwin, for example:

“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.” Darwin was asking us to think of the plant as a kind of upside-down animal, with its main sensory organs and “brain” on the bottom, underground, and its sexual organs on top.

Given I have read about fungi or the like has something to tell us about animal evolution, this isn't that surprising really -- there is a such connection between life on earth. The plant is clearly "alive" and is an ongoing living thing, which reacts to its environment. A plant is not an animal which/who is not a human animal. The lines between them all can be exaggerated. For instance, the article noted:

In the last century, the formerly sharp lines separating humans from animals—our monopolies on language, reason, toolmaking, culture, even self-consciousness—have been blurred, one after another, as science has granted these capabilities to other animals.

So, are plants "conscious"? The article draws a sort of slope:

If consciousness is defined as inward awareness of oneself experiencing reality—“the feeling of what happens,” in the words of the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio—then we can (probably) safely conclude that plants don’t possess it. But if we define the term simply as the state of being awake and aware of one’s environment—“online,” as the neuroscientists say—then plants may qualify as conscious beings.

The use of words like "decide" would be a step further, though some would use it in this context. The complexity of the consciousness is the ultimate thing.  We are concerned about the well being of certain animals, like dogs and even those more people here eat (e.g., there are standards for treatment even at slaughterhouses) in part because of the complexity of the consciousness and brain of such beings. We also are concerned with our own feelings -- the pets are not protected merely because they are smarter or more developed than the animals we eat. But, complexity does matter there and no matter how wondrous plants are, they are not quite the level of cows, pigs or even fish. If someone wants to debate fish, it is harder to refute that a cow or pig is akin to your venus fly trap.

The science of plants is important for various reasons, including as a means to understand computers and the like. It is important to know how a basic part of our world operates. And, environmental concerns should include proper stewardship of all life, including plants. As to vegans or vegetarians, they would argue that plants are not as conscious as animals, even if they are conscious on some level. Also, if it is a matter of destroying those with consciousness, even if plants felt a form of pain (if it still looks like a different degree than a cow), the way we eat in this country still destroys lots more plants than a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. The requirements to feed and maintain animals is way worse for plants. Sherry Colb discusses this in her new book.

Tom Paine in his Age of Reason was particularly awed by the complexity of the universe. Ronald Dworkin in his final book, a discussion of a religion that need not have a God, also had a special place for that. The universe has its good and bad, but science does provide us with a lot to wonder about. The charm of a plant is but an example and this article is not really too surprising on a basic level. Still, important to be reminded.