"Several years ago, Michael Pollan had a disturbing encounter. The relentlessly curious journalist and author was at a conference on plant behaviour in Vancouver. There, he'd learned that when plants are damaged, they produce an anaesthetising chemical, ethylene. Was this a form of self-soothing, like the release of endorphins after an injury in humans? He asked Frantisek Baluska, a cell biologist, if it meant that plants might feel pain. Baluska paused, before answering: Yes, they should feel pain."
"A lot of plants are designed to be he corrects himself they evolved to be eaten. Grasses, for example, need ruminants. And as another scientist told him, pain is only useful if you can move quickly. If you're a plant, pain would not be of any value. You're aware that something is chewing on you, but pain only works when you can run away."
At a plant-behaviour conference, attendees learned that damaged plants produce ethylene, an anaesthetising chemical. A cell biologist asserted that plants should feel pain, arguing that pain aids survival by signalling danger. Other scientists countered that pain serves little purpose for sessile organisms because effective responses require mobility. Many plants have evolved to be eaten; grasses depend on ruminants for growth and reproduction. The production of ethylene and debates over plant sentience raise ethical questions about consumption. Using plants as an edge case forces deeper examination of consciousness, its functions, and the criteria for attributing subjective experience.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]