In nature's forests and gardens, conversations are going on that we humans have not yet learned to perceive. Despite this, we actually communicate with plants all the time, but in ways that are not always obvious. Research in recent years has highlighted that plants have the ability to "scream" when they are cut, they learn to distinguish harmless touch and warn each other of potential threats. This plant communication is both surprising and fascinating, and it raises questions about the intelligence of plants and how we should treat them.
Multifaceted communication
Communication between plants, trees and other organisms is multifaceted, including sound, light, touch and chemical signals such as smells. Through networks of roots and fungal threads, stronger trees help weaker trees by sharing nutrients. This interplay is complex and dynamic, and it reveals that plants have the ability to perceive and respond to their environment.
Researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel have recently investigated the responses of tomato and tobacco plants to drought and cutting. They discovered that these plants emit high-frequency sounds that human ears cannot hear, but which they recorded and slowed down to make audible. It turned out that tomato plants started to "scream" before they showed visible signs of drought. This discovery opens up the possibility of using ultrasonic microphones as early warning systems in farms.
Plant roots also play an important role in communication. As the roots grow and encounter obstacles in the soil, they emit high-frequency sounds and chemicals that help them avoid other roots. Plants can even sense light reflections from neighboring leaves, which helps them position themselves optimally in the space.
Plants react to touch
Research has shown that plants can also respond to touch. For example, corn plants showed strong responses when brushed with a makeup brush, and these responses changed over time as the plants adapted to the stimulus. In addition, plants have been shown to be able to remember different types of touch and even count, as in the case of Venus flytraps.
What can we eat?
It raises questions about the intelligence of plants and how we should relate to them. Is it ethically justifiable to eat plants if they can feel, communicate and potentially experience some form of pain? This question is similar to the debate in vegetarianism, where some argue that we should not eat intelligent life. But if we dispense with plants as food, what remains? Biology shows that certain nutrients, such as certain amino acids and omega-3 fatty acids, are more abundant in meat and fish than in the plant kingdom. Some single substances are only found in meat and fish.
The issue of eating other living organisms is about a balance between survival and ethics. If we regard man as the crown of God's creation, perhaps we have the right to eat other forms of life? If instead we consider man to be an animal, we can draw parallels to the animal kingdom where many species eat other species to survive.
Meat good for the climate
According to some studies, well-managed meat and fish production can actually benefit the climate by converting certain lands into grazing and farming areas. Pastures act as carbon sinks, where the plants bind carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil. This can help to reduce the impact of climate change.
In addition, grasslands created through these production systems can be a haven for pollinators such as bees and other important insects. This biodiversity is essential for pollination of crops and maintaining the balance of ecosystems.
However, it is important to note that sustainable and responsible production is the key to achieving these positive results. Excessive production and poorly managed systems can continue to have negative effects on the environment and the climate.
These ethical dilemmas in food production are complex and touch us deeply. The research on plant communication challenges us to reflect on our relationship with nature and other living beings. Despite our different positions, it is important to strive for sustainable food production that respects and takes into account the entire ecosystem and all its actors.
Maybe Stephanie Kelton's, Mariana Mazzucato's and others' research on it can the productive power of government deficits and progressive taxes advise us to create an ethical food production?
One can safely trust that "consciousness" that helps plants survive has evolved over time.
On the other hand, it seems to be thematically limited. Animals must search for food and, where applicable, mating partners and avoid predators and other dangers. Plants can't do that, and therefore it would be a waste of the plant's energy to do that. And that kind of waste is something nature abhors.
But the whole thing can perhaps make it more ethically justifiable to eat animals, fish, birds and other animal-like things.