
Using molecular codes, plants cry for help, ward off bugs (2013) - brahmwg
http://m.nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/learning-to-speak-shrub
======
lancefisher
A few months ago, RadioLab had a similar story, but the trees were found to
communicate and cooperate across species through a network of underground
fungus tubes in what scientists named the wood wide web.

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-
tree/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-tree/)

------
bitL
A bit off-topic, just an idea I got while reading the replies and thinking
about our place in the Universe, food hierarchy and available time - isn't
evolution as we currently understand it computationally too expensive? When we
look at local adaptations, it seems to be indeed a fact we can observe;
generations of life adjusting their "software" wrt environment, and I can
imagine this happening in polynomial time. Now making a big jump from e.g.
fish to a bird seems to me impossible in polynomial time (even in billion
years); here I would think about evolution only as a hypothesis, not a fact.
Is anybody tackling this (IMO computational) problem?

~~~
zyxley
> isn't evolution as we currently understand it computationally too expensive?

What? This question doesn't even really make sense to me in the first place.

Natural selection isn't a computational process. It's the consistent but
basically coincidental result of constant subtle mutations and genetic
inheritance.

> Now making a big jump from e.g. fish to a bird seems to me impossible in
> polynomial time (even in billion years)

It obviously isn't impossible, since it _happened_. If you believe otherwise,
your perceptions and/or assumptions are wrong.

~~~
bitL
Yeah, but those mutations/inheritance are happening on similarly structured
DNAs (i.e. the same number of chromosomes) using some algorithmic way (well,
it's a process running in time, hence it's an algorithm and therefore
complexity analysis applies), and on pre-baked blocks within DNA that get
"randomly" de/activated.

Now being well-versed in computational complexity and humanoid robotics, it
just doesn't seem to me plausible that a similar "simple" process can help us
create totally new types of robots. Analogy would be - changing their SW
should produce completely different types of robots where HW change is
actually needed, like new types of sensors, leg architecture etc. Just general
self-modifying SW for robots is NP-hard (meaning forget about it), now imagine
you can also let it develop new HW for itself. We already know many processes
in quantum chemistry that are at least NP-hard and some likely outside BQP.
Hence the time of Universe might not be sufficient even given we assume
Universe runs these processes on quantum computers.

That fish->bird happened doesn't mean the evolution theory as formulated
nowadays can be applied here due to complexity argument. Maybe extended
version of it is in the works? Or another, better theory? That's what I am
basically asking. Current evolution theory seems to be nicely describing local
changes (i.e. which organisms survive stressful changes in environment) but it
doesn't explain whole new set of functionalities coming out of nowhere;
evolution there is basically just "faith" and assumed generalization of this
local adaptation we can study without much empiric observations.

~~~
SubiculumCode
It may be that the information density of inheritance is much higher than
assumed, both inheritable dna and epigenetic factors. I am no expert in
genetics, but sometimes when I hear about rapid evolution during epochs of
high stress, e.g. changes in climate, I wonder whether this rapid evolution is
enabled by conservation of past genetic solutions that are currently
dormant..—solutions that get switched on (i.e. expressed) in epochs of high
stress/strong selection pressures..

It seems that if it is possible to preserve past evolutionary solutions which
can get switched on and off, this would increase fitness of a lineage by
enabling faster adaption. Instead of waiting for random mutation to do
something meaningful and beneficial, allow/encourage mutations to occur in
such a way that "uncomments" or "comments" out previously generated code
fragments, so to speak.

again, i know little of this field,but i love to speculate.

~~~
SubiculumCode
indeed my ignorance is such that my intuition could easily be known already or
falsified already by the literature and would not know it.

------
finid
In much the same way that humans do. Eventually, we'll come to realize that
very little separates humans from other forms of life.

------
yomly
Suppose we discover that plants have a concept for pain. What will vegans do
in this case? Eat purely synthetic food?

~~~
newscracker
Not necessarily. Whatever vegans eat today still contributes to cruelty to
animals to some extent (like animals used for farming, animals killed in the
process of growing and harvesting plants, etc.). Being vegan is about causing
significantly lesser harm and doing things that many may consider
inconvenient.

Even if plants are shown to suffer from pain, if one is inclined to reduce
suffering, it still makes sense to eat plants directly than feed them to
animals and eat those animals. The conversion inefficiency is of the order of
five times or higher - that is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least
fives times that amount of plants have to be fed to the animals (this is a
very general and inaccurate figure - depending on what one compares, this
could be very different and be a lot higher too). In general, eating animals
still kills significantly more plants than eating plants directly.

Of course, if plants are irrefutably shown to suffer pain, then there will be
more focus over time in finding alternatives to eating them, like synthetic
food. Whatever be the approach, it's impossible for anyone to exist without
causing harm to others (intentionally or unintentionally). Doing nothing
(possibly claiming hopelessness or futility) is not better than doing
something.

~~~
Swizec
> The conversion inefficiency is of the order of five times or higher - that
> is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least fives times that amount of
> plants have to be fed to the animals

This is the part I never understood about veganism, maybe you can help. As a
global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of
the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself?

Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently
enough to feed you without going 2nd hand?

Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those
pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary?

Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of
meat?

These are the questions that keep me up at night and I haven't found a
satisfactory answer that wasn't mired with propaganda.

~~~
Jill_the_Pill
The argument is that you eat one of those 5 units, and the other 4 are
available for the hungry. Feeding livestock rather than people is the problem.
That argument isn't airtight -- there are certainly issues of logistics -- but
there's no propaganda.

A second argument is environmental: farming takes land (deforestation), water
and fertilizer, and it pollutes via runoff and ghg emissions, so the less
production needed, the better. Also, livestock produce worse runoff and
emissions than vegetable or grain farming.

"Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7
billion people.

~~~
eveningcoffee
_" Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7
billion people._

And whose fault is this, that there are 7 billion people living in the world?

I would say that this race to the bottom is not sustainable.

What if every family will get sustainable and will not have more than two
offspring (on average)?

~~~
Jill_the_Pill
Er yeah, fine, but placing blame doesn't change our current situation or
inform whether it might be wise to restrain meat consumption. People are
already here and need food, space, clean air and water, and climate stability.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Well, I was not much placing blame but rather I was pointing out that in fact
we are in the war and this war is not engaged by the guns.

So lets take India for example. Can India in fact afford to loose its edge in
fertility or when it does, does it risk to be overthrown by its historical
enemy that has been engaging genocide against its population for many
centuries?

From another point, in fact you are telling me that I have to change my
behaviour because of the people who do not even consider to change their
hostile practises. Yes, I may have to, but do you consider it fair,
reasonable?

Lets take for example Egypt, whose population has raised from 20 million in
50s to 80 million today. This population is comparable to Germany, whose
population has stagnated.

If we compare arable land of these countries then it is 196,460 km^2 in
Germany against only 35,350 km^2 in Egypt.

Are you suggesting that Germans should give up their sausages so that people
living in Egypt can again double their population regardless of their actual
capacity to feed them?

What I suggest here is that instead of putting blame on sustainable nations,
it should be instead agitated for the so far irresponsible nations to
constrain their birth rate such that we can have stability in the population
growth.

------
JoeAltmaier
This was being written about in the '80s.

Anyway, I'm thinking farmers could run through fields abrading the leaves, to
get the plants to make their own insecticide. Could be cheaper/more effective.

------
truth_sentinell
The whole idea of veganism is doing the less harm to our world as possible.
That's what most people do not understand. It is the best rational decision.

When you go through all the fallacies meat-eaters throw at you, the only
reason with "weight" is the taste.

With our current technology, enhanced food and other stuff, meat eating is
just a luxury in most developed countries. You don't need it (unless you have
a specific illness), but you eat it because it gives you 5 minutes of pleasure
in your mouth.

In 2016, meat is the new diamond.

------
bitL
So, what are we going to eat now as veganism is out of question? :-/

