
Plants communicate, nurture their seedlings, and get stressed - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/77/underworlds/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees
======
carapace
See also "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous
System" (youtube.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698)

Michael Levin's lab are uncovering the physical scientific basis for what a
lot of people have always known: _life thinks._

\- - - -

Now then,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou)

> Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:

> 1\. The attitude of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is
> separate in itself, which we either use or experience.

> 2\. The attitude of the "I" towards "Thou", in a relationship in which the
> other is not separated by discrete bounds.

We need to learn to relate to Nature as I-Thou (not I-It.) The vast majority
of our problem right now is our divorce from Nature and our attempt to relate
to Her as I-It.

The good news is that it's fun and easy to return to Nature (and, as Geoff
Lawton says, "You can solve all the world's problems in a garden.)

I recommend Toby Hemenway's (RIP) videos:
[http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/](http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/) esp. "How
Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" and
"Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture".

~~~
dbingham
Hi. Former Permaculturist here.

The problem with Permaculture is that it takes the classic "Anecdote is not
data" misconception and turns it into a design philosophy. This can lead to
some serious problems and you end up with a design philosophy that is
completely divorced from the science.

For example, some of the key components of Permaculture Design - the use of
nitrogen fixers and dynamic accumulators - stand on shaky ground. They're
based on a limited number of studies. It's not clear whether dynamic
accumulators actually add any nutrients to the soil. And for nitrogen fixers,
it's not at all clear that the nitrogen they fix is available to the plants
around them. It might not become available until they die back and rot.

This "personal observation" basis of the design philosophy that replaces
careful experimentation leads to some pretty disasterous results - like
Permaculturists being extremely laissez-faire about invasive species (which,
after climate change and habitat loss is one of the top contributors to the
loss of biodiversity world wide). I once heard a leading Permaculturist give
this really fantastic lecture about the law of unintended consequences as it
relates to human engineering, and then completely write off the risk of
introducing invasive plants through novel ecosystem design. I mean, it's the
same damned arrogance and mentality, just using plants in mimicry of nature
instead of metal to dominate it.

So, personally, I've stopped encouraging people to listen to permaculturists.
Permaculture is not the answer. Agroecology, however, the core kernel of
Permaculture thought re-integrated with science, that holds _a lot_ of
promise.

~~~
carapace
You make a good point, and I often substitute "applied ecology" to try to
emphasize the scientific grounding that Permaculture originally had (Bill
Mollison was an ecologist) and still has for a lot of people, myself included.

But I have to admit, I was once _laissez-faire_ about non-native invasive
species. I can thank E. O. Wilson for writing a thing that set me straight.

(I gotta add that the "Permaculture Designer's Manual" is IMO one of the
finest guides to design (any design, not just farming) that I've ever read.
FWIW)

------
kleer001
Except it's not really the trees, it's the trees and the mycelial network,
well, mostly the mushrooms.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
And humans are 1-3% microbes. Nothing stands alone in nature.

~~~
bsmitty5000
If by microbes you mean bacteria. Maybe we also contain fungus as well though.

And actually, if you're looking at cell count our cells are outnumbered by
about 10:1, it's incredible!

~~~
throwaway_law
Yes the human microbiome consists of fungus in addition to bacteria, protozoa
and viruses.

------
detcader
> Is that an _emotional_ response? I guess it is. But I can hear my botanist
> side saying, “That’s not an emotion. That’s just a response.” But I think we
> can draw these parallels. It comes down to language again, to how we apply
> this language to look at these responses in plants. ... [W]hen you go and
> whack off the top of a plant ... Its genes respond. It starts producing
> these chemicals. How is that different than us all of a sudden producing a
> whole bunch of norepinephrine?

> Indigenous people have long known that plants will communicate with each
> other.

This is... postmodernist in the colloquial sense, and then straight-up Noble
Savage theory?

I truly believe that we can't fuck-yea-science ourselves into better
respecting and spending more time with trees and nature. This will never catch
on, and I hope I'm right.

~~~
mieseratte
Would be great if TFA elaborated on just how they "knew" such a thing.

------
adelHBN
A company in No.Cal. (Santa Rosa) specializes in forest therapy. I think
they've been expanding and doing special trips to places like the forest in
Costa Rica.

------
MayeulC
What is intelligence anyways? We tend to define it based on ours. But how
about collective intelligence? Other forms of intelligence?

More specifically, there are two things that bother me with the way we usually
look at intelligence: time scale, and individuality.

To assess intelligence, we often look at individuals, not at the group. And we
tend to do it on our own time scales. But I wouldn't be surprised if the
"individual" you have to assess is the ant colony, not the ants themselves.
And who is to say that rocks aren't smart? Have you observed them over
hundreds of millennia? (I'm just kidding about the last one, though the
question is still theoretically valid).

~~~
carapace
You might like a couple of books by Gregory Bateson, "Steps to an Ecology of
Mind" and "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity"

He explores the idea that evolution and thought are the _same_ phenomenon, and
that what we call "mind" is ambient.

~~~
MayeulC
Thank you, I will try to read them when time permits. I forgot to mention
evolution in my post, but that's part of the point. Our genes seem like a very
long-term memory, trough them species (including ours) can learn new
strategies over millennia.

I asked my father the very thing I wrote above, and he answered that
intelligence was the ability to reuse previously acquired knowledge in a given
context. Which would seem fitting, if a bit stretching.

