Okay so months can pick up ultrasonic sounds, plants emit such sounds when stressed, and the moths prefer plants that aren't emitting stress signals to increase likelihood of offspring survival. Every part of that seems pretty amazing.
I was wondering about why the plants are using energy to emit the sounds but since it in effect deters the moths it also increases their chances of survival.
Seems to validate antinatalism. Nature/reality hates weakness. Getting damaged in this reality often causes a self fulfilling prophecy. The alternative is to reject creating new life as an ethical action, since reality is on balance less than good.
Is the sound part real? What frequencies are used to communicate stress? Is this in range of anything I could connect to a raspberry pico or arduino? My flowers desperately need answers :D
This is real! We started our startup based on this principle. Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states.
For a small background read, read this (not our research): https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
If you are interested I recommend using a MEMS microphone, sampling at 384 or 500 kHz and triggering at frequencies between 20-200 kHz.
> Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states.
I think I must be misreading. If one wants to detect these signals being emitted by plants, why is 10–100 per hour not often? I'd think that having to wait 6 minutes, or, to play it safe, even an hour would still be way more informative than finding out about the stress only when its effects were visible to the eye.
There was research done, that annoys me I can't find the bookmark. But you can measure communication using fungi as the access point.
It's known that fungi can act as a trading point for plants in that lend some, borrow some when plants are in need. If you hook fungi to a device you can measure communication.
"Trees can communicate with each other through networks in soil. Much like social networks or neural networks, the fungal mycelia of mycorrhizas allow signals to be sent between trees in a forest. These mycorrhizal networks are effectively an information highway, with recent studies demonstrating the exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals. Sensing and responding to networked signals elicits complex behavioural responses in plants. This ability to communicate ('tree talk') is a foundational process in forest ecosystems."
Regardless if it's just one piece of information, defence signals;
If fungi are connected to a web of plants, trees with communication transversing bi-directionally then it would be very valid to call it an highway of information.
But fungi do more than that. They transfer energy and life resources along the network too. Just as a highway carries cargo.
> To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant’s vascular system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack your knuckles.
It’s the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.
Not exactly, the conscious intent of communicating is important too. For example, someone in a coma may react reflexively, but they’re not communicating per se.
If they react reflexively, it communicates all sorts of things. It's not a traditional conversation, and there may not be bidirectional communication, but information is still being communicated.
No, a reflex action is not communication. You can hit someone’s knee and it produces a response. The knee isn’t communicating with you, it’s reacting to a stimuli.
No. You're confused about what constitutes as "communication". Communication does not mean conversation. The knee isn't conversing with you, but information is absolutely being communicated.
I would recommend familiarizing yourself with information theory and systems theory.
From the opening line on the Wikipedia article for Communication:
> Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it.
If you argue from a position ignorant of information theory, it might seem that a knee jerk is not communication. But read through Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication and you will understand differently.
I appreciate the detailed response. I am aware of the information theoretic definition, and I get that this definition is rejected or controversial. From the wiki you cited,
> Another interpretation is given by communication theorists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who characterize communication as a transmission of information brought about by the interaction of several components, such as a source, a message, an encoder, a channel, a decoder, and a receiver.[17] *The transmission view is rejected by transactional and constitutive views, which hold that communication is not just about the transmission of information but also about the creation of meaning.* (emphasis mine)
I’ll go one step further and say that I don’t think the Shannon definition of communication applies to physical responses to external stimuli (reflexive knee response, signals produced by plants when cut), or signals produced by chemical reactions (light given off the stars or suns).
Induced reactions or chemical changes are not communication per se because the meaning of the transmitted signal would not exist without an observer as there’s no internal mechanism which creates the signal without the observer.
In cell to cell communication, for example, a cell will create signals without the existence of another cell to interpret those signals. If a second cell picks up those signals, then it’s receiving communication. If however the second cell produces a stimulus to invoke a response from the first cell, the signal received would not have existed without the observer. In this sense, I think communication depends on the ability to transmit information without the provocation of observers or receivers, which is especially meaningful for biological systems because the signals they convey determine their survival.
By simply existing does not mean something is communicating (sun or stars), and reacting to external stimuli does not represent communication per se, only signaling.
> Consumer audio can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate, which can't even record 100 kHz sounds.
That's probably because the Nyquist frequency (the maximum frequency that can theoretically be reproduced) is 96 kHZ at 192 kHz sampling, but the aliasing for that frequency is going to so terrible and unpredictable (what is the likelihood that always sample the max point in the sine wave) that you wouldn't consider anything close to the Nyquist frequency. You might get something workable for 20 kHz (~10 samples per cycle), which is the edge of human hearing, so that quiet overtones / high frequencies in percussion like cymbals show up.
If this is getting used to identify problems based on sound signature, not just "hey, the FFT shows a spike at 100 kHz", 10 samples is probably a bit low. So 1 MHz sampling rate at a minimum for 100 kHz.
It's a tricky question at this point: the clicking sounds seem to be due to a natural increase of cavitation in the plant's stem. But it's hard to judge the extent to which the plant actually evolved to do this vs it being an accident with little selective downside. In the near future genetics might shed some light on whether an ancestor was too quiet/noisy and had increased pressure on relevant genes.
The disadvantages of too much noise are obvious (herbivores) but I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the plant's advantage would be. There is some speculation on plant-plant communication, but maybe it is about attracting pollinators and seed-dispersers before the plant dies. Just a lot of stuff we don't know yet.
Selection mostly says losing traits tend to become rare, and winning traits more common. It doesn’t have much to say about benign traits. That which does not kill you makes you weirder.
Maybe in a situation where some plants are dehydrated and emitting sounds, and others are healthy and don't - having insects select one over the other helps spread the load a bit?
It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is not a joyful scream.
And you are complaining about use of language? You might disagree with the anthromorphism (a rather common technique) used by the author, but your post is hyperbole. I hope you also realise the irony, as you also use anthromorphism.
Agreed, especially given the idea of plants feeling pain has been used to attempt to discredit or debunk vegetarian ethics—even though it's not true in that sense.
Using a poetic descriptor like "mournful" in this context seems out of place.
The New York Times is relying on their audience's ability to understand that plants are not conscious beings. "Mournful cries" is just an evocative way of describing the auditory signals plants produce under stress—which the article makes clear. I can't understand what's so "deranged and insane" about some stylistic flair.
I don't know about you, but I already feel enough guilt about how we eat animals. I even feel bad about throwing away a stuffed animal. We don't need some journo shoving another knife through our collective hearts about eating vegetables.
I don’t think we should anthropomorphize plants to the point where we feel guilty about eating them, but I do think society as a whole is missing a kind of fundamental respect for nature and discounts the complexity and interestingness of plant life.
In a world where conserving nature is simultaneously increasingly difficult and increasingly important, I don’t mind a bit of artistic license when it comes to descriptions of plant life if it leads to more awareness and more people thinking twice about plants and how we treat natural ecosystems.
Are you saying ignorance is better than knowledge? As for the guilt about eating animals, you have a personal choice to make based on your values at every meal. Aside: I don't see how a stuffed animal is related to the suffering of real animals in factory farms; perhaps you are confusing disparate ideas there.
To add insult to hypocrity, I am definitely waiting for the day when science is finally capable of deciphering plants more clearly, finding that there is actually no difference between suffering in animals and plants. That day will come, and it will be fun to watch how vegetarians react and deal with that information.
We know for a fact that for humans consciousness only exists in parts of the brain and can be turned off using drugs, sleep and accidents.
It is almost certainly the same for all animals with a brain.
Given the fact that plants have no brain it is a reasonable assumption they have no consciousness. It may be wrong, but given all evidence it is, so far, the best assumption.
We usually call assumptions based on our best current understanding scientific facts.
Alternative hypothesis: Given that plants do not have a central nervous system, it is reasonable to expect they have a distributed consciousness.
Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts.
I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
> it is reasonable to expect they have a distributed consciousness.
Why would it be reasonable to expect they have any consciousness? What would plants do with such a consciousness that they’re wasting scarce energy on both operating and building the biological structures to maintain consciousness? They can’t move. They can’t take active actions. Why would they develop a consciousness that does nothing but makes them aware of their implementing doom without allowing them to act on it?
> Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts.
You know what would be really useful to evolve to survive the loss of body parts? Not suffering and feeling pain when you do, or even being aware that you just did. Especially when not being mobile in anyways you can’t do anything about it.
> I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
Citation needed.
Actually I’ll make it even easier. Start with studies that show plant awareness in the first place, before you show studies showing it can be switched off.
Plants do move and respond to their environment. A lot. They even are social. They've been shown to communicate with each other to signal that pests are attacking and their peers will increase production of pest repelling chemicals and stuff.
They just do all that at a much slower time scale than you're used to in your consciousness. I wouldn't totally discount plants having some form of consciousness at lower frequency.
Yes, there is no evidence to believe they are “conscious” (well, not exactly sure what is meant by conscious here since that word is closely related to religious beliefs in many cases, but assuming it means sentient), they lack all known biological features that could possibly lead to sentience, and there has been no evidence found so far to suggest there is any sentience among plants.
Also, considering they’re rooted to the ground and cannot move there is no evolutionary advantage to sentience (and actually there are massive disadvantages since it will use energy for sentience which serves no purpose). Now, just because there isn’t an evolutionary advantage, or even if it’s an evolutionary disadvantage to a property doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t exist, but given that there’s no other reason to believe it does exist this is just another piece of the puzzle that shows it doesn’t even need to exist.
I feel like a view that sentience requires something to be motile is pretty narrow-minded. A plant is honestly a better human in the sense that it gets all day to sit and think about things, something which only some Hacker News commenters can compare to :)
It’s a fair assumption because there’s no genetic benefit to being a smart plant. Why would nature make that?
Opposable thumbs mean we have the ability to use smarts, so genetics walked the path to consciousness over many generations. A smarter horse is fine and all but not that beneficial. Being faster or stronger or sexier is probably better. Same with a plant: get more nutrients or sunlight. There are cheaper ways than being smart to do that.
Define "smart". And explain how "smart"=="conscious"
I can agree that there is no genetic benefit to being able to move at the speed animals move, because that's not how plants obtain food or avoid being eaten. Thus no need for nerves or a CNS to coordinate movement.
Take either of them and tell me why nature would have optimised for that rather than other features, like leaves. Energy isn't infinite so genetic changes optimise for easier-to-achieve ends rather than somehow jumping past all animals to evolve smarts or consciousness without evidence of many precursor adaptations.
Also why would a smart (or conscious) plant not have eventually learned to use some of that to do something that improves survivability. Like strike out, or hide down, or anything more than "somewhat grow towards the light or nutrients over time".
It's a nice fun exercise to argue with people while imbibing your drug of choice, but it's utterly unlinked to anything else we see in nature. We're not idiots, we would have seen evidence by now.
The scientific consensus is that, given that plants don’t have a nervous system, that they can’t process sensory input that is integrated and that produces some experience, coupled with the lack of subjective experience and the chemistry-based explanations for observed behaviors (such as following light etc), under the current definition of “consciousness”, plants are not conscious.
> It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is not a joyful scream.
Some time in the mid-2000s my dad showed me a website he'd found called Screams of Wheat which purported to show a pitched-down video of ultrasonic wheat screaming while being harvested. I always thought it was just a joke to troll vegans, but maybe there's a grain of truth to it?
The system is in complete harmony. Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. Our science has little comprehension of the grandeur of the totality of Nature's balance, simply because the willful ignorance of the vast majority of the human race keeps us so out of balance in its destructively selfish competitions.
We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference. When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth, herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care for our blessed mother Earth.
This is an antiquated view and it would do all of humanity a great service if we could leave it behind. Humans are not the only ones capable of selfless compassion. Any emotion you may have, animals also have, and there are many examples of animals showing compassion without any benefit to themselves. We have examples of plants showing selfless care for other plants in need, sending them nutrients. This whole idea that humans are somehow special is silly. It used to be a widely held belief that we're the only intelligent species, but these days we know better. Animals have emotions just like us, but sadly we largely haven't shaken off our human centric view here yet.
Why the hate for Anthropocenterism? The Anthropic principal and fine tuned universe seem to suggest that humans really are “special” in a cosmic sense.
Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy, which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she keeps biting me. Good kitty!
Wanting new toys is not an exclusively human trait. Cats like playing with toys too. Rats have been taught to drive tiny cars. Orangutans have learned to drive golf carts. So why are your emotions more real then? Because a Mercedes can go faster than a golf cart?
Animals might not have the emotions for the same reasons, but they do exhibit the whole range we do. Anyone who's ever had an animal that can come and go roughly as they please, will know that they struggle with indecisiveness in all the same ways. Let me out, oh wait, actually never mind, let me in. Or out. Or let me in a little, I will keep one half of me outside and the other half inside, blocking the door.
We are the only creatures that can choose compassion over selfishness. The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior.
Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.
Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
I can see why you might believe that, but it's simply not true. There are countless well documented examples and scientific studies that show that animals exhibit all the traits you describe. Chimpanzees show compassion by consoling victims of aggression [0], being especially attentive to others with whom they have a closer bond. They have friends and relatives just like we do, they value those social structures just like we do, and they choose to give them emotional support, without getting anything in return.
Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.
Neural imaging on animals has shown that their brains both have the same features that ours do for these purposes and they use them in similar ways. All of this is not even remotely controversial, it's well understood and thoroughly studied across numerous decades.
> Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.
That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of General Relativity? It's not there, and there will never be a study that shows that they have them, because it is simply not possible.
Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.
You feel like you choose compassion but you assume animals do not choose because they don’t have language to express their considerations. You’re jumping the gun on choice and free will (existing at all, firstly) being exclusively something humans have been endowed with by their creator.
All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.
Or maybe you're just a part of the majority of Earth's poplulation, who have denied our loving potential and, instead, decided to remain in a destructively ignorant competition that is destroying the Earth and causing so much misery.
You think you are right, but I know that I am right, and I know that you have to choose to overcome your willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our poverty.
Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.
> Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not have a free will that can choose compassion in the face of its opposite, selfishness.
No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).
But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).
> Well, how can I argue with someone who knows what I cannot know?
Because when you've already closed yourself off to any other possible conclusion, dismissing known evidence and preemptively dismissing unknown evidence, you've made it clear you're speaking dogma, not knowledge. A decision you've made, not a truth.
> And I am at peace because I'm serving humanity by teaching the (mostly unaccepted) view that we should be choosing cooperative compassion instead of competitive callousness.
If that was all it seemed like you were doing here, that'd be great. I actually spend much time doing the same. In fact, I view this very topic as part of that mission: to challenge the idea that these animals so many view as nearly alien in their experience of life might very well share more in common with our experience than we give credit to.
What we share with the animals is our tendency to make packs and fight for dominance between and within them. For humans, with our superior intellects, that simply wreaks destruction and misery across our beloved planet.
We should be taking care of this planet, not fighting for supremecy, which, as a race, we have already won.
Animals are not alien, they're part of the design for our happiness. We are not to treat them cruelly, because that is bad for our soul. We are to become consumed with love, but we must recognize our unique place on this Earth.
I have been friends with a dog who could not contain herself when I reappeared after a year away. I had let her run free in a local park when the snow had shut everything down. We jogged over and I let her go on the trails. What a magnificent day! She was a very good girl (whippit & golden mix).
And I held a doberman dog-friend of mine's paw when I took him to the vet when the cancer got to be too much for him. It was an exceptional morning for his last trot. He had been a vegetarian until the last six months of his life, and no dog has ever enjoyed a bowl of regular Alpo more than ol' Max, and his gas was a testament to his lifetime of eating against his body's nature. Whew!
It would be a lie if I acted like I didn't know the truth, or couched it in anything other than just that. The problem is that the world is mired in moral confusion, not understanding the nature of reality, but the problem is not mine, it's that of the willfully ignorant.
We love you. You have closed yourself off from the truth. The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here. Not a single one, so they ad hominem, which makes me say, in the spirit of the moment, "checkmate." (WCC is happening as I type this.)
Good morning, friend. Read from my comment history, because I have put selfless effort into my comments. Animals are not "alien", they are our cousins, but we are more, and we must use our consciences, minds, and free wills to be better than the animals, for each other, for them, and for the Earth, herself. Peace be with you.
> Animals are not alien, they're part of the design for our happiness.
I think you took the word "alien" from my comment about animals more a bit less metaphorically than it was intended. At any rate, this comment is just a sermon, not knowledge.
> The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here.
Nobody can make cogent argument against statements of fact rooted in faith. You've stated you already know the absolute truth of the matter while making claims that are inherently unfalsifiable. How does one argue against animals being "part of the design for our happiness?" It's not a statement rooted in fact, it's not falsifiable as it touches on mysticism. What is the cogent argument beyond the ample evidence of our shared evolutionary history, and the repeated and growing empirical evidence for our similarities vs. differences?
My 1 year old can't write equations on a chalkboard. Despite that, she shows compassion and what if consider abstract thought.
The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.
> Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply
If your dog replies, you either have a truly exceptional dog with human-like vocal cords, or need to see a psychiatrist.
That we are more intelligent is nothing more than an evolutionary decision - our ancestors decided to lead lifestyles where trading base energy consumption for higher mental capabilities made sense.
Other creatures are not on auto-pilot, even if their thought process ranges from simpler to outright primitive. When dolphins endanger themselves to chase away sharks to save humans they go against instincts and self preservation (and thereby anything you'd consider autopilot). On the other hand, humans are the ones that have turned averse to danger and anything out of the ordinary, preferring to stick to "auto-pilot" for safety.
In fact, I'd argue that the supposed response from your dog sounds quite like a human: as long as you keep paying me, I'll do the same mindless daily routine without question.
And you should learn about the instinct of kinship theory, where worker ants and bees give up their ability to procreate and even live, for the benefit of the colony.
Only we can choose such selfless compassion, after contemplating and understanding what we are giving and the costs we will likely incur.
Ants and bees are not showing selflessness, they are showing strict hierarchy and chain of command.
Entirely different concept. Not to mention that ants are very, very far from dogs, dolphins and humans. There is no reason to think that a dolphin would have to share their behavior, nor that a human wouldn't share their behavior - do people really choose to be selfless when they dedicate their life to a company, or are they just mindlessly following the march like the ants? There will be the occasional ant that doesn't do as told, leaving the question of where there are more humans or ants breaking showing independence and breaking out of rank.
For reference, there exist many types of ants that have abandoned the normal ways of ant colonies.
> I didn't say it would reply with words.
It would be even more impressive if it managed to communicate without words - Telepathy is not exactly expected in dogs.
I have found that dogs can communicate their desires without words, by facial expressions and vocalizations, but maybe I'm alone in that, too. (I'm not.)
Group dynamics are the nature of kinship theory, where the overlap of DNA predisposes related animals ("kin") to helping those and opposing others.
[Nominative determinism at work again in the comment section.]
Dogs can talk with words, too, although they need technical help for that. A speech pathologist trained her dog to talk with buttons that play recordings of words:
Yes, kinship theory is a real understanding of behavior, but the animals don't choose compassion over selfishness, they merely make an instinctive survival cost-benefit analysis in the moment. So it's not even a kind of thinking, as we human beings have a conscience and mind capable of abstract conceptual thought that allows us to weigh the morality of what we are considering, and then decide.
Of course, having free will means that we can ignore our unique capabilities and behave as our built-in mammalian, pack-centric, dominance-seeking, body plans provide us out-of-the-box.
The only thinking I have seen in the animal world involve primates and birds using tools, and dolphins using impressive hunting techniques, where the younger generations learn them from the older. Regardless, if they are thinking, they are very primitive.
How is it known or tested to verify that "animals don't choose compassion over selfishness, they merely make an instinctive survival cost-benefit analysis"?
I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood how we can say definitively that animals are doing the same things we do, but they are doing it out of instinct.
You have to verify yourself that this is a level that human beings can reach, should they connect with their Creator and ask (beg) to level-up and learn.
My comments over the past few days explain it quite fully.
The "evidence" I would suggest is that the only tool-making animals are some primates and birds, but I'm sure there are others. But that is not abstract thought and thoughful choosing. Their choosing is purely for survival benefit, including their partnering with humans.
Thanks, of course we're not alone, as we understand God's design, but we are definitely in the minority, as evidenced by, basically, all of human history.
Love is, itself, on our side, and our happiness is what really sets us apart, my friend.
And, remember, they think they're correct, I know I'm correct, and right, too. Peace be with you. We love you.
I'm aligned with your compassion and have always felt in the minority as I've watched our race behave selfishly, but I think uncertainty is a virtue. Absolute conviction on any topic can lead to undesirable outcomes.
All undesirable outcomes come from our selfishness. Even if they are mistakes made under good intentions, they will serve as a lesson on how to be better in the future.
Such lessons teach us humility and, as you intuit, a healthy respect for our weaknesses. I am not confident in what I say because I'm better than anyone; I've just trod a very different path, as you can see from today's gang-on.
The fact of the matter is that there is a point one can reach where we go from thinking to knowing. I've been over a half century on this Earth, nearly half of it dedicated to compassion, and it is time for humanity to wake up to our positive potential.
I love you, my friend. So long as our convictions are to be kind and humble and generous and as gentle as possible, our mistakes will grow fewer by the day. As Machiavelli said so long ago, "We must aim above the target if we are to hit it."
Research Eugene Parker and learn why he said, "We'll see who falls flat."
And, wow, the nominative determinism in these comments is fantastic.
Yes, it takes a brave person to accept that they have to change, and that all their underpinnings of existence are deeply flawed and the cause of the world's sufferings. Ignorance is destructive, my friend, to both our and others' happiness.
Compassion is the Way, and it cannot be argued, from even just a basic systems theoretic standpoint.
I won't say that I "understand God's design," though I am flattered that someone would say so!
I claim only to be in awe of this reality, and see glimpses of an intelligence and love larger than myself. I strive to align my action, thoughts, feelings and intentions to be in service to all life and guided by the dim glimpses of that which is beyond thought and form.
I certainly do not understand the totality of God's design; no human being could have enough time in a single lifetime (all we get) for such an endeavor.
You have brought me a smile this morning, my friend. Once again, nominative determinism is evident in this comment section.
Peace be with you. We love you. If you wish to learn more of our Sufi understanding of our world, my comments over the past week explain a great deal. It doesn't look like you need it, though. Thanks for your comment on this gentle morning; it makes me happier still.
After checking our your profile, I'll say that I just played that Peter Tosh song for the teenagers the other day. It's so beautiful.
We are a part of this chaos, not its masters, nor its caretakers. To say we are the only creatures capable of compassion is to elevate ourselves on a pedestal Nature does not recognize. The crocodile may carry its young gently in its jaws, and the antelope may pause to nuzzle its dying calf, but these acts, too, are not born of some selfless ethos but of impulses evolved to ensure survival. Compassion, even in us, is no purer than the physics of a falling tree crushing the undergrowth beneath it. It is Nature's practicality dressed in the robes of morality.
This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with some grand system of interconnected beauty—this is human hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur.
To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the world—it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And that is enough.
You are truly eloquent at speaking for yourself and your cohort's stubborn insistence on your ignorance.
For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen that perspective, and that is your inalienable right.
You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the truth.
The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a two-part reply. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991)
In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat."
And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of space is actually filled with potential energy. That's because we're all one in this creation, all of which was created for us, the only beings here that can appreciate the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter, energy, and more still.
No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so choose.
You seem to be a religious fanatic. I didn't respond before because it seemed like just lunatic ravings.
You seem to argue against any natural order, against science, that 'nature' is ordered by the grace of god.
But then you quote a physicist?
What is the deal? How do you square this? It seems like someone that has read a lot of pop-science, and then use scientific terms to form some world description about how god is doing it all.??
Loving God means appreciating, at least to some extent, God's wonderful design of this mathematical universe, its mystery and grandeur, and the scientific structures of nature, which includes ourselves, and so much more.
I am not "Frustrated" my friend, and I'm not a "Monkey"; I'm a human being with a body whose body plan is based upon the mammals, specifically the primates, but with important differences. And I am happy because I understand how to live life and have done a fair job at living it.
I am open-minded and open-hearted and love you and everyone I encounter, and this is the result of decisions I have made and practices I have performed. And I share this with you all in love and respect and service, but it's only my responsibility to lead you to the water. I cannot make you drink, so my duty ends there, where also ends my concern.
What I am saying to you is that you cannot understand my perspective until you enter the Path of Love. I offer you this out of no desire for myself, only for your happiness and the happiness of those around you.
There's a reason you can not provide one cogent argument to any of my detailed responses to you, and Occam's Razor suggests why, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Dunning-Kruger is instructive, my friend, very instructive, indeed.
I need a great deal of help. This world is overrun by a combination of the cruel and those indifferent to its cruelty. We need as many people as possible to learn how selfless compassion is the solution to all our problems.
As to help, I get it every day from a place you deny exists. And I spend all my time on this site helping others.
And you are deliberately misquoting me, please don't.
Once the ad hominems begin, I know the contest is over, the opponent's resignation has been signaled, and my hand is raised. If you don't like the bitter taste of your defeat, you can learn from what I've written here, and become a winner.
The key to the Dunning-Kruger true-experts is their humility. You should learn from that, too. We love you.
I repeat. Strictly speaking you haven't actually taken a position, or made a point, to argue against. I quoted back to you, your positions, just summarized. As I said, they are thousands of years old, and re-hashing them isn't going to convince anyone, otherwise why would people still be arguing about them.
The mishmash of science and Christian ideas isn't very coherent, and does not come off very well. You really do sound crazy. But, you do sound sincere.
So.
Let's give the benefit of the doubt to a crazy sounding person on the internet.
Let's assume you have had some mystical experiences. You've read some science, you've had some mystical experiences. Now, you are trying to grasp it, or deal with this experience. The struggle is real. To figure out what is going on in the universe and where you fit in, with this experience you've had. I'm assuming you are in the US, so grew up inundated with pop-Christian Dogma and propaganda that has very little relations back to the bible. You took that mishmash of US-Christian non-bible ideas, mixed it with some science, and now sound crazy.
All I can say is, Christianity will lead you down the wrong paths. It is a waste of time at best, damaging at worst. If you do need a Spiritual guide, or help, look to the East. Maybe Buddhism (not pure land), or Advaita Vedanta (hindu influenced by buddhism). Or even some William James (The Varieties of Religious Experience).
Technically, they are also wrong, because no religion/philosophy can explain reality to our little monkey brain, but will at least get you in the right direction. I repeat, they are also wrong, everyone is wrong. But, they at least have some non-damaging ideas. Try some meditation, focus on your breathing, go for a run, eat more vegetables.
Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people.
People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
My girlfriend is a gardener in a public parc. Moving leafs to the composte and then compost back to the garden takes a substantial time of her occupation.
Yes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks.
You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there.
But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
Several, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile.
That really only applies to moderate traffic area.
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them.
But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues.
Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
It just doesn't work that way. If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans and how humans would get to those areas from feeder trails, then the impact isn't just a random person walking in a random square foot in the entire park. Humans don't just teleport to random square foot patches. They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to? Only certain people? I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It's been studied, and it's damaging. Going off trail also increases the chances of introducing non-native plant and insect species.
Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging.
Nature is for us, my friend, but we have to be intelligent in how we care for it, and you have a very good understanding of how important that is. Cheers!
We must also care for each other in the same way that we should be caring for our beloved Earth, herself. Once we become consumed by compassion, we care for all we come into contact with. That is the pinnacle of human personal achievement, but few reach for that glorious happiness.
> If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans
Grand Canyon was an extreme example, but people can go over rough terrain. That’s a big part of what being in nature means.
In terms of damage to nature, any large animal is going to trample plants, even deer trails very noticeably impact plants let alone a grizzly or moose. That’s just part of nature, it’s scale that’s the issue. Hiking trails are just points of concentrated damage which is one viable option.
> They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to?
Everyone gets to as long as they are in a low density area and don’t pick to exit at some interesting spot. You take a trail length divide by the number of people roughly using a trail, and as long as you get to ~1 person/foot per 50 years it’s fine to exit in a mathematically random spot not just because you pick what feels random. Obviously this excludes a great number of trails people frequent, but that’s kind of the point.
Now you should also avoid interesting destinations and be careful how you come back. Anyway, there you have it a scaleable rule that works for hundreds of millions of visitors without creating undo harm.
> Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks:
Did you read what you linked? That damage is explicitly mentioned as: “sinks ripped off restroom walls, road signs mowed down by some hooligan's pickup, spray-painted graffiti on roadside markers”
I disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not to mention the destruction of species that were there before we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily support their enterprise.
Whether or not you love in a food desert, the result of your actions are the same. You may have no choice, but you're still financially supporting animal cruelty.
The action is cruel, not the people committing it.
You don't need fresh produce to not eat animals. Beans, whole grains, potatoes, canned vegetables are the cheapest foods around.
These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans?
Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no need to go line-by-line through your idea of the exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat without making excuses for other people.
Only you can provide the evidence, my friend. The proof of self-evolution is achieved through an open heart, open mind, and a full commitment.
You have claimed you can't graduate college, but you refuse to matriculate.
If you want to know how it's done, look through my comment history. You will find the steps in the spiritual development process I term the "Path of Love".
> We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos
Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and granular size of their folds are much more than human brains. It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty strong argument that these cetaceans possess more intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
Well, they have a different environment with a greater need for extremely close social groups, so sensitivity to emotion may, indeed, be greater than ours in some ways.
That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality, as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so much better, but why don't people give a sh_t?
I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.
As human beings, we can create our own reasons for anything we do, from the horrific to the beautiful, from the selfish to the selfless. We can conjure reasons to oppress other human beings, or contrive reasons to help them be happier. We can believe any truth or any lie or anything in between. It's all our choice what to beleive, for good or ill.
Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and others' unhappiness.
So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows, sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed, just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that they have reaped from their sowing.
We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19 pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential, and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others, and vice versa.
Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love you, and may peace be with you.
A recent book, the Light Eaters, summarises much of the recent research into plant behaviour like this, including how maligned and misreported it has been over the past 50 years or so.
Can you link to a few papers in biology that you find credible?
Or might it be the case that the entire enterprise of science is a stack of gradually-reinforcing “study suggests…” built over the course of decades and centuries?
I’ve been doing a lot of gardening the last couple of years and it still surprises me how often when I’m cutting weeds a yellow jacket will show up to see if there’s anything to eat.
When they’re hunting they seem to ignore humans entirely. I still think hornets are generally assholes but I’ve come around a bit on some species of wasp.
But usually only upon acceptance for publication (i.e., an editor of a scientific journal has decided to accept the manuscript, after peer review and usually multiple revisions based on said review). Preprint papers might as well be some crank’s blog posts. (Not implying that this is the case here, I just find it odd that the nytimes take it as is.)
