This is a much more complex question than any of the answers give credit for, and I suspect that you are not fully aware of the scientific aspects of the answer.
"Science" as taught in the 1500's to 1800's had " MAN " as the supreme being on earth. All other creatures and living things were dumb, stupid, simple, and existed only for our amusement or USE.
Elephants were dumb creatures with no language - only able to snort in rasps.
Apes were dumb creatures, and only able to grunt.
MAN was at the top of the heap, and everything else was inconsequential.
Now we know that elephants talk on extremely low frequencies, that we are too dumb to hear, and can talk easily 40 miles away.
Apes, when taught sign language, have passed the U.S. college Entrance exams.
And so it goes.
We thought that all life breathed oxygen / CO2. Now we find 2 groups of life, probably on earth BEFORE the simplistic O2/CO2 creatures even evolved, ( man ) that breath other elements such as Sulphur.
Scientists have discovered that trees talk to each other through chemical exchanges within the root structures. This form of communication is extremely " slow" by puny human standards, where we are born, have young, and die in less than a hundred years, where trees in California are measured in THOUSANDS of years. Untouch forests have trees routinely many of hundreds of years old.
Then, we get into the aspect of " feelings". What is a feeling? There is NO SCIENTIFIC basis at all to human feelings. You can not measure a " feeling". For example, " LOVE " is a powerful feeling, and yet there is not a single scientific insturment to measure it. Everyone talks about it, but, according to the PURE, hard, cold, scientific principles --- If it can not be measured, qualified, and proven, then it does not exist --- take UFO's , or Ghosts, or ESP or whatever. The scientific community denies the existance of anything it cannot " Measure " - hard cold facts.
Take " hungry " as a feeling. Again, there is no such scientific thing -- it cannot be measured, quantified, compared, qualified, nadda, nothing , zip, none. Hunger does not exist.
Back your question.
Do flowers " feel" hungry if the soil is depleted?
Do flowers " feel " thirsty if the soil is dry ?
The scientific answer would be that, of course, they don't, since you can't measure any hungry or thirsty qualities in the plant.
But if you think of it, you can't measure any hungry or thirsty qualities in HUMANS either, but somehow, all scientists take for granted that such, unproven, unmeasurable, unquantifiable, properties DO in fact, exist.... Sounds rather two-faced.
Just because " WE " almighty arrogant humans cant " HEAR" an elephant, we call them dumb. Just because WE cant hear trees and plants talking, we say they can't communicate. Just because WE dont understand the biological subtleties of plant physiology, we say they have no " feelings".
I would reserve opinion on the " lack " of feelings of plants, all plants, including flowers. We only understand a teeny portion of what is going on. We are not looking for the " feelings" since we don't care. Unless there is some economic reason to do reasearch, such as a disease in a cash crop, we could not care less if plants have aspects that we ignore. If we see that the root systems are commincating information from one plant to another about an encroaching disease or problem - then we care, since the health of the plant affects our ability to MAKE MONEY - which we DO care about... Then, suddenly, the dumb plants are " upgraded " in our arrogant views, to now have the ability to " communicate ".
As for other feelings, well, time will tell. I would say it is a matter of removing our arrogance, and looking at the situation with an open mind.
In humans, there are chemicals which can be injected that make us " feel " one way or another - want to " feel " wonderful, invincible, awake, ?? Take an ordinary PLANT chemical, cocaine. Hmmmm. - can " wonderful " be just a simple chemical reaction?
BUT wait ..... isn't the chemical transfer from one plant to another just a simple chemical reaction? So.. what makes one simple chemical reaction a NOBLE and higher " feeling " and another simple chemical reaction just a simple chemical reaction ?
The only difference in measurable, hard cold scientific terms, is that HUMANS ' can' experience one simple chemical reaction, and cannot experience the other simple chemical reaction, therefore, the HUMANS say that, that which THEY cannot experience, does not exist.... again, this sounds obviously arrogant !
Treat you plants with respect ! -- Then you can " Feel " better ! !
2006-10-07 17:22:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by robert g 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
They did a test on Mythbusters on whether or not plants grow according to certain voices, music, or sound.
They tested pea plants, and had rock, metal, classical musics, as well as nice soft voices and mean, hate-filled voices.
Guess which grew better?
The metal music, and the nice voices.
So my bet is, yes, they have "feelings".
2006-10-07 16:45:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by rouschkateer 5
·
0⤊
0⤋