Plants behave like humans

[nomo]

Plants behave like humans: Don Burke<br><br>January 23, 2006 - 4:44PM<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Plants-behave-like-humans-Don-Burke/2006/01/23/1137864854767.html">www.smh.com.au/news/Natio...54767.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Plants are not unlike humans. They can talk to each other and even call in reinforcements when the going gets tough.<br><br>Who says so? Australian gardener Don Burke and Australian National University chemistry Professor Ben Selinger, in reviewing research on plants over the past 10 years, have come to the conclusion that many plants have human qualities.<br><br>They say plants can communicate with each other by using a range of chemical signals.<br><br>"If a plant muncher such as a caterpillar or even a koala starts chewing on a plant, the plant will start sending chemicals to its leaves in an effort to repel the chewer," Mr Burke said.<br><br>"Nearby plants will also start emitting these same chemicals, anticipating that they'll also be attacked."<br><br>Mr Burke, who writes about the phenomena in an upcoming issue of his gardening magazine, also said plants can release chemicals which attracts certain insects to protect them.<br><br>"So essentially they call in the cavalry, they call in good insects to attack the ones that are attacking them," he said.<br><br>Scientists had now identified the genes responsible for the action and were trying to combine it with other plants, Mr Burke said.<br><br>The breakthrough, published in the journal Science last year, suggested gardeners and farmers may not have to use pesticides any more, he said.<br><br>"It has huge implications for the world," Mr Burke said.<br><br>"In years ahead, instead of pouring vast amounts of toxic chemicals all over the world and therefore ourselves in one form or another, we should be able to add these genes, which are naturally occurring genes in plants, to other plants, so that they can repel insects themselves."<br><br>Mr Burke said plants also used a lot of other human qualities.<br><br>"Venus Fly Traps or sensitive plants can move, pitchers plants can eat animals, peaches and cherry for instance can count the number of cold days each year before they produce their leaves in spring," he said.<br><br>Prof Selinger described the overall picture of the research that had been done as astounding.<br><br>"Plants have always been sort of relegated as primitive compared to animals and its just not true," he said.<br><br>"But there is little research in the area. We are such an agricultural country ... I think more research could be conducted."<br><br>© 2006 AAP <p></p><i></i>

[Pirx]

Including murdering competitors with toxins. Sending out a "you die now" chemical bomb to neighbors it dislikes. <br>Does sound familiar. I wonder which type of genetic traits we'll map out first?<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Plants have always been sort of relegated as primitive compared to animals and its just not true," he said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Despite a close personal relationship with many, many species, I remain<br>suspicious of the Botanical Agenda. I mean who's farming whom? Could mammalian science be a tool of some plant species bent on enhancing it's own chemical arsenal? I mean we've been tempted by so many of them with delicious fruit and its' fermented byproducts for all human history to carry the seeds of a few clever species around the entire globe.<br><br>And when they brought back dirt from the moon, (not fanning THAT discussion here, mind you) what was the first thing they did?<br>Put some seeds in it.<br>Turns out, moondirt is an even better growing medium than some terrestrial soils.<br>Could another species have an eye on the stars? Needing us simply as an instrumentality?<br>I can't be the only one whos' yard has not looked the same since reading Michael Pollans' "Botany of Desire".<br>Drawing out the more "human" qualities of plants would likely make "Day of the Triffids" look like a terrarium.<br><br>(I'm sure the authors name was Pollan, not Pollen. But he could have been....a plant.)<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pirx@rigorousintuition>Pirx</A> at: 1/26/06 7:31 am<br></i>

[chillin]

The cat parasite thread got me thinking about fungus. Particularly how some mushrooms and ergots have affected people historically. Sort of along the lines of a Terrence McKenna rap (although I have very mixed feelings about his material, it's interesting and he really had the 'gift of the gab').<br><br>I also remember something about how the largest organism on the planet is some kind of fungus that's about the size of a continent somewhere up north, growing just below the surface. Maybe it has an agenda, maybe it's just a good source of protein... I'm still figuring it out =)<br><br><br>Frank Herbert wrote some interesting things about plants, off the top of my head there's a story called The Green Man and somewhere a segment where the characters use live plants like a sort of interstellar phone system. <p></p><i></i>

[Pirx]

It would seem that McKennas' "stoned ape" theory has spored its' meme far and wide itself. A quick search pulls down tons of material-<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.egodeath.com/amanita.htm">www.egodeath.com/amanita.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>And the depictions of Amanita Muscaria in so much religious art does make one wonder... <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br><br> It would appear that the only folks who are dumb if they feel that plants arent in tune are us.<br><br> Ive posted the following link before, but felt it might be worth another spin, in the light of new members, and the topic at hand ;<br><br> <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sometimes it happens that a person can name the exact moment when his or her life changed irrevocably. For Cleve Backster, it was early morning on February 2, 1966, at thirteen minutes, fifty-five seconds of chart time for a polygraph he was administering. One of the world's experts on polygraphs, and the creator of the Backster Zone Comparison Test, the standard used by lie detection examiners worldwide, Backster had threatened the subject's well-being in hopes of triggering a response. The subject had responded electrochemically to this threat. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The subject was a plant.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>Since that time Cleve Backster has conducted hundreds of experiments showing that plants respond to our emotions and intents, as do severed or crushed leaves, eggs (fertilized or not), yogurt, scrapings from the roof of a person's mouth, sperm, and so on. He's found that if he placed oral leukocytes, or white blood cells removed from a person's mouth, into a test tube, the cells still responded electrochemically to the donor's emotional states, even when the person is out of the room, out of the building, or out of the state.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br> <br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html">www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[chillin]

I read The Secret Life of Plants about 20 years ago, it seemed like there was enough ideas in it to inspire tons of research but I haven't seen anything recent. One of the concepts in the book was a telescope made of plants. Sort of like plants in a haarp-style array.<br><br>I wonder about how much the observer is a factor in the result of the plant experiments. <p></p><i></i>