Flora, Fauna and Ethics

Having spent many hours hacking away at vines and thorn bushes recently, I was especially interested in a recent TV program called What Plants Talk About. It turns out that plants behave like animals in many respects. For example, they hunt for food, although much more slowly than most animals. They also respond to injuries, sometimes by summoning assistance (for example, by releasing chemicals that attract predators who eat the bugs who are eating the plant). They even nurture their offspring in some cases.

This doesn’t mean that the plants do these things “on purpose”. They behave in ways that have been beneficial to their species. Of course, we believe that we do things “on purpose”. Β But we‘re products of evolution too. We might not be so very different from plants and other animals.

Coincidentally, after watching What Plants Talk About, I came across a review of a book called Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life. The author of the book apparently believes that plants have suffered from “ethical neglect” at the hands of us humans. The reviewer congratulates the author for “forcefully inserting the question of vegetable life into the mix of contemporary ethical discourse in philosophy”.

The idea that plants deserve ethical consideration sounds odd. Some philosophers would say that plants don’t need to be treated ethically, since they aren’t conscious. They don’t have nervous systems like us and presumably don’t feel pain. Yet they are living things. Should we avoid cutting down redwood trees or rose bushes simply because we appreciate their beauty or because they are part of the ecosystem? Or do they have the right to be left alone?

Nobody, even the author of Plant-Thinking, thinks that we shouldn’t eat plants. But perhaps we are obliged to treat them with respect. Maybe I shouldn’t have cut down all those vines and thorn bushes. I certainly don’t like the idea that they were calling for help as I cut them to pieces.

What Plants Talk About is here:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/what-plants-talk-about/preview/8228/

The book review is here (although I don’t recommend reading it — there is too much philosophical jargon):Β 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39002-plant-thinking-a-philosophy-of-vegetal-life/

Isn’t One of the Damn Things Enough?

Theoretical physicists talk about parallel or multiple universes a lot these days. The interesting video below explains that there are three main kinds of theories under discussion.

My favorite version is #1. It’s the kind of scenario described by the physicist Lee Smolin in a wonderful book called The Life of the Cosmos. Smolin suggested that we live in a universe that is fit for life (molecules stick together, for example) because a black hole in universe X will tend to generate a new universe Y that is similar to universe X, but not exactly the same (like parents have offspring who are similar but not the same). So there tend to be universes that are like the one we happen to live in, with lots of black holes and natural laws compatible with life. Cosmology meets the theory of evolution and explains why our universe is such a nice place to hang out.


If you’re interested, check out other videos on Henry Reich’s MinutePhysics channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics/videos?view=0

Their Shoes Look Good, Too

You don’t often hear about a company that wears its atheism on its sleeve — or its shoes. Atheist Shoes, however, is a German company that claims to make very comfortable shoes “for people who don’t believe in god(s)”.

According to their website, they noticed that packages sent to the U.S. were having a lot of delivery problems. So they devised an experiment, mailing two packages to the same address, with “Atheist” clearly printed on one and not the other.

The results were or were not surprising, depending on your understanding of Americans and religion (and maybe the U.S. Post Office). You can see the results on their website, which is worth visiting just to see how they tell the story (apparently they are artists in addition to being atheists — and someone there also writes very good English).

P.S. — If you scroll way down the page, there’s an epilogue that discusses the results of their study and its scientific aspects.

http://www.atheistberlin.com/study

P.P.S. — This is also good:

http://www.atheistberlin.com/hole

A Universe Unto Ourselves

Professor David Barash published an article in the NY Times recently discussing how parasites make use of and even manipulate their host’s behavior, often in remarkable and creepy ways. He asks whether we humans are likewise fulfilling the needs of the tiny creatures within us (and the needs of our genes, which aren’t tiny creatures but lists of instructions).

Professor Barash concludes with what he says is a heretical possibility: “Maybe there is no one in charge β€” no independent, self-serving, order-issuing homunculus”. But this isn’t such a heretical idea, at least not a new one. Philosophers, most famously David Hume, have long questioned whether there is a self, a single self-conscious mental entity that is “me”. Hume claimed that all he was conscious of was “a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement” (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section VI).

What everyone should agree on is that we are biological organisms, living things composed of trillions of much smaller living things. The human body is composed of roughly 10 trillion living cells. In addition, we provide living space to roughly 100 trillion other life forms, mostly bacteria, mostly in our intestines. Each one of us is a community. Somehow the operation of this community results in the almost overwhelming conviction that we have a single seat of consciousness, observing the world and controlling our actions.

How this happens is still a mystery. But it might change our perspective on who we are if we keep in mind that every action we perform, every thought we have, reflects the actions of a small universe of other living things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/whos-in-charge-inside-your-head.html?ref=opinion