The science of plant intelligence...why do things of the same classification system seem so at odds? On the one hand, studying the behavior and communication patterns of plants seems so enlightened -- in the non-Enlightenment sort of way. As plant neurobiologist Stefano Mancuso has said,"If you define intelligence as the capacity to solve problems, plants have a lot to teach us. ...Not only are they 'smart' in how they grow, adapt and thrive, they do it without neuroses. Intelligence isn't only about having a brain." Sounds great, right? Except the fine print reads as a brave new world manifesto of conquer and dominate in the name of progress and science. Maybe that's exaggerating...but among the objectives of plant neurobiology are efforts to create a "plant inspired robot" that mimics the use of pods and stems to transmit information from space (read article here). They wouldn't be sending the plants out to space, per se, yet the idea of studying the intelligence of something for something else's benefit (without concern for the first something's benefit) smacks of exploitation to me. Plant rights, anyone?
If anyone is interested in 'plant intelligence' you should check out michael pollan's work, including the omnivore's dilemma, which talks about how plants have intentionally evolved in response to their environment - which of course include us humans and what we do...
ReplyDelete