Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#41

Post by arketyp »

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

I think you can be more empathetic with humans too, interpret me right. One could object that you are anthropomorphizing the natural world, meaning your sentiment is still in the end just rooted in the human experience. But I think that's fair to do. I'd just like to add, as the Swedish dramatist Stringberg once wrote: "Human beings are to be pitied!"

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#42

Post by TeMPOraL »

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species.

This "harmony" is really just interlocking loops of unconstrained growth, followed by running out of resources, and starvation while the food supply regenerates. It only looks pretty if you ain't looking very carefully.

In fact, human beings seem to be the only ones observed with a capability for restraint. We're not very good at practicing it, but we are at least capable of it. Have you seen a pack of animals or plants jointly deciding to voluntarily forgo extra food, so that they don't exceed carrying capacity of the place they live in?

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#43

Post by kulu2002 »

sjclemmy wrote: post #37

I was thinking about communication the other day and came up with an aphorism: “We can’t even understand other people when we speak the same language - what hope do we have of communicating with an alien life?” By which I mean we wouldn’t even recognise the nature of the intelligence presented to us, never mind work out how to exchange information.

Thats why we think something like this;

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17389842

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#44

Post by TeMPOraL »

mpfundstein wrote: post #34
Lewton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would if they could

Who knows... i don’t believe intelligence necessarily implies tendencies for mass murder

It's not about tendencies. Intelligence is about being better at getting what you want. A lion wants to eat impala. A smart lion would figure out how to breed them in captivity, and it's only a small step from there to factory farming.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#45

Post by close04 »

jpttsn wrote: post #40
some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

Cats, birds, and pigs are in turn happy to eat humans when convenient.

I think he mean the main difference would be that animals mostly kill (probably applies to most of their other actions) out of need (protection, food). Humans destroy things because they can many times. Sometimes it's not about needs... unless for example you consider greed to be a need.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#46

Post by wild_preference »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42
some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. This "harmony" is really just interlocking loops of unconstrained growth, followed by running out of resources, and starvation while the food supply regenerates. It only looks pretty if you ain't looking very carefully. In fact, human beings seem to be the only ones observed with a capability for restraint . We're not very good at prac…

Your definition of restraint seems based on that one example.

What about when my cat restrains from eating all of its treats at once? Or the restraint any animal takes through a farming process like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism?

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#48

Post by theNewMicrosoft »

fao_ wrote: post #35
kpnbg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, you're right. Although another huge difference is that lions didn't evolve to be intelligent enough to learn to farm, invent mathematics, leave the planet etc. We are hunters, and what is going on now is a logical progression of what hunters who got smarter and more powerful would do. It sounds silly but I think that if any other hunter animal evolved like us, it would lead to very similar results. I am not a fa…

How many people do you know have left the planet, or could solve a mathematical theorem, eh? The difference is that before, we hunted enough to eat, but not so much that the species died, whereas now we are willing to exterminate a species if it means we can get rid of other versions of us ('Every buffalo dead, is a dead indian'). Seems like we've got more callous and stupid the more this 'intelligence' was displayed…

> How many people do you know have left the planet

Not yet but she's planning[?] to leave "soon"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyssa_Carson

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#49

Post by joesb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
mpfundstein wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows... i don’t believe intelligence necessarily implies tendencies for mass murder

It's not about tendencies. Intelligence is about being better at getting what you want. A lion wants to eat impala. A smart lion would figure out how to breed them in captivity, and it's only a small step from there to factory farming.

Agreed. Every hunt a lion does imposes fatal risk of its own. The lion could break its leg running and falling in some hole. It could break its teeth getting kicked in the face by the impala. Any of that even could cause it to not be able to hunt any more, and lose its status in the herd.

A smart lion wouldn't want to risk itself like that just for a meal.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#50

Post by close04 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
mpfundstein wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows... i don’t believe intelligence necessarily implies tendencies for mass murder

It's not about tendencies. Intelligence is about being better at getting what you want. A lion wants to eat impala. A smart lion would figure out how to breed them in captivity, and it's only a small step from there to factory farming.

How many smart lions would kill every impala and then wonder if they can switch to grass? :) Farming is after all pretty sustainable. But how about the things that aren't? We're over-exploiting basically every limited resource we have. Ironically we kind of ignore the unlimited ones, like wind, solar, etc.

We're cutting down forests like there's no tomorrow and they literally make our oxygen. And worse, sometimes this destruction is totally gratuitous and avoidable. Save for those who really need a couple more millions of $ to "survive".

Post reply on HN