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

151–160 of 250 posts

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

#151

Post by wruza »

coldtea wrote: post #131
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…

> 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. Harmony is just the result of a struggle + emerging balances. Left to their own devices, even cats could eradicate entire species of birds, diseases could exterminate whole populations of animals, and so on. And o…

Maybe crops and vegetables don’t feel like trees, still something. As for fruit trees, we eat only their specific reproduction phases, who I believe can’t talk to each other anyway and have no parental connections.

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

#152

Post by fao_ »

pvaldes wrote: post #111
fao_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The name of the people that had leaved the planet is not exactly a secret. > we hunted enough to eat, but not so much that the species died Yep, the myth of the good savage. Mammooth, Moas, European Wolly Rhino, Megalania giant varanus, Meiolania turtle, Sabre tooth tiger, Cave bear or Australian Diprotodon could tell us a different hystory.

> The name of the people that had leaved the planet is not exactly a secret.

Yes, but all that proves is that some subset of humanity is capable of doing it. Not humanity as a whole.

> Yep, the myth of the good savage.

Actually a lot of the verbal culture of many tribes show that they understand how they are dependent on the animals for their food source, and you can find active efforts not to overhunt in many cultures. It seems to me the main thing that has increased isn't necessarily intelligence, but greed.

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

#153

Post by focal-point »

vidarh wrote: post #124
TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird, so I'll raise you that for harmony :). And I'm a cat owner. RE ants, I'm not a biologist so I won't speculate how exactly that relationship came to be, but it doesn't seem to me that there was any meeting of minds involved - I would guess evolutionary feedback loops again. I made a pretty generalized argument, but the point is, what we…

> Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird, so I'll raise you that for harmony :) We had a cat once who, we found out, liked to sit in the berry bushes in the garden, wait for a bird to land, and then kill them. She didn't didn't eat them - she much preferred the cat food she got. She just murdered bird after bird and left them to rot. Cats certainly are not the best examples…

Don't leave cats like this outside. It's not okay for them to kill wildlife.

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

#154

Post by ioulian »

xd wrote: post #85
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'm not a big fan of humanity. We are pretty awful. Self loathing of the human race needs to stop, there are an incredible number of hard working people making the world a better place one step at a time. Our impact on the world barely registers to past extinction level events. Humanity has just as much right to exist and be as any other species. If you don't like what we are doing, work to improve things. Are you aw…

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but I have some things about the second one:

> "Are you aware how many countless people have and do work to improve your quality of life"

Aren't most people do it for selfish reasons? (Money, feel good about yourself, ...)

Police protects us, for the money they get. Agriculture delivers us food, for the money they get. Water stations deliver us water, for the money they get. Touristic attractions give us joy, for the money. PETA, "saves animals", for the money. Youtube provides fun and education, for the money.

If these organisations didn't receive our money, will they still provide us with those things?

The only noble profession these days is a fireman, which don't get as much money as they are worth to the society!

Of course there are people that are genuine "good", that will help others just because they want it to, but most of the people do something, wanting something in return.

I don't agree with the parent poster that we should hate ourselves, but we aren't angels too ;)

What if money didn't exist, where would we be right now as a civilization?

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

#155

Post by robbiep »

ioulian wrote: post #154
xd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a big fan of humanity. We are pretty awful. Self loathing of the human race needs to stop, there are an incredible number of hard working people making the world a better place one step at a time. Our impact on the world barely registers to past extinction level events. Humanity has just as much right to exist and be as any other species. If you don't like what we are doing, work to improve things. Are you aw…

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but I have some things about the second one: > "Are you aware how many countless people have and do work to improve your quality of life" Aren't most people do it for selfish reasons? (Money, feel good about yourself, ...) Police protects us, for the money they get. Agriculture delivers us food, for the money they get. Water stations deliver us water, for the money they g…

if we didn't develop a system of exchange (which reduces to a single unit, 'money' in any sophisticated civilisation), we wouldn't be a civilisation

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

#156

Post by wruza »

mpfundstein wrote: post #30
kpnbg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too enjoy watching the perfect harmony of a lion eating a live impala

The huge difference is that lions dont put impalas into huge factories, where they feed them afwul food, rob them of any dignitiy, slaughter them by the masses, ship them across the globe in order to throw half of it away because it didnt hit the market’s taste of the month!

Most animals live in constant fear, dirt, with parasites and depressing social relationships. I bet that if you got to know few impalas, you would state that most of them are jerks who don’t live long anyway. Lions also may leave their prey’s parts to smaller carnivores. The only difference is that they don’t throw it out since they eat right from the floor and then walk away.

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

#158

Post by XorNot »

Tehnix wrote: post #103
mamon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity comes from the type of food you eat, not just quantity. Humans are the only species that invented glucose-fructose syrup and other highly processed foods. Feed that to any wild animal an they will become obese as well.

Not. At. All. Obesity simply comes from consuming more calories than you need. You can (and people have) loose weight by eating McDonalds if you wanted—you just have to make sure the amount of calories you get from it is less than what you actually need. As the other commentator mentions, the only thing processed foods might bring, is trying to break our self-restraint by being delicious in certain ways.

This is overly simplistic. Our bodies process sugars in vastly different ways. Fructose for example was historically rare for us to have and is metabolized in basically unlimited quantity as fast as possible by the liver and transferred to fat reserves.

So yes, quantity matters but you will have incredible difficulty not putting on weight from high fructose foodstuffs because your body will tell you "eat more food" to feed your muscles well before it decides to give up any fat reserves.

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

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

#159

Post by lstodd »

focal-point wrote: post #153
vidarh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird, so I'll raise you that for harmony :) We had a cat once who, we found out, liked to sit in the berry bushes in the garden, wait for a bird to land, and then kill them. She didn't didn't eat them - she much preferred the cat food she got. She just murdered bird after bird and left them to rot. Cats certainly are not the best examples…

Don't leave cats like this outside. It's not okay for them to kill wildlife.

Would you yourself consider lifetime seclusion? Why, you cause harm to billions of living creatures every time you venture outside. (Although sitting in solitary jail cell only reduces that by a negligible factor). And that's only taking into account direct harm, third or fourth-order consequences of being out there are impossible to even start comprehending.

If not, why you think it's okay to condemn another living creature to such a life sentence? After all, its well-being is just as important as yours, is it not so?

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

#160

Post by ianai »

harperlee wrote: post #83

To me, there needs to be a differentiation between communicating and speaking. If you broadcast information and another entity receives it, and uses it, that is not dialogue - just reactions. Even if through an evolutionary game the species reaches effective communication (predators, plagues, etc.), and complex feedback loops emerge, resembling a dialogue, there seems to be something lacking - perhaps the ability to…

I’ve had house cats ask me things plenty. They’ll ask whether they are welcome in my lap by stopping short of stepping on my leg and looking at me for feedback. There’s much more to communication than human spoken word.
Post reply on HN