If you find this interesting, I strongly recommend the book _The Light Eaters_ by Zoë Schlanger [0]. She discusses this finding as well as other sense-abilities of plants. Recent science has found pretty amazing things.
If I recall correctly: flowers are often shaped like dish antennas to collect sound vibration, and plants can distinguish the frequency of wing beats of their preferred pollinator from frequencies of other insects, and will act only for their pollinators.
I listened to that book and enjoyed it. But that said, I'm torn between friendliness to the general concept, and skepticism based in part on the bias of proponents to deeply desire plants to display something like intelligence (a bias I share).
For example the most amazing claims in the book were around the ability of Boquila trifoliolata to dynamically mimic other plants.
i definitely agree that it would've been nice to have images in the book as it was hard to get a sense of exactly how well Boquila was mimicking neighbouring plants!
but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned briefly in your linked article)
You seem to be on some campaign against atheists today, which needs to stop now. It breaks multiple guidelines and destroys what HN is for. It's great to ponder the big existential questions; I do plenty of it myself. But when discussing these topics here we need to find a way to do so without being derisive towards others.
That comment is actually pretty cool because it illustrates a thinking process that a lot of people that we share the world with have.
They split the world into two realms, the physical and the spiritual, and mental processes like hearing are the domain of the spiritual.
This can be dated back to Descartes who believed that body and soul are separate substances and even further back to antiquity.
In today’s world there’s mounting evidence for explaining all cognitive phenomena based on the physical world, so these people feel under assault all the time.
OP’s statement about „atheists” reveal his feelings towards them, and his way of trying to understand them.
It’s fascinating how these old ways of thinking manage to stick around despite all or advancement in science. And it’s crucial to be aware that they exist.
Do you think that if we simulated a bee, molecule for molecule, that this simulation would behave differently from the real thing because the simulation fails to replicate its soul?
What kind of behaviors in animals/humans does this soul affect? How do you believe does it interface with nervous systems in general?
Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them, we just don't know how to recognize it because it's so different from animal intelligence. There might even be something comparable to animal consciousness, not at the level of an individual plant, but more collectively, even including multiple species, whole ecosystems of plants and fungi together having an awareness and intelligence that can not only rival ours, but even transcend it, having lifespans in the thousands of years.
Another possibility is that this is a non-conscious trait. Luring pollinators is an evolutionary advantage, but there is survival cost to giving nectar indiscriminately, so natural selection will favor plants that can mechanically differentiate between the two.
"... so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them"
This sounds like a really wild take. Just because something has been evolving for millions of years doesn't necessarily mean it's evolving information processing capabilities. It's patently obvious to me that the information processing capabilities of animals (eg. just vision alone) are far beyond those of plants.
> Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have
That is true. And look how different we’ve become.
> and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them
That’s quite a leap. I think precisely because plants and animals have evolved separately for so you can’t make that assumption. Maybe plants hasn’t not simply because they don’t need to, as a fundamental consequence of their differing physiology.
That is a leap, but its could be approached with open mind. We have learnt a lot in the last few decades that would have sounded like fantasy to someone 100 years ago.
Some plants actually have evolved to be pollinated by hummingbirds, they have long thin tube shaped flowers that a hummingbird beak can travel up. The Sword-billed hummingbird has an incredibly long beak due to mutual evolution with flowers that grew deep tubes.
Flower visitors, including pollinators, produce characteristic sounds through flapping wing movements during flight. Recent research underscores the value of studying these acoustic signals to develop non-invasive, efficient tools for monitoring pollinator communities. Additionally, these sounds may provide key information to flowering plants, potentially influencing their resource allocation to attract pollinators, thus impacting their fitness. In this study, we investigated the acoustic properties of airborne sounds generated by recording different flying visitors to Antirrhinum flowers in the field. The audio recordings were annotated according to the observed flying behaviors and analyzed using nonlinear time-series analysis. We also conducted playback experiments to evaluate how plants respond to the buzzing sounds of insects. Our results reveal that distinct flying behaviors, such as hovering, landing, and takeoff, produce unique acoustic signatures. Furthermore, plants exhibit reactions to the vibroacoustic stimuli from pollinators, suggesting potentially adaptive responses. These findings provide valuable insight for developing passive acoustic monitoring tools for flying insects and may inspire further research in the field of plant–pollinator interaction.
Seems like this is not _the_ paper but (as you write yourself) _a_ paper dealing with the same question. I assume that _the_ paper will provide further insights otherwise the presentation wouldn't be justified.
I never thought about it, but it is pretty surprising to learn that nature has evolved this system. I'm amazed by how this scientist was able to find a correlation and tell how things work in this instance. There is so much synch in the nature that is't hard to notice how connected everything is.
What do you think hearing is? It _is_ direct contact. Sound is pressure waves directly contacting you and it is why there is no sound in a vacuum. Ear drums are tuned to a particular frequency range. But you can feel a deep bass in your chest, and that is why deaf people often enjoy deep bass music.
Sound waves in air are generally very weak and couple poorly to solids due to impedance mismatch. That's why ears have ear drums and other clever mechanisms to detect them.
Plants don't have ear drums and you can't feel a an insect buzz in your chest.
You don't need an ear drum to hear, your hearing comes from tiny hairs connected to mechanoreceptors.
Guess what we've found in plants? Tiny hairs (trichomes) connected to mechanoreceptors.
So plants have the nearly the same physical structures that animals use for hearing, but not only that, they also have similar mechanosensitive ion channels too.
of course I can feel an insect buzz in my chest. Cicadas are amazing in full bloom. I don't find it unpalatable that plant mechanoreceptors could pick up sounds that I cannot.
The way I see it, it's just a matter of terminology: When we detect vibrations through the air (“sound waves”) we call it hearing, and humans have dedicated organs to accomplish the task. When vibrations are detected (i.e., felt) in solid stuff, they're just called vibrations.
I've been listening to Quirks and Quarks for more than 20 years now. What an absolutely amazing show. If you haven't, and like science podcasts, you're really missing out.
Not really. There are literally hundreds. They mostly bring on and interview science experts from recent discoveries. Whatever is interesting, recent, and relevant. The vast majority of it is under the radar and having the discoverers come and talk about their work is usually very interesting. I listen almost every week. They take the summer off.
I never really thought of plants as responding to sound like this. I always imagined them reacting to light, chemicals, or maybe touch, but the idea of them picking up vibrations from specific insects is kind of mind blowing.
It makes me wonder how many other forms of input plants might be sensing that we simply don’t recognize yet. Nature keeps surprising me the more I read about this kind of stuff.
The plant is happy to give nectar with sugar to pollinators. That means they are ok with being eaten. They are likely not ok with being damaged.
So go ahead and take the apple because it will drop otherwise. And take the fruits. If you want to go all out, go with a Jain diet system where carrots and mushrooms are not ok but mints and herbs are a-ok.
In my opinion, “I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live that you are” is unethical. But then again, I also chose a plantbased diet.
It is impossible for more complex organism to live on Earth and not feast on other organisms, so you could say I should avoid eating plants too. Correct, but since I cannot avoid killing other beings, I have chosen the path of less overall suffering.
“I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live that you are” is the default position for every animal out there on earth, fwiw. Would you call a harbor seal pure evil because they play with their prey and kill them brutally and slowly? Fish like Tuna are brutal killers and even kill eachother. When you study it, nature is brutal, unsavory, cold, and cruel. A human pig farmer on the other hand is remarkably benevolent a predator. They will hire a veterinarian if a pig is sick after all. They won't rip the pig apart alive limb for limb. They won't slowly kill it over the course of days.
I would not call animals who kill other animals for evil. They don't have a choice. It is their nature.
Humans, by virtue of their empathy (which can be extended beyond their own species) and intelligence (however we decide to evaluate that), do have a choice.
What is suffering and how do you measure it? How do you know that plants don't suffer? Why is less suffering more ethical?
I don't believe you've actually thought any of this through in an intellectually rigorous way. Your choices just allow you to falsely believe that you're somehow superior to people with other priorities and values.
I perceive suffering as unnecessary pain and/or fear. I can certainly know when I suffer myself. And while it's true that I cannot directly measure the pain or fear of other organisms, to some extend I can extrapolate my own experience to that of other beings. Empathy. First and foremost “higher” animals. E.g., if a dog is screaming when somebody treads its tail, I lend from my own experience when somebody steps on my toe and conclude that the dog is screaming in pain. I could be wrong, of course, but that's how the reasoning goes. And don't we all behave based on our conscious or unconscious evaluations?
The further away, phylogenetically, we come from the human species, the more difficult it is for me to assess if a being is suffering (i.e., experiencing unnecessary pain or suffering), but based on my observations of plants, and my knowledge of their anatomy and physiology, I have concluded that yes, they may feel something — even pain — but it doesn't look much like they do. But I could still be wrong. It's still how my reasoning goes. If one day I am faced with more tangible evidence, then I will obviously have to evaluate my behaviour. Until then I choose what seems to be the road of less suffering.
40+ years ago I worked for several months at a “chicken farm” where chicks were raised from “Easter chickens” to fullgrown chickens in roosts of 10_000 chickens each. It was a waking nightmare. It is _the_ most horrible experience I have had in my life because of the obvious and extensive suffering of the animals, and the experience made me choose to become a vegetarian because I didn't want to contribute to that specific suffering. Later evidence has shown that pigs and cattle and other farmed animals are experiencing suffering too because of the way humans are raising them. I simply don't want to be a part of that. Period.
My choice of diet doesn't change my value as a human being even one iota (the same way the value of any other human being isn't measured by their choice of diet). I could be very very wrong about the whole thing, and in that way making things unnecessarily complicated for myself (and my fellow human beings), but I cannot live on Earth without making decisions, and I try to make the best I can — just like all other humans do. All other humans could be right, for all I know. I could be the fool here. Who am I to judge.
Eating meat doesn't mean the consumed thing suffered. Factory farming might. The farming and slaughter process may be more efficient when causing suffering, but it doesn't have to.
I find a more compelling argument that it is generally awful to end something's joyful existence and experience. But apparently not compelling enough to dramatically alter my diet much. But enough to cause me to save/relocate some bugs in some cases rather than kill them.
That poster seems to have thought things through. A first hand account of an industry of suffering, and our best evidence on how plants work and a well reasoned conclusion.
I think it is a huge reach to assume the lettuce head isn't suffering when you pluck it. It is pure anthropomorphising at its finest where you can use some in built cognitive dissonance to see a plant as some other not worthy of life whereas something that bleeds red fills one with dread. I hazard a guess that if most people didn't spend a childhood ripping leaves off trees and throwing sticks at plants that they would have similar feelings towards the harvest process of most crops when exposed to the first time like they might with the harvest process for animal crops.
If there are opportunities to do things with more respect and dignity, for either plants or animals, they should be done. But at the same time we shouldn't feel so morose about the reality of the situation of life on this planet where literally everything eats something else, usually in a very brutal manner.
Noting that the researchers use terms as 'responds to vibroacoustic signals' rather than the term 'hear' used in the article of the post. Hearing to me implies some kind of auditory processing, this seems to be a more passive 'biomechanical' response.
> Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nectar in response
This is called "anthropomorphizing," the assignment of human traits to non-human entities without evidence. Assigning human traits to non-human processes tends to distort evidence to fit a preconceived narrative.
Look at the title. The terms "hear," "produce," and "in response" all imply human motivations to a process that may instead be an unsentimental evolutionary process in which nature blindly selects an outcome based only on fitness.
This is why Charles Darwin was reluctant to publish his theory -- it implied that nature blindly created outcomes solely based on fitness, not recognizable human qualities as this article suggests. Darwin believed people would reject his theory because it was unsentimental, unromantic, sometimes cruel. And he was right -- people accepted natural selection only after evidence prevailed over sentiment.
This doesn't imply that nature isn't beautiful, it only argues that nature isn't modeled after people. And those who think nature has no sense of humor ... haven't heard about the Platypus.
Plants don't like being anthropomorphized. Btw, I disagree with your definition.
You are inserting "sentiment" to "hear," "produce," and "in response." These are physical actions. Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?
In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism is assigning human qualities onto non-humans. Like my first sentence.
> Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?
That's correct -- it's not a response as that term is defined, indeed use of the word "response" implies a misunderstanding of natural selection and suggests inheritance of acquired traits.
In a population of trees in the same environment, some produce more fruit due to random genetic variations between individuals. For chemical and biological reasons those specific trees blindly ascend over other genotypes and are over time more likely to prevail over those less fit. That's not a response as we understand the word, it's a product of mathematics and genetics.
> In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.
In fact, assuming we assign a human emotion to the fox, as you did, that would be an example of anthropomorphizing.
If you find this interesting, I strongly recommend the book _The Light Eaters_ by Zoë Schlanger [0]. She discusses this finding as well as other sense-abilities of plants. Recent science has found pretty amazing things.
If I recall correctly: flowers are often shaped like dish antennas to collect sound vibration, and plants can distinguish the frequency of wing beats of their preferred pollinator from frequencies of other insects, and will act only for their pollinators.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Light-Eaters-Unseen-Intelligence-Unde...
I listened to that book and enjoyed it. But that said, I'm torn between friendliness to the general concept, and skepticism based in part on the bias of proponents to deeply desire plants to display something like intelligence (a bias I share).
For example the most amazing claims in the book were around the ability of Boquila trifoliolata to dynamically mimic other plants.
see this old HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31301454
But when one looks more closely the research, the behavior isn't as dramatic as Zoe made it sound, and the research may not be so strong, e.g. :
https://press.asimov.com/articles/plant-vision
i definitely agree that it would've been nice to have images in the book as it was hard to get a sense of exactly how well Boquila was mimicking neighbouring plants!
but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned briefly in your linked article)
[flagged]
You seem to be on some campaign against atheists today, which needs to stop now. It breaks multiple guidelines and destroys what HN is for. It's great to ponder the big existential questions; I do plenty of it myself. But when discussing these topics here we need to find a way to do so without being derisive towards others.
That comment is actually pretty cool because it illustrates a thinking process that a lot of people that we share the world with have.
They split the world into two realms, the physical and the spiritual, and mental processes like hearing are the domain of the spiritual.
This can be dated back to Descartes who believed that body and soul are separate substances and even further back to antiquity.
In today’s world there’s mounting evidence for explaining all cognitive phenomena based on the physical world, so these people feel under assault all the time.
OP’s statement about „atheists” reveal his feelings towards them, and his way of trying to understand them.
It’s fascinating how these old ways of thinking manage to stick around despite all or advancement in science. And it’s crucial to be aware that they exist.
Do you think that if we simulated a bee, molecule for molecule, that this simulation would behave differently from the real thing because the simulation fails to replicate its soul?
What kind of behaviors in animals/humans does this soul affect? How do you believe does it interface with nervous systems in general?
what a strange set of conclusions to draw
What most surprised me in this interview is, not only do plants increase sugar for 'efficient' pollinators, but:
>In contrast they respond to the sound of nectar-stealing non-pollinators by cutting back on sugar.
So there is some discrimination in their hearing.
Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them, we just don't know how to recognize it because it's so different from animal intelligence. There might even be something comparable to animal consciousness, not at the level of an individual plant, but more collectively, even including multiple species, whole ecosystems of plants and fungi together having an awareness and intelligence that can not only rival ours, but even transcend it, having lifespans in the thousands of years.
Another possibility is that this is a non-conscious trait. Luring pollinators is an evolutionary advantage, but there is survival cost to giving nectar indiscriminately, so natural selection will favor plants that can mechanically differentiate between the two.
"... so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them"
This sounds like a really wild take. Just because something has been evolving for millions of years doesn't necessarily mean it's evolving information processing capabilities. It's patently obvious to me that the information processing capabilities of animals (eg. just vision alone) are far beyond those of plants.
> Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have
That is true. And look how different we’ve become.
> and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them
That’s quite a leap. I think precisely because plants and animals have evolved separately for so you can’t make that assumption. Maybe plants hasn’t not simply because they don’t need to, as a fundamental consequence of their differing physiology.
That is a leap, but its could be approached with open mind. We have learnt a lot in the last few decades that would have sounded like fantasy to someone 100 years ago.
This would make things quite complicated for vegans.
What is an example of a nectar-stealing non-pollinator? Doesn't anything rooting around in there end up moving around some pollen?
Some carpenter bees will bite straight through the flower bypassing the stamens and stigma.
Sometimes it's just an anatomy mismatch - like very small bee species and big open flowers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nectar_robbing
Take a look at the Flowerpiercers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowerpiercer
They're true parasites, piercing the flower to drink nectar without any chance of pollination.
The most common example are ants. Moths are often guilty of this as well.
I'd guess hummingbirds.
Some plants actually have evolved to be pollinated by hummingbirds, they have long thin tube shaped flowers that a hummingbird beak can travel up. The Sword-billed hummingbird has an incredibly long beak due to mutual evolution with flowers that grew deep tubes.
No, hummingbirds also pollinate some plants. Random link from a Google search: https://www.nps.gov/articles/hummingbirds.htm#:~:text=Hummin...
Some is not all, and hummingbirds may well steal nectar from less tubular flowers.
Seems like there is no paper yet. Best I could find:
https://acousticalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Pro... (page 194):
Link should be this: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-production-response-pol...There is a paper, here it is:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.13331
Seems like this is not _the_ paper but (as you write yourself) _a_ paper dealing with the same question. I assume that _the_ paper will provide further insights otherwise the presentation wouldn't be justified.
I never thought about it, but it is pretty surprising to learn that nature has evolved this system. I'm amazed by how this scientist was able to find a correlation and tell how things work in this instance. There is so much synch in the nature that is't hard to notice how connected everything is.
This sounds somewhat implausible. What mechanism do plants have to "hear" sounds? And to respond differently to the sounds of different insects? Hmm.
I would definitely wait for a peer reviewed article before paying any attention to this. People love "plants can hear things" stories.
> What mechanism do plants have to "hear" sounds?
Mechanoreceptors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanoreceptors_(in_plants)
The examples there are for direct contact - feeling not hearing.
What do you think hearing is? It _is_ direct contact. Sound is pressure waves directly contacting you and it is why there is no sound in a vacuum. Ear drums are tuned to a particular frequency range. But you can feel a deep bass in your chest, and that is why deaf people often enjoy deep bass music.
Sound waves in air are generally very weak and couple poorly to solids due to impedance mismatch. That's why ears have ear drums and other clever mechanisms to detect them.
Plants don't have ear drums and you can't feel a an insect buzz in your chest.
You don't need an ear drum to hear, your hearing comes from tiny hairs connected to mechanoreceptors.
Guess what we've found in plants? Tiny hairs (trichomes) connected to mechanoreceptors.
So plants have the nearly the same physical structures that animals use for hearing, but not only that, they also have similar mechanosensitive ion channels too.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685652/
of course I can feel an insect buzz in my chest. Cicadas are amazing in full bloom. I don't find it unpalatable that plant mechanoreceptors could pick up sounds that I cannot.
isn't sound vibration?
aren't plants well suited with all their small and moving parts to some-what percieve that from their envirorment, even if its not literal hearing?
The way I see it, it's just a matter of terminology: When we detect vibrations through the air (“sound waves”) we call it hearing, and humans have dedicated organs to accomplish the task. When vibrations are detected (i.e., felt) in solid stuff, they're just called vibrations.
Even regarding hearing it's not that clear, for example hearing a "noise" under water or bone conduction.
Plants definitely can sense pressure and motion to some extent, that's what Venus flytraps do, and how creeping vines find and follow surfaces.
Hearing pollinators does seem somewhat unlikely but still plausible.
I've been listening to Quirks and Quarks for more than 20 years now. What an absolutely amazing show. If you haven't, and like science podcasts, you're really missing out.
This is the first time I'm hearing about this show. Could you highlight any specific episode that stands out?
Not really. There are literally hundreds. They mostly bring on and interview science experts from recent discoveries. Whatever is interesting, recent, and relevant. The vast majority of it is under the radar and having the discoverers come and talk about their work is usually very interesting. I listen almost every week. They take the summer off.
I never really thought of plants as responding to sound like this. I always imagined them reacting to light, chemicals, or maybe touch, but the idea of them picking up vibrations from specific insects is kind of mind blowing.
It makes me wonder how many other forms of input plants might be sensing that we simply don’t recognize yet. Nature keeps surprising me the more I read about this kind of stuff.
If plants make decisions, and have preferences. Then ethically, are we not bound to consider those preferences?
Then again: nothing wants to be eaten...
Lab grown meat can't come fast enough: ethical flesh to consume.
The plant is happy to give nectar with sugar to pollinators. That means they are ok with being eaten. They are likely not ok with being damaged.
So go ahead and take the apple because it will drop otherwise. And take the fruits. If you want to go all out, go with a Jain diet system where carrots and mushrooms are not ok but mints and herbs are a-ok.
> Lab grown meat can't come fast enough
Yeah, but 6 US states have now banned it
Humans are a billion miles away from considering plant preferences
cancel culture is out of control these days
Fruit is plant flesh that is meant (designed?) to be eaten.
There's nothing unethical about eating meat, and lab grown "meat" isn't any more ethical than the real thing.
In my opinion, “I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live that you are” is unethical. But then again, I also chose a plantbased diet.
It is impossible for more complex organism to live on Earth and not feast on other organisms, so you could say I should avoid eating plants too. Correct, but since I cannot avoid killing other beings, I have chosen the path of less overall suffering.
“I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live that you are” is the default position for every animal out there on earth, fwiw. Would you call a harbor seal pure evil because they play with their prey and kill them brutally and slowly? Fish like Tuna are brutal killers and even kill eachother. When you study it, nature is brutal, unsavory, cold, and cruel. A human pig farmer on the other hand is remarkably benevolent a predator. They will hire a veterinarian if a pig is sick after all. They won't rip the pig apart alive limb for limb. They won't slowly kill it over the course of days.
Nice question.
I would not call animals who kill other animals for evil. They don't have a choice. It is their nature.
Humans, by virtue of their empathy (which can be extended beyond their own species) and intelligence (however we decide to evaluate that), do have a choice.
What is suffering and how do you measure it? How do you know that plants don't suffer? Why is less suffering more ethical?
I don't believe you've actually thought any of this through in an intellectually rigorous way. Your choices just allow you to falsely believe that you're somehow superior to people with other priorities and values.
I perceive suffering as unnecessary pain and/or fear. I can certainly know when I suffer myself. And while it's true that I cannot directly measure the pain or fear of other organisms, to some extend I can extrapolate my own experience to that of other beings. Empathy. First and foremost “higher” animals. E.g., if a dog is screaming when somebody treads its tail, I lend from my own experience when somebody steps on my toe and conclude that the dog is screaming in pain. I could be wrong, of course, but that's how the reasoning goes. And don't we all behave based on our conscious or unconscious evaluations?
The further away, phylogenetically, we come from the human species, the more difficult it is for me to assess if a being is suffering (i.e., experiencing unnecessary pain or suffering), but based on my observations of plants, and my knowledge of their anatomy and physiology, I have concluded that yes, they may feel something — even pain — but it doesn't look much like they do. But I could still be wrong. It's still how my reasoning goes. If one day I am faced with more tangible evidence, then I will obviously have to evaluate my behaviour. Until then I choose what seems to be the road of less suffering.
40+ years ago I worked for several months at a “chicken farm” where chicks were raised from “Easter chickens” to fullgrown chickens in roosts of 10_000 chickens each. It was a waking nightmare. It is _the_ most horrible experience I have had in my life because of the obvious and extensive suffering of the animals, and the experience made me choose to become a vegetarian because I didn't want to contribute to that specific suffering. Later evidence has shown that pigs and cattle and other farmed animals are experiencing suffering too because of the way humans are raising them. I simply don't want to be a part of that. Period.
My choice of diet doesn't change my value as a human being even one iota (the same way the value of any other human being isn't measured by their choice of diet). I could be very very wrong about the whole thing, and in that way making things unnecessarily complicated for myself (and my fellow human beings), but I cannot live on Earth without making decisions, and I try to make the best I can — just like all other humans do. All other humans could be right, for all I know. I could be the fool here. Who am I to judge.
Eating meat doesn't mean the consumed thing suffered. Factory farming might. The farming and slaughter process may be more efficient when causing suffering, but it doesn't have to.
I find a more compelling argument that it is generally awful to end something's joyful existence and experience. But apparently not compelling enough to dramatically alter my diet much. But enough to cause me to save/relocate some bugs in some cases rather than kill them.
So in short you're just guessing.
That poster seems to have thought things through. A first hand account of an industry of suffering, and our best evidence on how plants work and a well reasoned conclusion.
A 'guess' is less than accurate.
I think it is a huge reach to assume the lettuce head isn't suffering when you pluck it. It is pure anthropomorphising at its finest where you can use some in built cognitive dissonance to see a plant as some other not worthy of life whereas something that bleeds red fills one with dread. I hazard a guess that if most people didn't spend a childhood ripping leaves off trees and throwing sticks at plants that they would have similar feelings towards the harvest process of most crops when exposed to the first time like they might with the harvest process for animal crops.
If there are opportunities to do things with more respect and dignity, for either plants or animals, they should be done. But at the same time we shouldn't feel so morose about the reality of the situation of life on this planet where literally everything eats something else, usually in a very brutal manner.
True, it's a huge reach, but do I have a better way of evaluating it?
Daft Punk is pollinating at my house! (My House!)
Link to study?
The study is ongoing, the researcher presented their findings so far at a conference. Here's an article: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-production-response-pol... and a link to the study abstract: https://www.hfsp.org/node/74710
Noting that the researchers use terms as 'responds to vibroacoustic signals' rather than the term 'hear' used in the article of the post. Hearing to me implies some kind of auditory processing, this seems to be a more passive 'biomechanical' response.
Thanks
so talking good to them and playing music helps, lol.
[dead]
> Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nectar in response
This is called "anthropomorphizing," the assignment of human traits to non-human entities without evidence. Assigning human traits to non-human processes tends to distort evidence to fit a preconceived narrative.
Look at the title. The terms "hear," "produce," and "in response" all imply human motivations to a process that may instead be an unsentimental evolutionary process in which nature blindly selects an outcome based only on fitness.
This is why Charles Darwin was reluctant to publish his theory -- it implied that nature blindly created outcomes solely based on fitness, not recognizable human qualities as this article suggests. Darwin believed people would reject his theory because it was unsentimental, unromantic, sometimes cruel. And he was right -- people accepted natural selection only after evidence prevailed over sentiment.
This doesn't imply that nature isn't beautiful, it only argues that nature isn't modeled after people. And those who think nature has no sense of humor ... haven't heard about the Platypus.
Plants don't like being anthropomorphized. Btw, I disagree with your definition.
You are inserting "sentiment" to "hear," "produce," and "in response." These are physical actions. Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?
In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism is assigning human qualities onto non-humans. Like my first sentence.
> Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?
That's correct -- it's not a response as that term is defined, indeed use of the word "response" implies a misunderstanding of natural selection and suggests inheritance of acquired traits.
In a population of trees in the same environment, some produce more fruit due to random genetic variations between individuals. For chemical and biological reasons those specific trees blindly ascend over other genotypes and are over time more likely to prevail over those less fit. That's not a response as we understand the word, it's a product of mathematics and genetics.
> In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.
In fact, assuming we assign a human emotion to the fox, as you did, that would be an example of anthropomorphizing.