We are all SLAVES to PLANTS!

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Hmmmm...I was just hanging out in chat here shooting the breeze with a few other senior members and a topic of conversation came up that I feel is well worth debating.

After asking the members who engaged with me on this awkward topic IF they had any objections to me cutting and pasting the discourse there-in and receiving no said objections, here it is:

(15:06:30) Gypsy_Nirvana: ....and the plants love it, ...lets face it, its the plants that have enslaved us
(15:07:04) PhenoMenal: imagine if there were some human-eating flowers
(15:07:04) The_Skunkist: it looks like we are having world wide adv campaigns
(15:07:40) Gypsy_Nirvana: we need them, but they don't need us.....they use us, 'cos they are so pretty or vital for our survival, we have all been seduced by the plants too
(15:07:50) The_Skunkist: never ate a collieflower ?
(15:07:57) Gypsy_Nirvana: tell me otherwise
(15:08:08) PhenoMenal: cauliflower n cheese sauce mmm
(15:08:18) PhenoMenal: an excellent version of vegies made yum
(15:08:19) Gypsy_Nirvana: yes but maybe a cauliflower will eat you one day
(15:08:32) Gypsy_Nirvana: if you are buried under a patch
(15:09:03) PhenoMenal: Gypsy no i mean flowers that can literally EAT you, like those large pitcher plants etc, and venys flytrap on small scale
(15:09:20) Gypsy_Nirvana: just look at this site......now I'll give you 3 guesses as to what this site is about.
(15:09:28) PhenoMenal: some of them do devour small animals like birds rats etc
(15:09:48) PhenoMenal: growing cauliflower
(15:09:50) Gypsy_Nirvana: yes there are carnivorous plants
(15:10:16) Gypsy_Nirvana: actually all plants can use every bit of your dead or alive body
(15:10:35) Gypsy_Nirvana: bllod and bone meal etc
(15:10:38) Gypsy_Nirvana: blood
(15:10:56) PhenoMenal: too much sodium chloride in my body to sustain plant life lol
(15:11:12) WHIPEDMEAT: those are mostly used up by fungis or bacteria
(15:11:16) Gypsy_Nirvana: I'm surprised that no one has realized the obvious here
(15:11:17) The_Skunkist: I don't know if you will make a good compost Gypsy
(15:11:47) The_Skunkist: or Bokhashi compost perhaps
(15:11:48) Gypsy_Nirvana: its an interesting debate
(15:11:50) The_Skunkist: lol
(15:12:02) Gypsy_Nirvana: perhaps a thread is hatching here?
(15:12:37) Gypsy_Nirvana: maybe I can just cut and paste this chat about it?.....DOES ANYONE OBJECT?
(15:13:08) Gypsy_Nirvana: AT THE START OF we are slaves to plants' THREAD
(15:13:19) Gypsy_Nirvana: bloody capslock
(15:13:34) PhenoMenal: hang let me fix my hair
(15:13:42) Gypsy_Nirvana: well gentlemen, any objections?
(15:13:49) Gypsy_Nirvana: lol

*Let the debate begin.....Are we or are we not SLAVES TO PLANTS?

 

[wh1p3dm34t]

we are highly depending on the plants in various forms, maybe they can manipulate us to grow ?

 

[DrLongbottom]

We are slaves to the traffic light

 

[indabonga]

Off of discussion.. But a great historic anthem
P. C. P. Slave to the rave (bigger bolder better)
https://youtu.be/3njsuUAz1Vg

 

[St. Phatty]

In general, YES.

First season, a grower might as well be chained to their plants.

Once we get into the third trimester, when the plants become grow-rip targets, I find I tend to stay close to home. Also put the plants on rollers so I can roll them into the garage sometimes.

However, it's sort of a Symbiotic Slavery. Agro-therapy !!!

 

[pinkus]

well, not quite. We benefit each other. If we can be brave enough to classify ourselves as animals it is a mutualistic relationship.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Yes.....but we NEED plants to survive....

Plants do not NEED us to survive and were here on this earth long before we were.

....so in that way are we not enslaved to their cultivation and propagation?

 

[pinkus]

We are needed (OK need is too strong) for the CO2 we produce to a minor extent. We do make their lives better.

I'd be OK with hunting and gathering, but know I'm in the minority.

 

[troutman]

The smallest plants are the most important.

aka. algae

Without them we would all die as they produce more oxygen than all the other plants combined.

 

[wh1p3dm34t]

and ? what would you hunt for without plants ? stardust ?

 

[troutman]

I've been looking for the elusive beer plant for a while in my forest travels.

They must be very rare. Without them beer wouldn't exist.

 

[Babbabud]

Ive got a few money trees on my property

 

[mean mr.mustard]

More like employees

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Yes, all humour aside, do we serve plants, or do they serve us?

It may look like we have a symbiotic relationship, and are a part of each others food-chain, but when it comes down to the crunch who is in the cat-bird seat, the plants or us?

Did anyone see that movie with Matt Damon called 'The Martian?' where Damon was stranded on Mars and had to find a way to survive by cultivating potatoes?

Damon needed these plants to survive for food, so he had to feed them with his own fecal matter, and if he failed in this pursuit he was bound to die from starvation...

Now who is in charge here, the plant or the man?

 

[BadTicket]

Oh you'se guys, been getting high in the chat room again?

Anyways, I'd say it's more a symbiosis between us and the plants than slavery. Mostly true that they don't need us to survive, but we sure have helped em to spread around the world and made em stronger, faster and more productive through selective breeding and thing. Especially in colder, harsh parts of the planet like Northern Europe, where I come from. For example weed, it would not grow on it's own here that well. Needs humans to water and nute it. Hard work? Yes. But if done right, can also be very rewarding. Slavery, by UN definition, is "identified by an element of ownership or control over another's life, coercion and the restriction of movement and by the fact that someone is not free to leave or to change an employer."
No plant has that much control over my life, so I don't consider myself a slave being a guerilla grower and a farmer on the side. Like Hannibal Lecter said: Quid pro quo, Agent Starling.. I tell you things, you tell me things.

 

[Mikell]

I watched that movie up until he said "I have to science the shit out of this".

Bloody McConaughay did a better space flick.



But I do agree with your original idea. I thought the same during some psychedelic use and almost wiped out a mum collection.

Michael Pollan has a few interesting words to say on the nature of our relationship with corn and who truley benefits the most.

 

[BadTicket]

Yes, all humour aside, do we serve plants, or do they serve us?

It may look like we have a symbiotic relationship, and are a part of each others food-chain, but when it comes down to the crunch who is in the cat-bird seat, the plants or us?

Did anyone see that movie with Matt Damon called 'The Martian?' where Damon was stranded on Mars and had to find a way to survive by cultivating potatoes?

Damon needed these plants to survive for food, so he had to feed them with his own fecal matter, and if he failed in this pursuit he was bound to die from starvation...

Now who is in charge here, the plant or the man?

Haven't seen that movie. Did Matt Damon compost his doodoo 1st and used it like proper humanure, or did he just toss feces on them taters? Food grown in raw human crap is kinda iffy to say the least. Like that North-Korean guy who escaped to the South a while back, they pulled worms outta his intestines big enough to make headlines around world. All attributed to NK using human feces as nutes for their crops.. Another fine Hollywood example from the movie "Waterworld", where Kevin Costner 1st drinks a small amount of his own recycled piss-water, then waters his lemon plant with the rest, tho he prolly coulda used another sip himself. I'd say Costner was in charge, but he likes his lemons, too. And plenty more piss-water where that came from, so he made a calculated call there

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Let me dissect your reply here BT, for it seems to be the most thought about and serious argument to imply that its a 50/50 thing going on with us and the plants.

Oh you'se guys, been getting high in the chat room again?

BT: Anyways, I'd say it's more a symbiosis between us and the plants than slavery. Mostly true that they don't need us to survive, but we sure have helped em to spread around the world and made em stronger, faster and more productive through selective breeding and thing. Especially in colder, harsh parts of the planet like Northern Europe, where I come from. For example weed, it would not grow on it's own here that well. Needs humans to water and nute it. Hard work? Yes. But if done right, can also be very rewarding.

GN ...Right, so it has been determined that we have to toil/work for the plants to grow what we need in any area of the planet, we can even breed the plants and inbreed the traits we want them to have for our needs, but all along we have to labour and spend much of our time to accomplish this, and if we do not and fail to protect and grow the plants then we will die. Meanwhile the plants can thrive without our toil and trouble to grow them, they will grow in the wild happily without us and don't in anyway toil for our survival.

BT: Slavery, by UN definition, is "identified by an element of ownership or control over another's life, coercion and the restriction of movement and by the fact that someone is not free to leave or to change an employer."

GN :I would say that we are chained to keeping plants alive and growing well since our very future existence depends on them, if we dare to forsake our masters (the plants) and don't till the field or get the harvest in on time our unquestionable dependence on them will not only deprive us of vital food but so many other products we toil over plants to produce....ie building materials for shelter, clothes for warmth and protection, medicine for health and drink and 'erbs recreation, oils for cooking and to run vehicle too name but a few.

Our movement is restricted by plants since we cannot go anywhere they do not exist and survive for long unless we take them with us and can again slave over them to keep them alive for us to survive from. We cannot change employers from our plant masters because there is no other support system out there that can take their place, so we are chained to their survival and cultivation, and that by definition, as espoused above is SLAVERY!

What do the plants need from us to survive naturally? NOTHING!


BT: No plant has that much control over my life, so I don't consider myself a slave being a guerilla grower and a farmer on the side. Like Hannibal Lecter said: Quid pro quo, Agent Starling.. I tell you things, you tell me things.

GN:....Can you live without plants? Do you have to work/slave away to keep them growing so that you can eat and if not how would/could you survive without them if you could not buy plant products from the gasoline in your transport to the socks on your feet?

But PLANTS OUR MASTERS can easily survive and thrive without you or any human ever having anything at all to do with them

 

[BadTicket]

Well, you got me there man. No life on this planet would be possible without plants in the long run. Sure you could survive on canned food in a millennium bunker for a while, but without greens.. Then again, if Kevin Costner can build a pee recycler in a world that's 99% water, and Matt Damon can grow taters on Mars, AND most capitalists can survive only by eating cash money.. There's gotta be alternatives, we just have it so good with the plants now that we haven't had to think of other solutions to keep this humanity going on for another few thousand years! That being said, I still don't consider myself a slave dealing with the greens

And yea, I'm high!

 

[Coughie]

There was a time when man survived without agriculture... And there are still peoples that could survive without modern commodities, while also living a life that is very much removed from interactions with plants - the Inuits come to mind, who usually only have access to plants during the summer months but are/were forced to rely on hunting as a primary food source for a very long time. These peoples are not the majority, but the lifestyle is possible, and they are a happy people.

The symbiosis is real, but to think that its between humans and plants is to assign that same god-like mentality to our own species, that we have such a complex with in the rest of life. The symbiosis is between Cellular Respiration and Photosynthesis.

It's not an accident that the products from one process are the reactants in the other cycle. It is, however, an example of the natural world being Perfect. The exchange back-and-forth is perfect, molecule for molecule. It can not be improved. It's a beautiful thing.

And Natural Selection works both ways, so I'm not sure that it is fair to say we are slaves to the plants any more than they are slaves to us. There are plants that depend on animals, humans, what-have-you... Berries for example, the Rubus Genus, needs to be digested before the seeds will germinate. This was a natural selection method that took place over many generations, favoring the plants that produced harder seed coats, so that the seed survived digestion - by a bird, bear, etc - to then successfully grow when deposited in a new location, presumably far away from the originating plant. These plants have evolved so far into this method, that they have horrible germination rates when it is attempted prior to exposure of something like the acids found in the gut.

Just some things to think about for now... If the topic turns from humans & plants -- to --> animals & plants, the whole conversation would become more profound in a different manner.