Final-Fan said: 1. It depends on how you define intelligence. |
1.If the very definition is a stumbling block, it's pretty hard to argue that plant "intelligence" is a fact.
2. The overwhelming majority are. The one's that aren't (like carnivorous plants) are a negligible number, that don't really change anything.
3. Kasz is the one who entertains that ideea (he even admitted it), not myself. What I was saying was that throughout history there have been several single species located at the top of the food chain (so in that regard humans aren't special). Even if humans are "special" (with all the connotations this word has), it doesn't make them more valuable in the echosystem than other lifeforms.
4. You are extending the field with irrelevancies. The food chain reffers strictly to animals and their sources of food. Domesticated animals did not come to be by natural means. They are not adapted to live in nature, but left uncared they'd either adapt, or they'd die (that's the way nature works). Not to mention that the relationship between man and domesticated plants/animals is not one of interdependence and the number of domesticated creatures is just a small portion of Earth's ecosystem, while the entire ecosystem depends on plants to survive.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)