I like plants, I even think buckthorn is attractive in its singular form, but in numbers its invasive nature becomes maniacal, killing other lower story plants, the female plant spreads its seeds by birds that ingest the laxative laden berries. Soon a thicket worthy of a nightmares appears. So I kill it. I've become quite good at it, however buckthorn is worthy adversary.
Why I mention this is that more than once they have tried to kill me. No hallucinogens or shamans need convince me of the buckthorn's intent. Once while high on a hill spraying Garlon 4 (a herbicide) on a nursery of young foot high buckthorn I walked, head bowed, into the thickest heart of a tangled buckthorn bramble...light and sound there muted, the air leaden, the earth close, the outside world suddenly distant. It was there I froze, as my gaze rose to behold the queen of the buckthorn, her saplings like a thousand suppliants, radiant around her. My mind now screaming as I backed away.
A year and a half later on that same hill I had cut a tangle of two 12 foot saplings, I could not for the life of me pull them apart, their dying tenacity consumed, then caused me slip, loose my balance, and fall. The break was bad...tendons all ripped, through fear of shock my foot held high as I slid on my butt down the hill to the cabin road. I crawled a third of a mile on gravel driveway to get away from those silent killers. Weep not for those plants of woe...or me, cause I'm back...with my chainsaw.
141
Thanks to the artist too!
37
Challenging ideas, but not impossible. Remember that the idea of microscopic germs were once thought crazy as well. Since the tool for seeing them did not exist and they could not be seen the idea was considered absurd. Maybe we just haven’t invented the right tools yet...it’s definitely possible.
123
“Oh no!” Now I feel bad for weeding!
25
I look forward to hearing more of Monica's research. We never stop learning.
58
The author writes a fascinating article but was it really necessary to include the line: "...unpopular modern stereotype--the personal-growth-obsessed wellness devotee, dreamily trailing sage in circles around her unvaccinated children"?? And then talking about desperate parents of autistic kids?
Why not point readers to actual scientific research of plants via greenmedinfo dot com? Thousands of worldwide studies without the pro-big pharma snark.
34
@lechrist You think vaccinating your kids is being "pro-big pharma"?
37
@Wm. Blake-- not biting. Take control of your health and kids' health by giving informed consent only after researching ingredients in meds/shots and food and taking responsibility for health decisions. Mercola dot com and greenmedinfo dot com often write about plants which can be helpful, going back to the article's focus.
18
@lechrist I loved that sentence! You sound a bit defensive.
13
I am very impressed by two things.
One is that I know how risky it is for a scientist to approach this frontier, must less speak out boldly about it. Careers get killed this way. You have my admiration for being out on the pointy end of the spear of science.
The second is how you respect and honor the traditional, introspective methodologies. So often scientists will (re)discover known wisdom and act as they were the first, like Columbus "discovering" America. In my experience, the partnering of the two approaches, as you have done, provides something more profound than either in isolation.
168
I wonder if you all are aware of the fol: 'from Wiki'
(J.C)Bose subsequently made a number of pioneering discoveries in plant physiology. He used his own invention, the crescograph, to measure plant response to various stimuli, and thereby scientifically proved parallelism between animal and plant tissues. Although Bose filed for a patent for one of his inventions because of peer pressure, his objections to any form of patenting was well known. To facilitate his research, he constructed automatic recorders capable of registering extremely slight movements; these instruments produced some striking results, such as quivering of injured plants, which Bose interpreted as a power of feeling in plants. His books include Response in the Living and Non-Living (1902) and The Nervous Mechanism of Plants (1926).
48
I'm a believer, too. Have you ever noticed, at home, that when you, gently, touch a leaf or a plant stem, they tend to grow better and healthier?
I remember that, before I gave up meat, I had begun apologizing to the Pig or Cow, whose parts I was about to consume (Hey, I'm 76-Y-O, I've eaten enough meat to satisfy anyone's appetite). When I realized that I was feeling guilt, which I had begun to experience, I just quit.
In 1968, I read an article in a magazine, the name, of which, I can't remember. It was written by an FBI agent, who, as a lark (I guess), had hooked up a polygraph device to a house plant. He noticed that the plant (I believe was a philodendron) sent out signals, which grew in magnitude , if you held a lighted match close to it. The signal became stronger the closer you brought the match to it..
At that moment I became a believer, afterall. the news was coming from the FBI.
39
I discovered awhile ago that If you put two plants close together but in separate pots they will grow towards each other until they are touching and interconnected. Yes I think they may have feelings.
47
Her work couldn't be more timely. Imagine if we were able to understand the dying words of each of the hundreds of thousands of trees that have died, and will continue to die, in the Amazon's raging fires. I think they would express sorrow for us, not anger.
71
Just remember, if you can't hear the plants it's because they all decided to ignore you.
46
Interesting article, fascinating subject. I wonder why this article is published in the Style section? If the researcher was a man, would it be in the Science? Is life imitating art as I think of Richard Power's The Overstory and the scientist who wasn't taken seriously on her theories of trees having emotions, because she was a woman.
226
@Marie Yes, I thought the same. What a delightful and thought provoking book, alluded to, but not identified in this article. I wonder why.
42
@Marie My thought exactly. Why is this in the Style section? I wanted to read it to my husband and couldn't find it... looking in Science, and it wasn't there. Hey, NYT, get it together and join the modern world! This is about Science.
114
It's a study titled, "Shut up. Shut up and just be. Shut up and just be in Nature."
13
Plants are what rule this world. The first life to recover in Chernobyl was plant life. Imagine that there's a 5 year period when lawns are not mowed. Plant life will take over and the animals will follow.
The collective consciousness of the plant kingdom is powerful. In fact it's not inconceivable that plants have created animals for their propagation and use.
If human kind spent as much time and resources saving and defending plant life, instead of the more glamorous 'humanized' animal kingdom, it would be far more productive and useful....
27
Everything is food for something else. The plants are indeed alive as is the water you drink, nutrients you receive from the air and sun. Haven't we always known this, that the whole world is alive?
We humans are so enamored with our own thoughts and voice that we don't realize communication goes both ways. It's reciprocity, and the exchange is always happening all the time, but gosh we could use a much better flow of it. Not only more giving, more appreciating, more loving, but also more allowing.
53
The word "learning" seems apt to describe the behavior of the Mimosa pudica in Dr. Gagliano's experiment.
In computer science, "machine learning" refers to computing some statistics from some data, then applying these statistics according to an algorithm to process some other data. And while the public and media are (justifiably) enamored with the (incredible) things currently being done with computational statistics in this field, this has much less resemblance to human or animal learning than what plants were shown to do here.
19
Why are we so afraid to open ourselves to possibilities?
Why is our Western culture so quick to mock those who don't share those fears?
I so appreciate all that science has done to explain phenomena around us - our universe, our frailty, the things that will kill us if we don't pay attention.
But why limit ourselves? How can it possibly hurt to listen? That's essentially what this intriguing article is about: Having the humility to open ourselves to "more things in heaven and earth ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy," as Hamlet observed centuries ago, including basics like a flat earth that the sun revolved around. Once, that was as rock-solid as science can get. So were countless beliefs that went from astronomy to medicine to .... climate. And "whether or not we are to blame."
So much for that. Even Shakespeare knew that pride is the quintessential human flaw.
If plant life can teach us anything, let's start with that.
82
I am turning into a rutabaga. The process began three weeks ago, when I noticed tiny green leaves growing out of my ears. I tried cleaning them out with a cotton swab but it didn't help. When tiny rootlets began sprouting on the bottom of my feet, making it difficult to walk, I hobbled over to the clinic to let the medicos have a gander at me.
The doctor told me that people turn into plants all the time, but it's hushed up because of the darn Chinese. I didn't really follow his reasoning, but I decided there was only one way to handle the situation: I would embrace my rutabaganess, not fear it.
I have given up my apartment for a large clay pot that gets plenty of sun on my daughter's patio. She waters me every day and we have pleasant conversations on the weather and the best way to cook beef heart; I always liked it fried with lots of onions, but she uses it to make beef stew. Somehow, that seems like cheating.
I actually don't eat meat anymore -- or anything else, for that matter. I get all the nutrition I need from sunlight and from minerals in the soil. Miracle-Gro is really delicious!
And I have started dialogues with the sunflowers and sumac bushes in my daughter's yard. Their language is deep and mysterious, full of ambiguity and brazen inconsequence. It's never been written down, that I know of, and so they often speak of past deeds and like to repeat long convoluted genealogies by rote that frankly bore me to tears.
107
@tim torkildson
Brilliant!
12
@tim torkildson I hope this is the beginning of a novel. I want to know what's next for the rutabaga that is you.
34
The Gaia Hypothesis, On Walden Pond, The Lorax, Leaves of Grass, The Language of Trees, and many more are opportunities for further reading (procured from a local bookstore of course).
A bit of sad new to report if you missed it: The Lorax Tree (Monterey Cypress) that inspired Theodor Seuss Geisel, broke apart and fell several weeks ago in a park in La Jolla, CA. A new Lorax Tree will be planted, the wood from the old tree may be carved into a bench from which one could watch the new tree grow.
51
Thanks for this article. Admittedly, I’m a plant lover, lover of nature. Believe we are all connected and we are experiencing deep despair because of the Climate Emergency.
My plants both houseplants and my garden speak to me, not in the human way, but in a deeply spiritual sense. Out in the garden, in the forest, out in nature we are all at our bests! Read an article about the benefits of a daily walk in the woods or your local park among the grass and trees. I’m grateful to have a garden to tend and houseplants in our home, that’s life giving to our family, friends and I.
Who knows Dr. Gagliano may one day be proven correct! Many of us, “plant people” intuitively know our plants sense us, just as we sense them and their needs. Speaking to plants is not new, humans have connected with living organisms since the beginning of time!
Godspeed Dr. Gagliano!
75
They say "hey, see all those mean invasives? Pull them up and burn them". Also they say to me, "we housed you up in our limbs, we fed you our fruit, now get to work 'cause we're running this show".
13
If plants are sentient beings, perhaps it is not proper to eat them.
9
@David They just become part of us & live on in that way.
11
Whatever will vegans do if this is true?
19
@Aaron Adams They will find something else to be self-righteous and annoying about!
30
What I want to know.... is having salad a form of murder? Thank goodness Science is leading us out of this ethical dilemma through meat and veggies grown in a tube....
5
@Brian Thomas if in vitro fertilization results in a human child ... then lab grown meats and veggies are still ... maybe ethical dilemmas will lead mankind to develop flavored nutritious water ... oh, sorry that's already Diet Coke and Coke Zero and Pepsi Max
2
Anyone who thinks plants don't speak has never walked into a forest, sat down, shut up, and listened. They create the singing, not the wind. They create the ordered yet wild silence, not the air. They are the ancient passage of time that waits in hidden rings.
Intelligence? Even the rocks have stories.
289
@Robert Amen!
29
My gosh!
Are we going to be told that green salads are murder, now?
4
I'm channeling, Teachings of Don Juan, Yaqui way of Knowledge by Carlos Castaneda 1968......also from Berkeley
11
There are too many self indulgent kooks in the world now. This article was ridiculous, and I kept reading hoping that I'd find some shred of scientific insight, but got very little except a few vague references to plants being able to respond to their environment --- ok, great, but that is a far cry from consciousness or communication. People who claim otherwise are just plain mental.
22
@SHAWN Davis Research and learn from thousands of scientific studies which are plant-based medicine, not patented drugs: greenmedinfo dot com.
4
@SHAWN Davis Please define learning and consciousness.
12
Among the bristlecones - the oldest living individual trees on Earth...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bregalis/25339868029/in/dateposted/
5
This is not science, but woo. Plenty of “credentialed” folks through the ages have pedaled snake oil. This is one more case. Why this publication gives it any space can only be explained by the need to sell papers. The gullible populace obviously laps it up. This publication once more subtracting from the collective intelligence of the universe.
26
@Dr R Read The Overstory, just as a romp.
2
Are plants incredibly important? Yes.
Do they have thoughts, feelings, understanding? No
It’s science. Sometimes the left accuses the right of being anti-science. This is the left choosing what they would like to believe over science.
14
@Bk2 You think this is a left-versus-right issue? That’s hilarious.
28
@Bk2 There is so much non-scientific and even anti-scientific nonsense from every political persuasion. We may agree that this kind of magical thinking doesn't help convince anyone about enlightened science policy or effective investments in improving our environment.
5
@Bk2 I don't know if they have "thoughts, feelings, understanding", but they certainly have been proven to be able to communicate with each other regarding changes and threats in their environment, and have demonstrated "learning";behavioral changes in response to changes in their environments. That is what this article was about.
18
¶ While Dr. Gagliano's work is interesting and some of the core findings could very well be true, the pileup of terms like "intelligent," "communicate," and "summon" here is a fatuous sideshow. If you remove the whimsical terminology, the discussion becomes far more interesting: plants have the ability to sense and communicate far more than most of us assumed. [NEWS AT 11? Hardly.]
¶ Similarly, prairie dogs, birds, and (of course) our fellow primates have rich communications and sophisticated communities entirely without the overlay of human language. (And there's lots interesting to discuss about human and animal communications without such fluffery: see Traxler et al., "What's special about human language" [NIH]).
¶ Reserve the psychedelic speak for entertainment or (if you must) spiritual exploration; science is wonderful enough-- and its wonder more easily communicated-- without them.
30
The Overstory by Richard Powers. I was a convert before reading it. The vast underground network of life here is unknown to us.
28
I've also enjoyed taking drugs and talking to trees; it just never occurred to me to go professional.
I think it's fine to have those experiences and discuss them, but why does it have to be dressed up in pseudoscience? It seems like poetry is a better outlet.
20
Thanks NYT for having the courage to bring us this article (and the ones about the Navy's acceptance of ufo's as real). We can learn so much from what "science" calls unproven or unreproducible. Sometimes there are hazards in being open-minded, but being closed-minded seems much worse.
30
When she can prove it through science, with hard data, I'll listen. Until then, the spiritual side is bonkers.
8
@S Perhaps it is your interpretation that sees it as "spiritual"
4
Anyone who doubts that plants can communicate should read the book, "The Hidden Life of Trees," by Peter Wohlleben. It's fascinating and eye opening, and it's written from a scientific perspective.
21
@Martha Wohlleben anthropomorphizes and in doing so he lessens himself. “The Songs Of Trees” by David George Haskell is better.
5
Would I be far off the mark by postulating that the occurrence of plant whispering happens mainly in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington?!
3
@Steen Native Americans lived here long before there were states and had a much more healthy approach to the natural world.
19
A journalist is quoted in this article as saying: “I think it’s important to separate out what you can prove and what might be true in a more subjective way.” This sentence summarizes the problem with Dr. Gagliano’s ideas, as well as with many other similar pseudo-scientific ramblings that are peddled as science, such as “the Gaia hypothesis”, all of the so-called “alternative medicine”, and a myriad of other uninformed, even if well intentioned, attempts to understand the universe without the benefit of logic, reason and mathematics.
But I digress. There is no such thing as a “subjective truth”. Either something can be proved by reproducible observations, and hence it is true, or it can’t, and hence it is false. The idea that plants are “intelligent”, or that they can “hear” or “feel”, is false.
8
@Ajax You sound alarmingly sure of yourself!
12
Excellent piece. Bravo for the Times.
25
I’m a vegetarian. Now what can I eat?
2
Communicating science to the general public is a great but difficult calling. Trained science reporters do it well. But please, leave the science reporting to those who understand something about science. Stick to human interest stories!
This article mixes human interest with science. The human interest side is fascinating and well written, but in trying to also communicate science, the article fails miserably. The approach is discredited with the first citation. To substantiate the claim that language is not limited to humans, an article in "Meridian Magazine" is cited. Meridian Magazine describes itself as "Latter-day Saint News and Views"; the article's authors are an astronomer and a software developer. Subsequent citations are no better. The 2nd citation (to a NYT article, not to the actual science) distorts the original research finding.
Human interest stories about scientists can be terrific. The subject of this article is clearly an intriguing person, and much of the article is enjoyable. But please, if you do not know how to report on science, do not try. Do not try to review scientific facts in a human interest article. This simply confuses the public and discredits your own reporting.
19
@larry You of course noticed that this piece is in the “style” section and not the “science” section of the paper?
3
@Wm. Blake A reasonable point. This is a great human interest story, and definitely belongs in "style". My complaint is that a portion of the article reads like (poor) science reporting, which at best detracts from the "style" (human interest). However, i do take your point.
3
It is possible that Dr. Galgiano is both fundamentally right that plants can learn and communicate (certainly communication is well-supported in recent science) and have some deeper existence that we don't yet understand AND at the same time is a bit "out there" in terms of incorporating mystical or religious sentiments into her work.
I certainly am very willing to believe there is quite a lot of truth to plant communication, cooperation, and "learning" (however that can be interpreted in the absence of a neurological system). I have my entire life found my deepest sense of security, calmness, purpose, and even faith when in the forest.
That said, when she talks of plants having actual language ('“Oryngham,” she says, means “thank you”') she's veering into the realm of slight absurdity. It's the sort of thing I may have said when I was 7, to be honest, but even then part of my brain would have known I was making it up. The idea that trees have given her experimental designs is likewise far-fetched. It's a shame, because it's certainly within the realm of my experience and understanding that being around plants could give a person the fortitude to pursue a path, the inspiration to investigate a question. This is quite different than suggesting that the plants are directly communicating telepathically via language.
21
A lovely article. This information is not new, of course, to most indigenous cultures. Plant, animal and mineral sensitivities are readily acknowledged in many of those societies.
The West's frequent criticism is this reported sensitivity is 'anthromorphism.' This claim, however, is made from an unacknowledged perspective of 'mechanomorphism,' wherein happenings are viewed from a mechanical paradigm. This is prevalent throughout scientific culture, though the claim has been seriously undermined with quantum physics.
To give an example: it was thought light reflected off a rock, for example, and we see the rock from the bounce of the light particle. In fact, the light particle impacting the rock is absorbed by the rock. It is completely gone. The rock is stimulated to emit a completely different light particle, that we then see. In essence, the rock is actively revealing itself; it is not simply inert.
The world is an unceasing revelation. We can access it in many ways, including the scientific and intuitive. We live within a miracle, and have only to open our minds and hearts to bask in the wonder of it all.
62
@Peter Adair thank you for acknowledging minerals. i've been supplying arkansas rock crystals to stores and individuals for nearly 30 years and cannot fail to notice the stones' reactions to people.
it's not just the amount of energy in the stockrooms which can encourage or stop some in their tracks, it's the ability of some crystals, clusters, rough stones to 'go invisible' and remove themselves from customers' choices.
24
Intelligence is a continuum. Can we draw a line and say things on this side of the line are intelligent and those on the other side are not? Of course not. Intelligence and learning extends from molecules and cells to plants, animals and others, and on to communities such as bees, ants, book clubs and Mother Trees.
I have been in computing since the 1960s, when we changed from calculating numbers to parsing words and grammars, which made me realize:
Like fish in the ocean,
we swim in a vast sea of information.
Like fish discovering water,
only now are we becoming aware of this sea.
That awareness is called consciousness.
It will carry us deep into the waters of thought itself.
Soon we will meet intelligence beyond our own.
But it will come, not from the stars,
It will come from us.
See also: SentimentalStargazer.com
19
Of course, plants do not just germinate and grow. They must interact with and respond to their environment if they are to survive. Whether it is tropisms to gravity, light, temperature or predators, they emit chemicals that attract or repel animals and other plants.
I would be careful about over-anthropomorphizing plants. That said, all life is miraculous.
25
All paradigm shifts in science are deeply unsettling to the status quo establishment.
Keep listening to the plants, Dr Galgiano.
And keep doing good hard empirical research. We need more open-minded scientists.
PS. When I need some wisdom, I often sit with oak trees. They never fail to provide good advice and solace.
61
I would recommend Dr. Kimmerer's books for anyone interested in reading further. She is a Biologist who brings Native American tradition in as well. I particularly enjoyed Gathering Moss.
16
Thanks for the recommendation! I, too am a WA gardener!
4
It's a big universe and worth getting out of the head to listen in. The proof is going to take a while, but the benefits of listening now are immediate and gratifying.
14
Think as far as you can. Drive a stake at that far boundary. Then ask yourself, what's on the other side of the stake. There are those who pursue the question analytically, separating the parts to find what they look like. That's the scientific method. There are also those who pursue the question synthetically. How does it all fit and work together. Often this pursuit is conducted in the laboratories of human culture over long periods of time: religion and philosophy. Would that the analysts and synthesists would converse with one another, rather than holing up in their respective silos. Humanity would benefit.
24
My house is full of plants. We already know they clean the air and exude oxygen. At the risk of sounding like an old hippie (actually Prince Charles does this also), I talk to them. I've learned how to care for them. They demonstrate results of proper care by growing, expanding, blooming. They are living beings and there's no reason we -- plants and humans -- can't live harmoniously, care for each other, and flourish together.
49
Why are scientists so dismissive of her research? Why not continue to use the scientific method and evaluate these claims? In my meditation practice, I have learned to recognize that we are interconnected with all life more than we think. We do not live without plants, or the sun, or the rain. The more we appreciate our connections, the more we treat each other and all life on our planet with respect.
39
@Sam Newton
They are dismissive of her research because she seems to do very little actual scientific, verifiable research.
Plant communication is not dismissed in scientific circles. There is real research going on about how plants communicate with each other, and how forest ecology works.
"The Hidden Life of Trees" was a best seller in Germany a couple of years ago. He is not derided as a quack because he uses real science and doesn't make specious claims that are conveniently unverifiable about the advice plants communicate to him, like she does.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/12/peter-wohlleben-man-who-believes-trees-talk-to-each-other
26
@Sam Newton Because it's obvious rubbish. They might just as well "evaluate" visions of the Virgin Mary and stories of people communing with Julius Caesar's ghost.
7
Just a few somewhat disparate observations:
My house in Hoboken faces south, which is lovely in that I get so much sunlight inside, but the direct light is tough on my plants outside. Last year I planted a hydrangea in a big planter out there. It struggled to bloom in the summer heat. One day I noticed the beginnings of a flower among the leaves, and was astonished (and moved) when I noticed that an adjacent leaf would bend itself over the bud only during the full heat of day, clearly to provide some shade and protection for it. Explain it as you will; I was awed.
I took a number of hallucinogens when I was young. The only experience I ever had that actually seemed to have meaning, and that I still wonder about over 30 years later, was watching someone's dorm-room plant apparently growing and then un-growing, or receding, over and over. It was beautiful, and I still believe that it MEANT something, although I may never know what.
I have a lot of trouble pulling weeds and pruning around the Japanese Lilac outside my house--especially the vines of the Morning Glories, which seem to know so uncannily how to seek things to wind themselves around. Yes--I silently apologize and explain when I cut or pull. No, I'm not crazy.
I doubt that plants have "words" for things; their intelligence is too sophisticated to rely on those things which are so often used to obfuscate, hurt, lie, and try to explain that which can't be explained. And I'm a poet/writer, so I can say that. :)
91
You are not crazy, millions of us, plant lovers-gardeners agree with you! Enjoy!
21
A pair of trees called the King and Queen communicate with me and have for many years. They like me to sing to them. They popped a voice into my head to bring "that redhead here", an artist friend of mine, because she could see their beauty better than the self-absorbed me. Two days ago they welcomed me into their brotherhood. The pleasure of their acceptance brought tears and deeper connection with them. They recruited me to represent them in the local fight against the unnecessary Atlantic Coast Pipeline that would kill thousands of trees. I produced a show, Dr. Coincidence's Song and Dance Show in which Dr. Coincidence proclaimed: "You can talk with trees, IF YOU BELIEVE!" Dr Gagliano is encouraging all of us to believe. Thanks for publishing her work.
28
I am not a scientist, but you may call me a plant-enthusiast. I have certainly observed deep-seated feelings of peace within myself while actively aware of the presence of various house plants. If we don't expose ourselves to the idea of more clear communication with other living organisms (however that may be), how would we apprehend a possible break-through from limited thinking? I welcome the experience of insight, even if from a plant, and with a willingness rooted in the belief that there is a richness of living there far more subtle, but no less great than the grandest love from one person to another. From what state of mind do you show up to meet life unfolding before your very eyes? Dr. Gagliano, your research has my attention!
22
None of this should surprise the open minded. Many of us have had experiences at the moving, sometimes indistinct boundary between “reality” and “not reality”, between empirical objectivity and subjective belief (yes, even without the use of drugs). Sometimes there just is no bright line, and the boundary may move as we learn and grow through replicable experiment or subjective (yes, perhaps drug-fueled) experience. Nor is there anything inherently anti-science about asking these questions. Researchers like Dr. Gagliano, who work at the boundary, provoke us to explore the distinction. For those of us who believe in science, we await further reproducible evidence from Dr. Gagliano. For others, for example those who describe a religious experience, science will never be the arbiter.
12
I learned in high school from reading Krishnamurti that all living things require our sensitivity and conscious care. No more walking along unconciously breaking branches and smashing seedlings, it made me a much better person. I love plants, I work with seeds professionally and people tell me I have a green thumb. I always want to say, no, you just have to listen to the plants, they tell you what they need. To be awed by nature is more than a gift, it is a necessity. Botany is the seat of everything we know about biology, it isn't just a science, it's a spiritual tool for human growth.
112
I read the Secret Life of Plants back in the 70s, and while I was skeptical, I saw no harm in believing it to be true. As a result, I have always respected plant life in much the same way as I do animal life. After all, why presume otherwise.
91
Thank you for the insightful review of this phenomena but you might want to look even further into the esoteric, occult and Gaian mystical aspects of this studies implications as well. Some Rosecrusian influenced books such as the 'Secret Lives of Plants' and the 'Secret Lives of Soil' profess such communication and cognitive capabilities on the part of vegetation. It seems this new study has firmer footing in verifiable scientific methods then the questionable EEG data professed by Thompkins et al, but new data will likely be attributed to pseudo science before the sun sets on a new news cycle.
I applaud the efforts but remain skeptical that enough of the wise minded will connect the dots and support such efforts and research without small minded prejudice squashing it.
9
Our dear home, Earth, is in crisis. It makes sense to me that those closest to the soil, plants, are crying out...increasing the volume so that we mere mortals can at last hear. Science and spirituality are coming ever closer. They must or we the people will be gone soon.
59
Plants do all the work that keeps us alive, breathing and eating. That's not an exaggeration. What do we have to lose by exploring other dimensions of what it means to be alive and coexisting with these generous life forms?
199
One definition of "mysticism" is "vague speculation : a belief without sound basis".
Gagliano's research appears to be based more in mysticism than in science. For example, has any of her reported research findings been reproduced by other scientists?
Seems to me that this is just the latest version of "The Secret Life of Plants" from the 1970's.
20
@Slim Lemon All scientists are trailblazers, thought to be crazy at first. Until their hunches come to be confirmed as true, or somewhat true or not true at all. Yet still, she is bringing awareness to a subject that others will, in time, conduct additional analysis. So, to say this is mysticism or vague speculation.... isn't that where all science begins?
16
@Redd No, most science begins with careful, systematic observations that lead to hypotheses, which are then tested experimentally. The hypotheses are usually modified, even rejected, after careful - and reproducible - experimentation.
What Gagliano is apparently doing is trying to present evidence to support her preconceived beliefs in plant spiritualism and mysticism. Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method. But Gagliano seems to completely dismiss any and all criticism of her research. Remember the "I Want To Believe" poster in Fox Mulder's office on the TV series "The X Files"? That's Gagliano. Science is NOT forcing nature to conform to your personal beliefs (delusions?).
12
@Slim Lemon If you read more than half the article you would see this very question addressed by Dr. Kimmerer, though perhaps not to your satisfaction.
4
I've definitely had spontaneous satori experiences in which I could sense the life of trees quite clearly. The experiences sometimes lasted days, once even weeks. There is no doubt that there is a way of subjectively experiencing existence and interacting with each other among trees.
Whether you call it "thinking" or "feeling" I think is just semantics. We humans can't help but to anthropomorphize other beings, since we necessarily understand others only from our own perspective. No harm there. It's just a way of trying to grapple with ideas that aren't fully formed and communicate with others around them. Imprecision in that endeavor should not imply that that which is trying to be understood must not be real simply because it isn't already understood.
47
As a flower essence producer and avid gardener, I've been 'listening' to plants for nearly thirty years. This article affirms the depth and range of wisdom I've been able to access when I get quiet, breathe in resonance with the plant or tree I'm focused upon, and open my intuition, instincts and intuition to receive the 'voice' of the particular plant. This process of deep listening to plants in my garden fine-tuned my ability to perceive the deeper story at work in human beings. I often say the plants were the best 'teachers' for how to blossom. In approaching plants for healing, most people adopt a typically allopathic approach: How can the plants heal this or that in my body or emotions? This self-centred approach narrows the potential richness of the dialogue by assuming all of nature is here to serve and support human aspirations.
What this article and other research is calling forth is a much more compelling invitation into a sense of kinship, oneness, and reciprocity. It also requires us to expand our 'language' to include other aspects of our human capacities that are not cultivated in our educational systems or our everyday interactions with other human beings.
The current environmental crisis is summoning these atrophied parts of our psyche into active engagement, not solely for personal growth (though that is a side benefit) but for a much more visceral sense of participation with the totality of creation. Maybe the earth will not be so lonely as a result!
50
Plants, animals, earth, humans. We are all one.
150
@Natalie Kaufman
Absolutely! And may I add to that:
"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together."
~ Chief Seattle
43
It wasn't that long ago that we modern people had the sheer arrogance and audacity to believe that we were the only beings on this planet to have thoughts, emotions, personalities and souls. To not think so meant that one was anthropomorphizing and romanticizing and fraudulently humanizing. If it couldn't be measured, or if the subject of our study didn't speak a human language, their feelings, thoughts, and personalities didn't exist.
We know now that we were wrong, at least when it comes to other non-human animals. So why not plants? They may not be able to design a building, play a game of chess, or vote in the next election, but who is to say that they cannot think and feel, just like other sentient beings? And who is to say that they cannot feel our vibe?
57
@Jackie You are right in calling out the "moderns" on their apparently lost connection with the transcendent nature of plants and trees. To your point, this wonderful article, also calls to mind the old mythologies surrounding the Dryads and Hamadryads--the spirit entities that were thought to inhabit the Earth's trees. I'm surprised the article didn't more specifically mention them, because it would even more firmly connect the good Dr. Gagliano to what the ancients were more seemingly open to experiencing.
12
Thanks Ellie and Thanks Monica,
Those of us who still live where plants and trees not only can thrive but do, ie, Puget Sound, realize that there are more things on heaven and earth that are dreamt of in anyone's philosophy. Monica will surely reap heaps of scorn for 'daring' to make this case, but you don't need a mushroom trip to know which way the plant bends. I think you should interview or at least give Paul Stamits a call. He lives in this neck of the woods and his work on and with Mycelium and fungi generally is extraordinary. We humans need all the help we can get now if we expect to remain, in great numbers as a guest on this planet. As we say in Seattle: "So let us stop talkin' falsely now, the hour's getting late.
69
What a wonderful article.
37
I believe that mostly, she listens to what the mushrooms have to say.
52
Yesterday, my husband and I, were amazed when we noticed our two year old wisteria reached up and held the hand (branch) of our dying weeping plum tree. It was a good reach to the branch, the breeze must have helped.
The day before as we sat resting in our garden, a young hemlock reached down and patted me on the head. We laughed and thought nothing more of that, then when the wisteria twinned around the plum tree branch, we looked at each other speechless for a moment.
Living within the plant world gives us a wonderful, always changing, dimension.
140
@s.whether
Honing our awareness is key.
21
George Bernard Shaw observed that all great truths begin as blasphemies. Science is filled with ‘truths’ that have been discredited (e.g. bleeding patients) and ‘blasphemies’ which have proven true (e.g. the causative role of microorganisms in stomach ulcers). No one knows which truth or blasphemy will be the next to be proven or disproven.
128
So true.
7
@Tom McAllister you've aptly made the case for a diversity of opinions and points of view. The other key feature is testing and data collection with the understanding that we'll go with the best evidence in the end, and adhere to Occam's razor regardless of beliefs.
16
@Tom McAllister
It's always good to see Shaw cited, his wisdom was boundless. But remember, too, his explanation for his strict vegetarianism: "A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses." We might need to re-think that.
9