Are plants really alive?

One of the fundamental distinctions in our mind is that between life and non life. We think nothing of crushing a rock, but think twice before doing the same to, say a sparrow. But what is life?

It turns out that according to the definition of life that we all learnt in biology, a lot of us humans aren’t really alive! Can you believe that? Well, one of the necessary conditions for life (according to our textbooks) is reproduction. Meaning that if an entity cannot reproduce, it’s not alive. Well, what of humans who are sterile – or who choose to not have kids? It’s no good saying that humans as a species can reproduce. Because in a strict sense, each person is a separate species in themselves since the genes are slightly different.

Image Credit: tanakawho

Are plants alive?
Do plants feel pain?

Are plants alive?

In my opinion, plants are not really alive. Well, what does it mean to be alive? I think that plants are essentially robots. They have no choice, and are completely predictable in their actions.

I also know they don’t feel pain – how do I know you ask? Well two reasons. First of all, we know that they have no central nervous system and don’t have the hardware necessary for feeling. It’s like trying to run Linux on the hardware of a toaster. Pain needs certain physical components.

Secondly, pain would never have evolved in plants since it confers no survival advantage. A plant can’t decide to move away when in pain. Pain is useless unless the organism can do something to alleviate it.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean I condone the destruction of plants and trees. Though I know intellectually that plants don’t feel, I still feel somewhat emotionally bonded to such “living” organisms.

What about computer viruses?

Who said that life has to be biological in nature? If we take a computer virus, we find that it can:

  1. Reproduce
  2. Adapt to the environment (it can even mutate)
  3. Defend itself

If normal biological viruses and bacteria are life, then why not computer viruses? What is the essential quality that makes something alive?

The real way to define life

I feel that the only consistent way to define life is via consciousness. Though it’s extremely hard to define and even more difficult to detect for an outsider (perhaps impossible), consciousness exists beyond a doubt. Decartes “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) cuts to the heart of the question. By my definition, the following entities are not alive:

  1. Plants
  2. Biological Viruses
  3. Computer Viruses

Even a little bit of consciousness is enough to make something alive. Everything else is just robotic in nature. Of course, one can expand on this and define life by saying that living things have choice. But it’s my belief that we’re all robots in the sense that choice is an illusion. The only real difference between us and a fridge is that we know we exist and a fridge does not.

What’s your opinion of what life is?

[poll id=”9″]

What do you think of this post?
  • You're an asshole (6)
  • Agree (4)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (3)

10 thoughts on “Are plants really alive?”

  1. I agree that my view of looking at life is somewhat different – but I have my reasons as I pointed out…

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-4505">
    the plasticgraduate :
    I think by “life” you refer to a collective of living things, (i.e. the human race, dinosaurs, plankton) and not an individual.

    No, I'm actually talking about individuals here. Like I said, in a technical sense I believe that each organism is a separate "race" in and of itself so the distinction between a race and an individual is moot – they're the same thing.

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-4505">
    the plasticgraduate :
    There are humans who lack consciousness but are certainly alive. The severely handicapped. The comatose. Those who are in a vegetative state. I have no more reason to believe that they are conscious than a sponge or a carrot is, yet, I believe all are alive.

    We'll just have to disagree here. I actually don't believe that comatose people are alive. As I pointed out, I believe that all creatures (including humans) are actually machines with the only difference being consciousness. If that's missing, then they're as good as a fridge.

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-4505">
    the plasticgraduate :
    No, I would go for a more scientific explanation, carbon and water-based definition of life, a reproductive organism (though not individually so), has DNA that is passed to its offspring and made of cells.

    The problem with talking about things like DNA and carbon is that they're arbitrary and are earth specific. I'd like to have a definition of life that isn't restricted to earth. There's no reason for carbon based life forms to be the only type of life.

    Already there are problems with DNA on earth itself. Lots of viruses use RNA replication instead – do you feel they're alive?

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-4505">
    the plasticgraduate :
    p.s. The choices in the poll are skewed so I’m abstaining.

    I aim to please :) – let me know how the choices are skewed and I'll be sure to make it more fair.

    Reply

  2. C’mon, Bhagwad. My studies are not in logic, but even I can tell, you’ve made Descartes shed a few tears here.

    You have compelled me to put away my mask for a few moments and be semi-serious. I promise, this won’t happen frequently…

    Bhagwad writes:
    “Well, one of the necessary conditions for life (according to our textbooks) is reproduction.”

    I think by “life” you refer to a collective of living things, (i.e. the human race, dinosaurs, plankton) and not an individual.

    If cats cannot reproduce, then the conditions for feline life to exist will cease. It doesn’t matter what an individual cat can or cannot do.

    As far as pain –> read Peter Singer. That’s how you can justify eating plants vs. animals. Plants (apparently) feel no pain.

    Life? Consciousness poses problems. And, I think, Singer would also point this out. There are humans who lack consciousness but are certainly alive. The severely handicapped. The comatose. Those who are in a vegetative state. I have no more reason to believe that they are conscious than a sponge or a carrot is, yet, I believe all are alive.

    No, I would go for a more scientific explanation, carbon and water-based definition of life, a reproductive organism (though not individually so), has DNA that is passed to its offspring and made of cells.

    -cheers,
    the pg

    p.s. The choices in the poll are skewed so I’m abstaining.

    Reply

  3. bhagwad :
    The problem with talking about things like DNA and carbon is that they’re arbitrary and are earth specific. I’d like to have a definition of life that isn’t restricted to earth. There’s no reason for carbon based life forms to be the only type of life.

    Arbitrary? Earth-specific?

    I can always re-evaluate my definition when the cylons arrive.

    Until then, I prefer to see life in trees and comatose humans over the possible existence of a non-carbon based alien life-form.

    I’m beginning to suspect you’re just being polemical. ;-)

    BTW. I also vote for the plants being alive but not mechanical in the poll.

    Reply

  4. just wish to examine 3 points.

    Imagine that we are at a vantage point looking down upon earth and human activity ( say atop a sky scraper ). what would be obeserved ? human beings scurrying around like ants. we would not know their motives, thought processes, perceptions, emotions, concepts, memories, capabilities to think abstractly or whether they are capable of being grounded in a deeper sense of consciousness apart from the consciousness related to those already mentioned. similarly, are we in any position to conclude that plants and other life forms are devoid of similar faculties ? unless we became one of them, we would never know.

    secondly, sometimes we get into life situations where we experience pain, physical and mental, but cannot move out of that pain ( like intractable pain from cancer or compressed nerves etc not to mention emotional pain ). so the point that pain is experienced only by life forms who can move away from it, does not hold very well.

    thirdly, every cell that life forms are made up of has the capability to reproduce. our bodies are just a collection of millions of ‘ live ‘ cells ( including billions of bacteria that live in and on ‘ us ‘ ) thats all that the body is. life seems to mean that cells have the potential to synthesize and store energy so that they can perform certain functions that non ‘ living ‘ things are incapable of.

    Reply

  5. plants and other life forms do not have to have a sensory system like the one we have to perceive. they respond to infra red, microwaves, magnetic fields and a zillion other stimuli that we humans do not respond to ( or we unknowingly do, but havent quite put our finger on yet ).

    as i see it, consciousness just is. it is the software. creation ( non living and living ) is the hardware. it all depends on the type of hardware availabe for consciousness to be known at all the different levels.

    its like we are in a maze on the surface of earth. entangled in the maze, we run hither thither, sometimes looking for a way out. sometimes we look up – to an unseen power that we intuitivly know exists, for help, till that power appears in the form of a human being who is settled in that power, and says ' just go down, below. concentrate deep into your core and settle there. there is no maze there and so are always free . that is pure consciousness . the consciousness that is not of ' this and that '

    Reply

  6. personally i would define life as anything that ORGANIC and survive in the physical realm and have the following properties:

    1. have the capability to Reproduce
    2. Adapt to the environment (it can even mutate)
    3. Defend itself
    4. Grow (transition between different stages of LIFE)
    5. life is NOT immortal. (Robots can extend their lives indefinitely by changing their power sources, replacing worn parts. Living organisms cannot do that. there is only a FINITE number of times the cells can divide)

    computer viruses can
    1. Reproduce
    2. Adapt to the environment (it can even mutate)
    3. Defend itself

    but it is not life because it is nothing but bits of code. it is not comprised of any organic building blocks eg. RNA/DNA.

    computer viruses cannot exist in the physical realm. they only survive in cyberspace

    plants, viruses are both life because they
    1. have the capability to Reproduce
    2. Adapt to the environment (it can even mutate)
    3. Defend itself
    4. Grow (transition between different stages of life)
    5. They can die

    life doesnt need consciousness for it to be classified as life. consciousness is just a genetic trait carried by evolution.

    Reply

  7. @Nick
    But why the bias towards organic life? Meaning – is there anything fundamental in the universe that prevents inorganic materials from forming the basis of life?

    For me, life without consciousness is a meaningless classification. No point calling it alive – since it is only conscious life forms towards which we experience things like empathy.

    So I don’t mind cutting a rock in half since it’s neither alive nor has consciousness. I don’t mind cutting a plant in half since though it is technically life, it has no consciousness and feels no pain. But I wouldn’t like to cut an animal in half since it has consciousness.

    Reply

    • In reply to bhagwad

      Consciousness is obviously not just a trait carried through evolution. If that were the case it had to have had an origin. Therefore by default.. you believe in GOD and basically GENESIS 1:1. And if that is the case… it wasn’t evolution at all.. but skillful design. I’d run to the Bible on these matters and see what it says. I bet you’ll find your answers.

      Reply

Leave a Comment