Talk:Plant rights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



The four "studies" listed in Central Arguments are not studies. The first one (Michigan State Uni) is a joke article. It may have once been an actual study, but a link to the published study is required if there ever was one. The second one (Helvetica Institute) is attributed to a person that doesn't seem to exist, and is not a study but rather a one liner from a maybe-existant person from an organization that doesn't seem to exist. Baylor medical center has never published a study about plants feeling pain and the link goes to a music sales website. The last one - Malcolm Wilkins - "said" some things, but has no study listed to back it up. The link is to a scanned article that suggests that Wilkins had a theory...


I am surprised to see this page is labeled as "fun". The article is not a parody article, Plant Liberation Front is a real organization. You may have confusion because it is a less heard concept than animal rights, but still it does exist and form a social movement. If you don't like the concept, you are free to criticize it, but the word "Fun" at the beginning of the title is not funny. --PLF (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's loony and therefore is Fun. If, as would seem, they take themselves seriously then they're also loony and therefore fun. This is a personal opinion and not necessarily that of RationalWiki. 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
So what are your saying? A full coverage in the Weekly Standard is not enough? A government declaring plant rights is not enough? Right now it is a fringe concept (in the sense it is held by a minority people), but tomorrow it may grow larger, but dismissing it as fun will only weaken your counter-argumentation. --PLF (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I couldn't give a damn. if loonies want to be in our mainspace then they can be, but it's so ludicrous that it simply has to be a wind up. Publicity does not a product make. 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
However crackpot it may sound, when a government has declared plants have rights [1], then this concept should be taken seriously. If you want to criticize it, criticize it seriously and provide valid and logical counter-arguments. --PLF (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Drive-by has a bit of a point... maybe reconvert it to mainspace and add the batshit insane template? Blue Talk 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
this concept should be taken seriously Coffee spray.gif Blue Talk 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
<Pedantry Corner> A site that has a mis-spelling in the second para on it's front page loses any credibility. 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Anyway, just for the sake of your knowledge, Wikipedia recently added an article about Plant rights. So you guys decide. --PLF (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with PLF. A lot of woo is weird to the point of being laughable - but we don't put it in fun for that reason. We could always add a note saying that it could be a Poe.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This article seems like a joke to me, if this is going to be a mainspace article it needs to be more critical. Much, much more critical.. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a Poe. And yes, it does. Blue Talk 21:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Parts are parody. But the subject itself is not. Blue Talk 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok nice, I will try to add some information. It will be your job guys to add criticism. --PLF (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually we are more likely to add to the article. But thanks for telling us our job. --BobSpring is sprung! 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ho Ho! Just found out that the Discovery Institute was behind the Weekly Standard article! The plot thickens. I've added it to the intro.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Emotional plants[edit]

I remember a chapter in some "PSI" book that I read back in the 70s about boiling shrimps alive and seeing how plants responded. I don't have access to it at the moment but a Google search turned up this article which seems to describe it. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 10:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Swiss law[edit]

I've been trying to get back to an original source for the alleged "Swiss law" on the treatment of plants, and I'm becoming convinced that it's a simple exaggeration. If anywhere it should be somewhere here but I can find no new law. This discussion document exists - but that's not the same a a law.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this be the same Switzerland that once put a pondload of leeches on trial? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the WSJ it is an ammendment to an older law that has been given a broader interpretation. My foreign language skills aren't up to trying to find original sources for it. Why not ask one of our German/French speakers? Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've linked to an English version of the Swiss constitution in the article and here and I can't seem to find the report implemented. I think it's just sensationalist reporting. And then others copying what others and written. I've been taking some of the more outrageous stuff out of the article.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


A Google search for plant rights ranks the RationalWiki article #2, ahead of Wikipedia which is listed #3. --PLF (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Plantbake is going well with a certain search engine beginning with G... Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe plants should be harmed. Plants ARE, in fact, gentle souls, and they do feel pain. I think we should be careful with plants; that we should care for plants. Plant life is not inferior or too insignificant to consider just because plants are too innocent to struggle and make sounds. I don't see how "plant rights" could be an honest parody of vegetarianism because you CAN eat the fruits produced by plants, without harming the actual plant. Being a vegetarian therefore doesn't cause suffering to plants. Eating the fruit helps the seeds to disperse and causes plants to reproduce. Also, fruits eventually rot if they're not consumed, which could possibly cause harm to the plants. The problem is when the plants themselves are harmed or killed. Bumpy Toad (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are a gentle soul, but slightly misguided here. Do roses have the capacity to care when we cut them off from their roots for use on Valentines day? Does grass have the capacity to care when we mow our lawns? Probably not. Nullahnung (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The assertion that plants "do feel pain" sounds more like wishful anthropomorphism than anything observable in plant anatomy or behaviour. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere about some sensitive mimosas which were being deliberately repeatedly dropped in their pots as a scientific experiment. On the first few occasions they closed their little leaves in shock - but eventually they stopped doing so.

Plant rights[edit]

... will not become effective until triffids and ents start to inhabit the Earth. (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant welfare?[edit]

Could there be an equivalent of Animal welfare? I mean the concept that plants could be killed for food, and used in scientific testing, but in as humane way as possible, without causing unnecessary harm or pain. Of course, it would be hard to determine if and when they feel pain. (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)balazs