Talk:Plant rights

	This Environmentalism 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.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Emotional plants

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. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Swiss law

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.--Bob^{Spring 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? Генгис^{Gum disease} 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.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

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... ^theist 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks 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

... will not become effective until triffids and ents start to inhabit the Earth. 109.153.101.210 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant welfare?

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.5.38.150.213 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)balazs