aussiebloke wrote:
Plants aren't sentient, never have been never will be unless some crazy scientist gets some crazy ideas .
Plants have to be eaten for survival (unlike animals)
Heard that argument before, and it's wrong (it's philosophy, not science). Plants respond to external stimuli. Set them in fire and they die; what does that sound like? Sentient is that lovely thing that means you feel pleasure or pain (two nice little goal posts); plants have been shown to respond to both, even if they don't "feel" it by communicating it. Give them water and they grow, don't give them water and they die; you feel pleasure when you eat food, you feel pain when you starve, and the only reason people know you feel this is because you can communicate it (I like to think dying is a pretty good form of communication though).
Thought experiment: if a severely autistic child doesn't respond to pain at all and doesn't show outward pleasure, does this mean he or she isn't sentient?
Don't you love philosophy?
If there's no plants around (that contain the required amount of nutrients), you won't survive on just them alone. It's rare to find them all in a similar location in the wild.
rabbitears,
You mistake my mockery for all things stupid as jealousy. I care, as you said, and I care because it's stupid. O, I know all about why people find "beauty" appealing; this doesn't mean it's utterly stupid. My club is the biggest!