Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.
If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.
There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that’s all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.
Actually, with what we know of plants, we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do in fact possess the potential capacity to suffer in as much capacity that animals do, just in ways that would be entirely alien to us due to how different a plant’s experience of reality is compared to an animal’s. Yet, just because their experience is alien to us doesn’t mean they do not have those experiences and the evidence suggests that they do have them.
Plants have complex sensory systems that allow them to communicate, learn, remember, and respond dynamically to external stimuli. They have been found to exhibit Pavlovian responses and collectively manage resources between each other through their root structures and mycorrhizal network.
I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It’s once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.
I have an open mind, but I’m only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.
If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.
These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.
I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.
That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.
Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.
Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.
If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.
There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that’s all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.
Actually, with what we know of plants, we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do in fact possess the potential capacity to suffer in as much capacity that animals do, just in ways that would be entirely alien to us due to how different a plant’s experience of reality is compared to an animal’s. Yet, just because their experience is alien to us doesn’t mean they do not have those experiences and the evidence suggests that they do have them.
Plants have complex sensory systems that allow them to communicate, learn, remember, and respond dynamically to external stimuli. They have been found to exhibit Pavlovian responses and collectively manage resources between each other through their root structures and mycorrhizal network.
https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly
https://regenerationinternational.org/2025/04/20/plant-sentience-changes-everything/
I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It’s once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.
I have an open mind, but I’m only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.
If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.
These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.
Try clicking links in the listed sources provided and maybe learn about what a secondary source is. Secondary sources ARE credible sources.
I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.
That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.
Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.