Something I've always wondered.

Maybe I should try Yahoo Answers.

Likely. They are almost entirely dead on the inside, so it would follow.

I just realized I can make a logical contradiction if I vote yes to the third and fourth options, but no to the fifth.

FYI in case anybody is wondering about poll option #3, I am ABSOLUTELY JOKING

That's interesting. Is the bark alive? Because one time a guy yelled at me for hurting a tree, but if the bark was actually already dead, he was wrong to chide me.

There are animals that can only 'see' using cell clusters or primitive structures on their skin, although they can't see anywhere near as well as most mammals can. I'd say that if you consider those animals to have sight, then trees have sight too - they are stimulated by light sources, some can move in response the position of the light source, and many are even sensitive to multiple colors of light. However, they wouldn't legally be allowed to drive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_cambium

Most outer bark is generally dead on trees but you can pretty easily get to meristematic tissue of some sort so it's kind of mean to **** with without a purpose. But bark also includes different tissues depending on where you are from and some trees are set up slightly differently.

That reminds me of the animal (plant?) rights activist who used the fact that some plants let out a high pitched sound when they need water. He said that the plants were screaming.

It was scouts, so I was either flagrantly being un-scoutly by pretending to chop the thing down with a rusty tool I found in the woods, or (in my mind), I was imitating a frontiersman of some sort.

you done ****ed up son

I honestly cant remember a time in Boy Scouts when we weren't chopping up the bodies of trees and feeding them to fires. Do you remember that one time a tree wandered into that bear trap we set? I'll never forget the look on its face when we stripped off its bark with a machete and forced its children to watch as we extracted and pulped its heartwood for our tea.

I think I still have that merit badge somewhere.

Trees are just differently-abled. Just because they lack eyes, does not mean you can assume they don't see.

Indeed, but we were doing it with hearts full of malice, fully aware of the pain and horror we were causing in order to fuel our dark sacrifices. Whereas Jonesie was a ****boy without a clue

Basically yes and the only bit of the plant that's alive, this is why ring-barking kills trees.

That's quite interesting! I think trees are a pretty cool design, it was a good idea to reuse the old organic matter for its core structure even after it's dead. Maybe that's what bones are in animals, (although bones are definitely alive).

Plants are pretty cool in general. Studies are showing that flowers use electrical signals to communicate with bees, advertising when they have nectar and when they don't. Trees also compete for water and sunlight with other trees by either secreting fluids from their roots that are toxic to a neighboring tree's roots, or by growing branches to block sunlight from neighboring trees. They may be blind in that they cannot distinguish the color of your shirt, but judging by the behavior or trees they have a broad range of awareness we haven't even begun to comprehend. Otherwise how does a tree know that by encasing its seeds in a delicious bundle allows them to be eaten and defecated elsewhere. I mean, trees don't poop, but they really take advantage of other creatures pooping and have been doing it for a long time.

In a world...

lol, why do you think they have to know about it for it to work.

Why is it so far fetched that plants use strategy to procreate? Based on certain environments plants have evolved to appeal to localized pollinators by smelling like crap, there are a lot of evolutionary theories, the one I don't buy is that evolution is a roulette wheel of random biological changes that either enhance the species or cripples it until it goes extinct. I'm in more of the belief that environment forces adaptation, and a plant knowing to mimic the scent of rotting meat, or feces would lead me to believe something in the plants biology can identify those things as appealing to mobile creatures that can be potential carriers for pollen/seeds.

In conjunction with that basis of symbiotic procreation it is most advantageous for a tree to have a bird or beast consume its fruit to remove the seeds far from the soil the tree is occupying so it wont have to compete with future offspring. Something in the trees evolutionary biology knows that somehow this works, which is why it still procreates this way after eons.

It still procreates that way after eons because that is what works the best. Not because that is what works the best, and the tree realizes this on some level, so continues to do it instead of some other arbitrary thing that it could, it seems like you're saying, choose to do?

Ya well all the stuff we do is the same **** choice is an illusion might as well smoke weed every day man

NARF

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

Can you provide or cite a theory for what physical mechanism permits this decision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2V_zyNJr4

theres a joe rogan podcast where it gets explained bro lemme find it for you

Plants may be intelligent, but can they give consent?

Has mankind raped mother earth?

Do most of you (Americans) say fungi like "fun-zhai" or is it just that guy? What the hell man.

we say it like 'fun guy'

There are a handful of different pronunciations all of which are probably pretty correct. Most burgery boys do, indeed, say fun guy.

Foon-g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBM2iGXrshU

[Unable to find specified attachment]

Now that I think about it, a page consisting of DXN's Massassi references only could be twice as long as that one I just linked to... ... maybe.

Or just a list of even more Massassians who voiceacted for it:
https://vimeo.com/nikumubeki/motel

How do you think nietzsche pronounced it

How do you think most of the world pronounces Pinus? *s*******