How did the control trees know to produce more of this chemical? The study authors concluded that the trees might be communicating with each other via pheromones. Other nay-sayers suggested that the trees didn't communicate at all, but that all were infected by a virus carried by the caterpillars, and were simply reacting to that infection.
I have a mixed view of work like this. On one hand, it's a step forward in viewing the world around us as a complex web of intermingling factors, many of which we don't fully understand.
On the other, the conclusions reported in the article are to me a screaming sign of how let down we've been by science. The article author writes:
as Professor Rhoades points out, if trees really do "talk" to each other, we may have to reassess our view that trees are totally inanimate.Okay. Now, even if you don't believe that it's possible to have complex energy exchanges with trees, or that they have a kind of intelligence, the idea that trees are "totally inanimate" should probably ring some alarm bells. Trees are anything but inanimate. They grow, for one thing. But they also move - you could even say they dance, as any of the multiple time lapse videos of trees on YouTube and other sites will attest.
I tend to think we're seeing trees more at face value when we approach them intuitively - like we do when we walk among them - or artistically - like we do when we make art like this time lapse. At the same time, our "objective" scientific training has led us to shut out what we feel and intuit from trees.
No comments:
Post a Comment