YouTube
How Plants Think & What It Teaches us about Consciousness | Infinite Now Ch17
What is plant intelligence? What is thought without a brain? Although many will react strongly against the notion of plant consciousness, it does nonetheless remain a profound field of academic enquiry. From Mimosa to mycelial networks, we explore how plants…
Есть ли у растений сознание? Наверно да, но надо приготовиться к тому, что оно другое.
https://youtu.be/uIk-S2zW41U?si=CAe-n3Z9e7bOxm39
https://youtu.be/uIk-S2zW41U?si=CAe-n3Z9e7bOxm39
Сосна Монтерея предпочитает яркий солнечный свет, но не переносит его в полдень. Правила ухода.
Pinterest
Les gouttes de pluie (Raindrops), 2016, Samuel Salcedo
Сады Этрета находятся в Нормандии, на побережье Ла-Манша. Место, где расположены сады, называется Алебастровый берег. Парк разбит на тематические зоны. Самая интересная часть — та, где лежат огромные каучуковые головы из серии «Капли дождя». Диаметр каждой головы — 1,2 метра. Автор работ — Самуэль Сальседо. Отмечается, что они отображают разные человеческие эмоции.
Pinterest, realt.onliner.by, arendator.ru
Сады Этрета находятся в Нормандии, на побережье Ла-Манша. Место, где расположены сады, называется Алебастровый берег. Парк разбит на тематические зоны. Самая интересная часть — та, где лежат огромные каучуковые головы из серии «Капли дождя». Диаметр каждой головы — 1,2 метра. Автор работ — Самуэль Сальседо. Отмечается, что они отображают разные человеческие эмоции.
Pinterest, realt.onliner.by, arendator.ru
Застенчивость кроны (англ. Crown shyness) — феномен, который наблюдается у некоторых видов деревьев, когда кроны полностью развитых деревьев не соприкасаются, формируя полог леса с каналами-пробелами. Другие названия — «разомкнутость полога», «застенчивость полога», или «межкроновое пространство». Наблюдается у деревьев одного вида, однако зафиксированы случаи между деревьями разных видов.
Wikipedia, Pinterest
Wikipedia, Pinterest
❤2
All the same, it is still the dominant belief today that, whatever may have happened with earlier civilisations, our own modem, western civilisation has emancipated itself from dependence upon nature. A representative voice' is that of Eugene Rabinowitch, editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
'The only animals,' he says (in The Times of 29 April 1972), 'whose disappearance may threaten the biological viability of man on earth are the bacteria normally inhabiting our bodies. For the rest there is no convincing proof that mankind could not survive even as the only animal species on earth! If economical ways could be developed for synthesising food from inorganic raw materials - which is likely to happen sooner or later - man may even be able to become independent of plants, on which he now depends as sources of his food..., 'I personally - and, I suspect, a vast majority of mankind - would shudder at the idea (of a habitat without animals and plants). But millions of inhabitants of "city jungles" of New York, Chicago, London or Tokyo have grown up and spent their whole lives in a practically "azoic" habitat (leaving out rats, mice, cockroaches and other such obnoxious species) and have survived.'
Eugene Rabinowitch obviously considers the above a 'rationally justifiable' statement. He deplores that 'many rationally unjustifiable' things have been written in recent years - some by very reputable scientists - about the sacredness of natural ecological systems, their inherent stability and the danger of human interference with them'. What is 'rational' and what is 'sacred'? Is man the master of nature or its child? If it becomes 'economical' to synthesise food from inorganic materials - 'which is likely to happen sooner or later' - if we become independent of plants, the connection between topsoil and civilisation will be broken. Or will it?
Цитата из книги Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, Эрнст Фридрих Шумахер, 1973
'The only animals,' he says (in The Times of 29 April 1972), 'whose disappearance may threaten the biological viability of man on earth are the bacteria normally inhabiting our bodies. For the rest there is no convincing proof that mankind could not survive even as the only animal species on earth! If economical ways could be developed for synthesising food from inorganic raw materials - which is likely to happen sooner or later - man may even be able to become independent of plants, on which he now depends as sources of his food..., 'I personally - and, I suspect, a vast majority of mankind - would shudder at the idea (of a habitat without animals and plants). But millions of inhabitants of "city jungles" of New York, Chicago, London or Tokyo have grown up and spent their whole lives in a practically "azoic" habitat (leaving out rats, mice, cockroaches and other such obnoxious species) and have survived.'
Eugene Rabinowitch obviously considers the above a 'rationally justifiable' statement. He deplores that 'many rationally unjustifiable' things have been written in recent years - some by very reputable scientists - about the sacredness of natural ecological systems, their inherent stability and the danger of human interference with them'. What is 'rational' and what is 'sacred'? Is man the master of nature or its child? If it becomes 'economical' to synthesise food from inorganic materials - 'which is likely to happen sooner or later' - if we become independent of plants, the connection between topsoil and civilisation will be broken. Or will it?
Цитата из книги Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, Эрнст Фридрих Шумахер, 1973
❤3