Trees are superior to humans.

First, I want to start off by stating what exactly I mean by "superior." The goal of life, as I have seen it at least, is to continue survival. So, as far as any living thing on this Earth goes, the more able a species is at surviving, the more superior the species.

*Side note: I will use the word trees to represent all plants*


1) Humans kill each other off, harm the environment (even if a small degree), harm other species, and cannot physically adapt very well in diverse weather conditions (as a species, excluding technological advancements which allow us to live in extremer conditions)
Intelligence/consciousness is what separates "us" from "them." Them being all other lifeforms on this planet. However, with our vastly greater intelligence, we leave ruins in our wake as we destroy everything in our path. Deforistation, pollution, and causing the extinction of certain animals are among the few atrocities of modern civilization.


2) By destroying our very planet in which we need to survive, we hinder our chances for continuing the evolutionary process.
There are not many, if any at all, forms of life which commit suicide as we humans do. Instead of trying to harbor the place which allows us to freely eat and survive, we take it for granted and bully it, without any regards as to the consequences.

3) Trees and plants do not destroy themselves. They do not destroy other lifeforms unless they have been threatened by these "predators" and need to protect themselves to survive.
As a matter of fact, trees are food sources for many other animals and species, and they cleanse the atmosphere to allow it to be breathable. Trees require little to survive: basically, water, soil, and sunlight. Humans, instead of eating what is supposed to give us nutrients and minerals, eat McDonalds and other foods which provide nothing good for our bodies.

We slowly kill ourselves through everyday actions, and we are destined for extinction unless we radically change our lifestyles. We are more like a disease for Earth than anything else. We reproduce and reproduce, but we don't help anyone or anything but ourselves. I'm not saying we all need to go buy hybrids. I'm not saying any of this because of my fears of 'Global Warming.' I was just sitting outside today, staring a cluster of dogwoods, and thought to myself that trees do nothing but good for this world and it seems we do nothing but bad. Honeslty, I think it boils down to humanity's selfishness. With intelligence comes pride and self-centeredness...if we all just started caring about our own bodies, our fellow people (ALL people), and our Earth and its environment, maybe we might have a chance at continuing our existence.

Yeah, well, let's see a tree post on ATS! Yeah, how 'bout that one!

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah, well, let's see a tree post on ATS! Yeah, how 'bout that one!

Hah I appreciate your humor, but someone's gotta stand up for the little guy. Or little tree. I was trying to get a message more along the lines of not that we're killing trees, but we're killing ourselves and it's pretty bad that we're so smart yet trees have a better chance of species survival than we do.

That is all good in theory, you may even have a good point. But lets be real for a second, I would like to see a tree chop me down and make a table out of me. Or even burn me to stay warm in the winter. Who is superior now??

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah, well, let's see a tree post on ATS! Yeah, how 'bout that one!

A tree is above posting on teh internets. A tree puts all of its energy int o survival and cleaning the enviroment. It is perfectly addapted for its purpose. We haven't even found out what our purpose is yet. Appart from to pollute and pilliage the earth for all its worth,until it's unlivable. Then who'll save the day from the arrogant humans? The humble tree,that's who. Next time you're out in a forrest,or walking down the road with trees planted down the side. look up at them and thank them,for cleaning up our mess.

Originally posted by JesterMan
That is all good in theory, you may even have a good point. But lets be real for a second, I would like to see a tree chop me down and make a table out of me. Or even burn me to stay warm in the winter. Who is superior now??

again,with the "I'm better cos I can kill you" attitude,the tree is on for a double win. It has no ego,making it much nicer.

I guess you might be right. Although a tree did attack my house last year. It just jumped right on the roof. That wasnt very nice. I think we need to be on the look out for the inevitable tree revolution.

yeah,and watch out for anarchistic splinter groups.


I'll get my coat.

The tree may be superior, but then again it becomes a victim due to our need for resources. They also are attacked by beavers. Would they be superior, seeing as they tear down trees?

Is algae superior for just growing on rocks?

Does that mean that the mentally handicapped who are confined to a bed superior?

I don't see it as superiority, I see it as limitations.

If you are limited, you are more likely to do no wrong.

We are in fact less limited, making us superior, what we do with that superiority is what is "wrong"

But then your looking at the issue of morality. The Tree merely survives within it's laws and limitations, it does not have time for morality. It's not doing such things because it's right, that's simply all it can do.

It cannot be morally superior for the fact that morals do not exist for it due to its limitations.

By your logic, stones are superior to humans.

Whoops, we've got a problem, Houston.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
yeah,and watch out for anarchistic splinter groups.


I'll get my coat.

Splinter groups. LOL very clever.

Originally posted by Dr. Frank Spinelli
The tree may be superior, but then again it becomes a victim due to our need for resources. They also are attacked by beavers. Would they be superior, seeing as they tear down trees?

It's not about what something can tear down, but how it can survive and allow for the survival of other species.

Is algae superior for just growing on rocks?

I include all plants, yes. Not because they are intelligently superior, just superior at survival without destruction.

Does that mean that the mentally handicapped who are confined to a bed superior?

No, because as they cannot do bad, they cannot do much good either. They just exist. They need to be taken care of, yet cannot take care of others (albeit it's not their fault, and I feel sorry for those in this situation). We are lucky that we aren't all like that, or we'd have only one generation of humans, because we wouldn't be able to even feed ourselves.

I don't see it as superiority, I see it as limitations.

It is superiority simply because with all of our vastly greater potential, we destroy instead of help.

If you are limited, you are more likely to do no wrong.

But trees not only do little wrong, they do alot right. They breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, which enable us to breathe. We breathe out carbon dioxide, so there's a plus for humanity!

We are in fact less limited, making us superior, what we do with that superiority is what is "wrong"

The fact that we have the potential to do so much good yet choose not to is what I meant by less superior, not that we are literally more worthless than plants.

But then your looking at the issue of morality. The Tree merely survives within it's laws and limitations, it does not have time for morality. It's not doing such things because it's right, that's simply all it can do.

It cannot be morally superior for the fact that morals do not exist for it due to its limitations.

True, and well said. But we have morals, and I do believe that it is a universally immoral concept to not use our intelligence for good as much as we use it for selfish, materialistic desires.

Originally posted by Johnmike
By your logic, stones are superior to humans.

Whoops, we've got a problem, Houston.

Stones are not alive. And my statement was reasonable based on my definition of what I meant by superiority.

Trees are cool, and they're totally self-sufficient! Given that, I don't think I'd like staying in the exact same spot all the time!

Like your screen name.. Obviously a Chris McCandless fan.

Actually, trees probably terrify some plants that are lower to the ground. In dense rainforest the shorter plants can't compete with the trees for sunlight and die horific deaths, so trees aren't all that great either

reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp

First, I want to start off by stating what exactly I mean by "superior." The goal of life, as I have seen it at least, is to continue survival. So, as far as any living thing on this Earth goes, the more able a species is at surviving, the more superior the species.

I think 'successful' would be a more apt term than 'superior', but OK, let's go with that.

1) Humans kill each other off, harm the environment (even if a small degree), harm other species, and cannot physically adapt very well in diverse weather conditions (as a species, excluding technological advancements which allow us to live in extremer conditions)
Intelligence/consciousness is what separates "us" from "them." Them being all other lifeforms on this planet. However, with our vastly greater intelligence, we leave ruins in our wake as we destroy everything in our path. Deforistation, pollution, and causing the extinction of certain animals are among the few atrocities of modern civilization.

Trees exist on the remains of dead plants, as scavengers, if you will. They compete heavily for sunlight and will gladly overgrow and kill plants beneath them that require direct sunlight. Even between them, the stronger tree will take advantage of smaller trees and block opff sunlight to them, resulting in their poor growth and eventual premature death. Trees (and all plants) also give off a corrosive substance known as oxygen as they use CO2. This oxygen, if allowed to build up to a high enough level, would effectively kill off all flora. Luckily, man and the other animals use it up and replace the CO2.

Trees are also notoriously unable to adapt to drastic climate changes and weather conditions, since they are unable to move.

2) By destroying our very planet in which we need to survive, we hinder our chances for continuing the evolutionary process.
There are not many, if any at all, forms of life which commit suicide as we humans do. Instead of trying to harbor the place which allows us to freely eat and survive, we take it for granted and bully it, without any regards as to the consequences.

Trees bully the environment in their own way, by taking nutrients from the soil and CO2 from the air without regard to how much is available for other plant life. In contrast, a fairly large section of the human population actually gives thought to what they are using from the earth and what they are giving back. No trees do this.

3) Trees and plants do not destroy themselves. They do not destroy other lifeforms unless they have been threatened by these "predators" and need to protect themselves to survive.

Poisonous plants do not make such decisions based on what animal is in their vicinity. If a tree has poisonous leaves, it will kill whatever eats it, regardless of whether it was a case of mistaken identity or an actual threat. Many times, trees will outgrow the area they have to exist in, trying to force out other plant life. If their attempt fails, they wither and die of lack of room. Some plants also grow in areas where the soil depth is inadequate for their root systems; these inevitably die off after a short period of time (cedar trees do that frequently here).

As a matter of fact, trees are food sources for many other animals and species, and they cleanse the atmosphere to allow it to be breathable. Trees require little to survive: basically, water, soil, and sunlight. Humans, instead of eating what is supposed to give us nutrients and minerals, eat McDonalds and other foods which provide nothing good for our bodies.

As previously mentioned, trees give off a corrosive oxidizer called oxygen. It is much more reactive chemically than CO2, which they use. Oxygen, if not used up by other species, would soon cause their own destruction through 'suffocation' and increased fires.

People actually eat stuff from McDonalds?

We slowly kill ourselves through everyday actions, and we are destined for extinction unless we radically change our lifestyles. We are more like a disease for Earth than anything else. We reproduce and reproduce, but we don't help anyone or anything but ourselves. I'm not saying we all need to go buy hybrids. I'm not saying any of this because of my fears of 'Global Warming.' I was just sitting outside today, staring a cluster of dogwoods, and thought to myself that trees do nothing but good for this world and it seems we do nothing but bad. Honeslty, I think it boils down to humanity's selfishness. With intelligence comes pride and self-centeredness...if we all just started caring about our own bodies, our fellow people (ALL people), and our Earth and its environment, maybe we might have a chance at continuing our existence.

That's a rousing and inspiring summary, but I caution you that in order to 'protect' something, one must first understand the thing being protected. If you study them a while, watch trees (and other flora) grow, you will soon see that, just like us humans, they compete for space and nutrients, and sometimes make bad decisions. They also depend on us for the CO2 they use and to rid the excessive oxygen they produce.

It's not a situation of us vs. them, but rather one of us needing them and vice-versa. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one.

TheRedneck

Thank you for that response, it was very insightful and helpful.

It's not a situation of us vs. them, but rather one of us needing them and vice-versa. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one.

I like that analogy alot, and it shows that in order to coexist we need each other. Perhaps my wording was wrong as to saying they are superior in a way, but at least we should start respecting the environment more.

If it's one thing we can learn from plants and the environment it's that we should treat it more like a place of beauty and respect, and less like a spherical dome which we are trapped in because we don't have the means of travel to inhabit other planets, yet.

Edit to add: thanks Lloyd45, you are the first person that's noticed/recognized my screename!

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Alexander_Supertramp]

reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp
You are quite right when it comes to respecting nature. Have a look at what I get to respect every day (taken from inside my house, out the window without any zoom lens):


Do I 'use' this resource? yes, I use it to cut fence posts, my father and I logged it for firewood when I was younger, and I take deer from it for food. That's much different from abuse. This little mountain will fill all of my needs for life and be just as beautiful and undisturbed when my children live on it.

Far too many people get the two terms 'use' and 'abuse' confused. In my case, I am not bullying nature; I coexist with it. I can do that and still drive my pickup, eat meat (all I want!), live in a house made of dead trees (wood), and be happy.

TheRedneck

My dream house would be on a mountain, secluded from big cities and rush hour traffic, surrounded by beautiful trees, animals, and landscapes. You are one lucky guy!

Far too many people get the two terms 'use' and 'abuse' confused. In my case, I am not bullying nature; I coexist with it. I can do that and still drive my pickup, eat meat (all I want!), live in a house made of dead trees (wood), and be happy.

I agree. Of course we have to eat plants and animals, and 'use' nature accordingly. It's just rare nowadays for someone to admire Earth instead of have the mindset that we are all-powerful humans and Earth should admire us...get out of the way nature, man is coming! That general mindset if you know what I mean.

I like your idea, but humans also have very interesting purposes on this earth. We serve as hosts for many kinds of bacteria, viruses and fungi and survive in a symbiotic relationship.

It's true we destroy everything, but we also have the potential to create forests and other ecosystems where life might be impossible, thus helping to the success of thousands of species, it's just that we have not exploited that quality.

We, as an intelligent species, help develop the intelligence of other animals around us. We teach to dogs, cats, chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, parrots, etc. While their wild counterparts do not have the opportunity to develop in such a way, those animals will become the masters of the planet if humas ever disappear.

A certain species of tree is adapted to a very specific climate, while humans have much more flexibility on that. Thus, whatever the global climatic scenario is, us and other species are proof of the existence of life, the most awesome natural phenomenon there exists.

All animals depend on plants directly or indirectly, but when we die, plants themselves, as well as all kinds of microosganisms feed on our remains.

So there you have some purposes for humans to exist. I think we are superior to trees, because of intelligence. What you should rather say is that trees are in general more valuable for the life on earth.