Insects rely on sounds made by vegetation to guide reproduction
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
That reminds me of this particularly beautiful section from one of the newer Cosmos episodes, on how insects perceive light reflected from flowers:
This one, for example, picks up to 200kHz for €1050:
I hope it doesn't go all the way to 200khz. Consumer audio can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate, which can't even record 100 kHz sounds.
It seems the equipment will be costly.
That's probably because the Nyquist frequency (the maximum frequency that can theoretically be reproduced) is 96 kHZ at 192 kHz sampling, but the aliasing for that frequency is going to so terrible and unpredictable (what is the likelihood that always sample the max point in the sine wave) that you wouldn't consider anything close to the Nyquist frequency. You might get something workable for 20 kHz (~10 samples per cycle), which is the edge of human hearing, so that quiet overtones / high frequencies in percussion like cymbals show up.
If this is getting used to identify problems based on sound signature, not just "hey, the FFT shows a spike at 100 kHz", 10 samples is probably a bit low. So 1 MHz sampling rate at a minimum for 100 kHz.
It's known that fungi can act as a trading point for plants in that lend some, borrow some when plants are in need. If you hook fungi to a device you can measure communication.
"Trees can communicate with each other through networks in soil. Much like social networks or neural networks, the fungal mycelia of mycorrhizas allow signals to be sent between trees in a forest. These mycorrhizal networks are effectively an information highway, with recent studies demonstrating the exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals. Sensing and responding to networked signals elicits complex behavioural responses in plants. This ability to communicate ('tree talk') is a foundational process in forest ecosystems."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
And would highly recommend this book: https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life
> exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals
Only one of these three things qualifies as "information" in my book (defence signals). How is this an "information highway"?
But fungi do more than that. They transfer energy and life resources along the network too. Just as a highway carries cargo.
It's just a metaphor.
This is real! We started our startup based on this principle. Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states. For a small background read, read this (not our research): https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
If you are interested I recommend using a MEMS microphone, sampling at 384 or 500 kHz and triggering at frequencies between 20-200 kHz.
There is several people who have made these solutions for detecting bats using pico's: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/raspberry-pi-bat-detector-17-0...
If you want something off the shelf look into something like this: https://batsound.com/
I think I must be misreading. If one wants to detect these signals being emitted by plants, why is 10–100 per hour not often? I'd think that having to wait 6 minutes, or, to play it safe, even an hour would still be way more informative than finding out about the stress only when its effects were visible to the eye.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stre...
> To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant’s vascular system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack your knuckles.
It’s the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.
https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to...
It's cute, I like it, I'd tell my kid it.
But I don't think active communication is a useful way to describe every single process where one's action causes another's reaction.
I would recommend familiarizing yourself with information theory and systems theory.
From the opening line on the Wikipedia article for Communication:
> Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it.
If you argue from a position ignorant of information theory, it might seem that a knee jerk is not communication. But read through Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication and you will understand differently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
> Another interpretation is given by communication theorists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who characterize communication as a transmission of information brought about by the interaction of several components, such as a source, a message, an encoder, a channel, a decoder, and a receiver.[17] *The transmission view is rejected by transactional and constitutive views, which hold that communication is not just about the transmission of information but also about the creation of meaning.* (emphasis mine)
I’ll go one step further and say that I don’t think the Shannon definition of communication applies to physical responses to external stimuli (reflexive knee response, signals produced by plants when cut), or signals produced by chemical reactions (light given off the stars or suns).
Induced reactions or chemical changes are not communication per se because the meaning of the transmitted signal would not exist without an observer as there’s no internal mechanism which creates the signal without the observer.
In cell to cell communication, for example, a cell will create signals without the existence of another cell to interpret those signals. If a second cell picks up those signals, then it’s receiving communication. If however the second cell produces a stimulus to invoke a response from the first cell, the signal received would not have existed without the observer. In this sense, I think communication depends on the ability to transmit information without the provocation of observers or receivers, which is especially meaningful for biological systems because the signals they convey determine their survival.
By simply existing does not mean something is communicating (sun or stars), and reacting to external stimuli does not represent communication per se, only signaling.
The disadvantages of too much noise are obvious (herbivores) but I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the plant's advantage would be. There is some speculation on plant-plant communication, but maybe it is about attracting pollinators and seed-dispersers before the plant dies. Just a lot of stuff we don't know yet.
It doesn't have to be an advantage in emitting clicking sounds, just more advantageous to the plant overall lifelong wellbeing to be that way.
(This is not my field, but I wonder) is it more expensive to be silent than noisy?
This study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5543975/) hints that repairing cavitation damage is expensive.
I now wonder if they use the sound to communicate with other plants to try to get clouds to form faster
The author is Gennaro Tomma, a freelance journalist.
Not many blame a book publisher when disagreeing with a book author, but it is common to do so for news journalism. Why is that?
Nytimes has never been reliable
Is that founded on a basis of scientific fact, or Human Superiority Complex?
Opposable thumbs mean we have the ability to use smarts, so genetics walked the path to consciousness over many generations. A smarter horse is fine and all but not that beneficial. Being faster or stronger or sexier is probably better. Same with a plant: get more nutrients or sunlight. There are cheaper ways than being smart to do that.
I can agree that there is no genetic benefit to being able to move at the speed animals move, because that's not how plants obtain food or avoid being eaten. Thus no need for nerves or a CNS to coordinate movement.
Also why would a smart (or conscious) plant not have eventually learned to use some of that to do something that improves survivability. Like strike out, or hide down, or anything more than "somewhat grow towards the light or nutrients over time".
It's a nice fun exercise to argue with people while imbibing your drug of choice, but it's utterly unlinked to anything else we see in nature. We're not idiots, we would have seen evidence by now.
It is almost certainly the same for all animals with a brain.
Given the fact that plants have no brain it is a reasonable assumption they have no consciousness. It may be wrong, but given all evidence it is, so far, the best assumption.
We usually call assumptions based on our best current understanding scientific facts.
Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts.
I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
Why would it be reasonable to expect they have any consciousness? What would plants do with such a consciousness that they’re wasting scarce energy on both operating and building the biological structures to maintain consciousness? They can’t move. They can’t take active actions. Why would they develop a consciousness that does nothing but makes them aware of their implementing doom without allowing them to act on it?
> Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of body parts.
You know what would be really useful to evolve to survive the loss of body parts? Not suffering and feeling pain when you do, or even being aware that you just did. Especially when not being mobile in anyways you can’t do anything about it.
> I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
Citation needed.
Actually I’ll make it even easier. Start with studies that show plant awareness in the first place, before you show studies showing it can be switched off.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40626-023-00304-1
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052216/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00796...
https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/139/4/514/657382...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40626-024-00345-0
They just do all that at a much slower time scale than you're used to in your consciousness. I wouldn't totally discount plants having some form of consciousness at lower frequency.
Not very convincing, there are chemistry-based explanations for why humans have behavior as well.
> that they can’t process sensory input
You just said they do (*-tropism).
> the lack of subjective experience
How do you know what its like to be a plant?
Also, considering they’re rooted to the ground and cannot move there is no evolutionary advantage to sentience (and actually there are massive disadvantages since it will use energy for sentience which serves no purpose). Now, just because there isn’t an evolutionary advantage, or even if it’s an evolutionary disadvantage to a property doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t exist, but given that there’s no other reason to believe it does exist this is just another piece of the puzzle that shows it doesn’t even need to exist.
How so?
You act so sure, yet your own post betrays that you know it’s not based on current evidence (“waiting for the day…”).
In a world where conserving nature is simultaneously increasingly difficult and increasingly important, I don’t mind a bit of artistic license when it comes to descriptions of plant life if it leads to more awareness and more people thinking twice about plants and how we treat natural ecosystems.
Obviously there’s a balance to be struck though.
And you are complaining about use of language? You might disagree with the anthromorphism (a rather common technique) used by the author, but your post is hyperbole. I hope you also realise the irony, as you also use anthromorphism.
Using a poetic descriptor like "mournful" in this context seems out of place.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/plants-emit-ultras...
We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference. When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth, herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care for our blessed mother Earth.
It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing nature.
People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there.
But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
People should not go off paths.
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them.
But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues.
Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging.
* Off-Trail Trampling Has Lasting Impacts: https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impa...
* Going off trails: How dispersed visitor use affects alpine vegetation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
* Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks: https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-...
We must also care for each other in the same way that we should be caring for our beloved Earth, herself. Once we become consumed by compassion, we care for all we come into contact with. That is the pinnacle of human personal achievement, but few reach for that glorious happiness.
Grand Canyon was an extreme example, but people can go over rough terrain. That’s a big part of what being in nature means.
In terms of damage to nature, any large animal is going to trample plants, even deer trails very noticeably impact plants let alone a grizzly or moose. That’s just part of nature, it’s scale that’s the issue. Hiking trails are just points of concentrated damage which is one viable option.
> They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to?
Everyone gets to as long as they are in a low density area and don’t pick to exit at some interesting spot. You take a trail length divide by the number of people roughly using a trail, and as long as you get to ~1 person/foot per 50 years it’s fine to exit in a mathematically random spot not just because you pick what feels random. Obviously this excludes a great number of trails people frequent, but that’s kind of the point.
Now you should also avoid interesting destinations and be careful how you come back. Anyway, there you have it a scaleable rule that works for hundreds of millions of visitors without creating undo harm.
> Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks:
Did you read what you linked? That damage is explicitly mentioned as: “sinks ripped off restroom walls, road signs mowed down by some hooligan's pickup, spray-painted graffiti on roadside markers”
Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of abuse and torture. Anyone.
The action is cruel, not the people committing it.
These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans?
Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no need to go line-by-line through your idea of the exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat without making excuses for other people.
Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.
Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
Proof?
"The Way goes in." --Rumi
You don't think orangutans or other intelligent apes can do this? There are lots of experiments and anecdotes you'd have to explain away.
Of course, having free will means that we can ignore our unique capabilities and behave as our built-in mammalian, pack-centric, dominance-seeking, body plans provide us out-of-the-box.
The only thinking I have seen in the animal world involve primates and birds using tools, and dolphins using impressive hunting techniques, where the younger generations learn them from the older. Regardless, if they are thinking, they are very primitive.
I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood how we can say definitively that animals are doing the same things we do, but they are doing it out of instinct.
My comments over the past few days explain it quite fully.
The "evidence" I would suggest is that the only tool-making animals are some primates and birds, but I'm sure there are others. But that is not abstract thought and thoughful choosing. Their choosing is purely for survival benefit, including their partnering with humans.
From the gentle kiss of a bee sting, to the loving nibble of a shark bite.
If your dog replies, you either have a truly exceptional dog with human-like vocal cords, or need to see a psychiatrist.
That we are more intelligent is nothing more than an evolutionary decision - our ancestors decided to lead lifestyles where trading base energy consumption for higher mental capabilities made sense.
Other creatures are not on auto-pilot, even if their thought process ranges from simpler to outright primitive. When dolphins endanger themselves to chase away sharks to save humans they go against instincts and self preservation (and thereby anything you'd consider autopilot). On the other hand, humans are the ones that have turned averse to danger and anything out of the ordinary, preferring to stick to "auto-pilot" for safety.
In fact, I'd argue that the supposed response from your dog sounds quite like a human: as long as you keep paying me, I'll do the same mindless daily routine without question.
And you should learn about the instinct of kinship theory, where worker ants and bees give up their ability to procreate and even live, for the benefit of the colony.
Only we can choose such selfless compassion, after contemplating and understanding what we are giving and the costs we will likely incur.
Entirely different concept. Not to mention that ants are very, very far from dogs, dolphins and humans. There is no reason to think that a dolphin would have to share their behavior, nor that a human wouldn't share their behavior - do people really choose to be selfless when they dedicate their life to a company, or are they just mindlessly following the march like the ants? There will be the occasional ant that doesn't do as told, leaving the question of where there are more humans or ants breaking showing independence and breaking out of rank.
For reference, there exist many types of ants that have abandoned the normal ways of ant colonies.
> I didn't say it would reply with words.
It would be even more impressive if it managed to communicate without words - Telepathy is not exactly expected in dogs.
Group dynamics are the nature of kinship theory, where the overlap of DNA predisposes related animals ("kin") to helping those and opposing others.
[Nominative determinism at work again in the comment section.]
Who?
Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.
Neural imaging on animals has shown that their brains both have the same features that ours do for these purposes and they use them in similar ways. All of this is not even remotely controversial, it's well understood and thoroughly studied across numerous decades.
You can note all the abstract thought that animals exhibit, perhaps some equations on a chalkboard?
The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.
A fox or squirrel absolutely will not, nor will they break out that chalk.
All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.
You think you are right, but I know that I am right, and I know that you have to choose to overcome your willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our poverty.
Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.
And it is inarguable, tho many try.
No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).
But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).
That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of General Relativity? It's not there, and there will never be a study that shows that they have them, because it is simply not possible.
Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.
Love is, itself, on our side, and our happiness is what really sets us apart, my friend.
And, remember, they think they're correct, I know I'm correct, and right, too. Peace be with you. We love you.
The confidence is concerning.
And, wow, the nominative determinism in these comments is fantastic.
Yes, it takes a brave person to accept that they have to change, and that all their underpinnings of existence are deeply flawed and the cause of the world's sufferings. Ignorance is destructive, my friend, to both our and others' happiness.
Compassion is the Way, and it cannot be argued, from even just a basic systems theoretic standpoint.
I claim only to be in awe of this reality, and see glimpses of an intelligence and love larger than myself. I strive to align my action, thoughts, feelings and intentions to be in service to all life and guided by the dim glimpses of that which is beyond thought and form.
You have brought me a smile this morning, my friend. Once again, nominative determinism is evident in this comment section.
Peace be with you. We love you. If you wish to learn more of our Sufi understanding of our world, my comments over the past week explain a great deal. It doesn't look like you need it, though. Thanks for your comment on this gentle morning; it makes me happier still.
After checking our your profile, I'll say that I just played that Peter Tosh song for the teenagers the other day. It's so beautiful.
Such lessons teach us humility and, as you intuit, a healthy respect for our weaknesses. I am not confident in what I say because I'm better than anyone; I've just trod a very different path, as you can see from today's gang-on.
The fact of the matter is that there is a point one can reach where we go from thinking to knowing. I've been over a half century on this Earth, nearly half of it dedicated to compassion, and it is time for humanity to wake up to our positive potential.
I love you, my friend. So long as our convictions are to be kind and humble and generous and as gentle as possible, our mistakes will grow fewer by the day. As Machiavelli said so long ago, "We must aim above the target if we are to hit it."
Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy, which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she keeps biting me. Good kitty!
This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with some grand system of interconnected beauty—this is human hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur.
To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the world—it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And that is enough.
For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen that perspective, and that is your inalienable right.
You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the truth.
The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a two-part reply. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991)
In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat."
And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of space is actually filled with potential energy. That's because we're all one in this creation, all of which was created for us, the only beings here that can appreciate the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter, energy, and more still.
No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so choose.
This guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Parker
You seem to be a religious fanatic. I didn't respond before because it seemed like just lunatic ravings.
You seem to argue against any natural order, against science, that 'nature' is ordered by the grace of god.
But then you quote a physicist?
What is the deal? How do you square this? It seems like someone that has read a lot of pop-science, and then use scientific terms to form some world description about how god is doing it all.??
Loving God means appreciating, at least to some extent, God's wonderful design of this mathematical universe, its mystery and grandeur, and the scientific structures of nature, which includes ourselves, and so much more.
I am not "Frustrated" my friend, and I'm not a "Monkey"; I'm a human being with a body whose body plan is based upon the mammals, specifically the primates, but with important differences. And I am happy because I understand how to live life and have done a fair job at living it.
I am open-minded and open-hearted and love you and everyone I encounter, and this is the result of decisions I have made and practices I have performed. And I share this with you all in love and respect and service, but it's only my responsibility to lead you to the water. I cannot make you drink, so my duty ends there, where also ends my concern.
What I am saying to you is that you cannot understand my perspective until you enter the Path of Love. I offer you this out of no desire for myself, only for your happiness and the happiness of those around you.
There's a reason you can not provide one cogent argument to any of my detailed responses to you, and Occam's Razor suggests why, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Dunning-Kruger is instructive, my friend, very instructive, indeed.
We love you.
Just simply repeating things like :
- "there are unknowns" thus "god is the way"
- "the universe is beautiful, thus god"
- "Truth, Truth, Truth, I know the Truth, listen to me, I know the Truth, you just need to realize it, you can't see it, I can see it".
People have been repeating these same ideas for thousands of years.
I think maybe you need help:
Mysticism and schizophrenia: Religious delusions are a common symptom of schizophrenia, and can be difficult to treat
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381001...
As to help, I get it every day from a place you deny exists. And I spend all my time on this site helping others.
And you are deliberately misquoting me, please don't.
Once the ad hominems begin, I know the contest is over, the opponent's resignation has been signaled, and my hand is raised. If you don't like the bitter taste of your defeat, you can learn from what I've written here, and become a winner.
The key to the Dunning-Kruger true-experts is their humility. You should learn from that, too. We love you.
The mishmash of science and Christian ideas isn't very coherent, and does not come off very well. You really do sound crazy. But, you do sound sincere.
So.
Let's give the benefit of the doubt to a crazy sounding person on the internet.
Let's assume you have had some mystical experiences. You've read some science, you've had some mystical experiences. Now, you are trying to grasp it, or deal with this experience. The struggle is real. To figure out what is going on in the universe and where you fit in, with this experience you've had. I'm assuming you are in the US, so grew up inundated with pop-Christian Dogma and propaganda that has very little relations back to the bible. You took that mishmash of US-Christian non-bible ideas, mixed it with some science, and now sound crazy.
All I can say is, Christianity will lead you down the wrong paths. It is a waste of time at best, damaging at worst. If you do need a Spiritual guide, or help, look to the East. Maybe Buddhism (not pure land), or Advaita Vedanta (hindu influenced by buddhism). Or even some William James (The Varieties of Religious Experience).
Technically, they are also wrong, because no religion/philosophy can explain reality to our little monkey brain, but will at least get you in the right direction. I repeat, they are also wrong, everyone is wrong. But, they at least have some non-damaging ideas. Try some meditation, focus on your breathing, go for a run, eat more vegetables.
Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form
https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/lam-rim/vipash...
Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and others' unhappiness.
So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows, sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed, just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that they have reaped from their sowing.
We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19 pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential, and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others, and vice versa.
Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love you, and may peace be with you.
The evidence available to me suggests otherwise.
You have claimed you can't graduate college, but you refuse to matriculate.
If you want to know how it's done, look through my comment history. You will find the steps in the spiritual development process I term the "Path of Love".
"The Way goes in." --Rumi
Does a crow have no agency to be the first to food and challenge the leader or the scout who keeps watch for the others while they feast?
Can a dolphin not choose to align more closely with play than rape?
It seems to me that animals have much more agency than we choose to believe / allow.
Only we can think abstractly about the needs of the group, the happiness of others.
This statement has been modeled as the "predator–prey model":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio...
Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and granular size of their folds are much more than human brains. It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty strong argument that these cetaceans possess more intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality, as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so much better, but why don't people give a sh_t?
I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.
Emergence Magazine: The World Is a Prism, Not a Window
https://emergencemagazine.org/interview/the-world-is-a-prism...
Or might it be the case that the entire enterprise of science is a stack of gradually-reinforcing “study suggests…” built over the course of decades and centuries?
When they’re hunting they seem to ignore humans entirely. I still think hornets are generally assholes but I’ve come around a bit on some species of wasp.
Metric and northern paper wasps in particular strike me as docile lil fellas.