I just got David Wilcock's new book The Source Field Investigations, and after reading what he said about those plant experiments, I just had to resurrect this thread!
A strong argument has been made in this thread, and by David Wilcock himself, based on Dr. Cleve Backster's experiments which show a strong reaction from plants when someone harms them or even has the intention of harming them. In fact, I read on David Wilcock's site that this was one of the reasons he started eating meat again, after having been a vegan previously. At the time, I didn't agree with his conclusions, but wasn't quite sure why. (And for the record, I don't keep up with David Wilcock, so I have no idea what his current dietary preferences are.)
Now, DW's own book explains the flaw in this logic.
On page 18, he states that Dr. Backster did additional experiments in which plants in his care began to register strong reactions not just when they were being harmed, but also when Dr. Backster felt any sort of strong emotions. The plants even registered a strong reaction when Dr. Backster's wife threw him a surprise birthday party!
Dr. Backster's emotions were positive when his wife surprised him with the party. He wasn't even in any danger or in a negative state at all. Yet the plants registered the same type of reaction as when he threatened to burn their leaves!
This proves conclusively, in my mind, that plants are very sensitive to any sort of vibrations, both positive and negative, not just the thread of being harmed.
It doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain on some level. But it cannot be used as argument to prove that they do.
There's another flaw in the experiments as well. The plants registered a reaction when shrimp were boiled, but only when humans weren't present. If humans were present, the plants didn't seem to care. The reason for this is subject to speculation. But, what about the shrimp that were being boiled in the house next door? What about the mouse being killed by the cat across the street? What about the murder taking place in the alley down the street? The plants registered a reaction when Backster was across town, so proximity wasn't a factor. Why did the plants selectively register some events but not others?
The experiments are intriguing and warrant further investigation. But it's quite a stretch to form conclusions about what plants think and feel, based on these electrical responses.
Again, this doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain. (Never mind that they lack a nervous system and pain receptors.) But to use this as a justification for eating animals, who unquestionably do feel pain, is faulty logic.
There's no question that, as DW asserts in his book, plants are part of the fabric of life and connected to us. But I don't think these experiments make a good case for eating animals because "plants feel pain too." That just doesn't fly.
A strong argument has been made in this thread, and by David Wilcock himself, based on Dr. Cleve Backster's experiments which show a strong reaction from plants when someone harms them or even has the intention of harming them. In fact, I read on David Wilcock's site that this was one of the reasons he started eating meat again, after having been a vegan previously. At the time, I didn't agree with his conclusions, but wasn't quite sure why. (And for the record, I don't keep up with David Wilcock, so I have no idea what his current dietary preferences are.)
Now, DW's own book explains the flaw in this logic.
On page 18, he states that Dr. Backster did additional experiments in which plants in his care began to register strong reactions not just when they were being harmed, but also when Dr. Backster felt any sort of strong emotions. The plants even registered a strong reaction when Dr. Backster's wife threw him a surprise birthday party!
Dr. Backster's emotions were positive when his wife surprised him with the party. He wasn't even in any danger or in a negative state at all. Yet the plants registered the same type of reaction as when he threatened to burn their leaves!
This proves conclusively, in my mind, that plants are very sensitive to any sort of vibrations, both positive and negative, not just the thread of being harmed.
It doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain on some level. But it cannot be used as argument to prove that they do.
There's another flaw in the experiments as well. The plants registered a reaction when shrimp were boiled, but only when humans weren't present. If humans were present, the plants didn't seem to care. The reason for this is subject to speculation. But, what about the shrimp that were being boiled in the house next door? What about the mouse being killed by the cat across the street? What about the murder taking place in the alley down the street? The plants registered a reaction when Backster was across town, so proximity wasn't a factor. Why did the plants selectively register some events but not others?
The experiments are intriguing and warrant further investigation. But it's quite a stretch to form conclusions about what plants think and feel, based on these electrical responses.
Again, this doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain. (Never mind that they lack a nervous system and pain receptors.) But to use this as a justification for eating animals, who unquestionably do feel pain, is faulty logic.
There's no question that, as DW asserts in his book, plants are part of the fabric of life and connected to us. But I don't think these experiments make a good case for eating animals because "plants feel pain too." That just doesn't fly.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)