What do you think?
Rate this book
The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth
Award-winning environment and science reporter Zo毛 Schlanger delivers a groundbreaking work of popular science that probes the hidden world of the plant kingdom and reveals the astonishing capabilities of the green life all around us. It takes tremendous biological creativity to be a plant. To survive and thrive while rooted in a single spot, plants have adapted ingenious methods of survival. In recent years, scientists have learned about their ability to communicate, recognize their kin and behave socially, hear sounds, morph their bodies to blend into their surroundings, store useful memories that inform their life cycle, and trick animals into behaving to their benefit, to name just a few remarkable talents.
The Light Eaters is a deep immersion into the drama of green life and the complexity of this wild and awe-inspiring world that challenges our very understanding of agency, consciousness, and intelligence. In looking closely, we see that plants, rather than imitate human intelligence, have perhaps formed a parallel system. What is intelligent life if not a vine that grows leaves to blend into the shrub on which it climbs, a flower that shapes its bloom to fit exactly the beak of its pollinator, a pea seedling that can hear water flowing and make its way toward it? Zo毛 Schlanger takes us across the globe, digging into her own memories and into the soil with the scientists who have spent their waking days studying these amazing entities up close.
What can we learn about life on Earth from the living things that thrive, adapt, consume, and accommodate simultaneously? More important, what do we owe these life forms once we come to understand their rich and varied abilities? Examining the latest epiphanies in botanical research, Schlanger spotlights the intellectual struggles among the researchers conceiving a wholly new view of their subject, offering a glimpse of a field in turmoil as plant scientists debate the tenets of ongoing discoveries and how they influence our understanding of what a plant is.
We need plants to survive. But what do they need us for鈥攊f at all? An eye-opening and informative look at the ecosystem we live in, this book challenges us to rethink the role of plants鈥攁nd our own place鈥攊n the natural world.
The Light Eaters is a deep immersion into the drama of green life and the complexity of this wild and awe-inspiring world that challenges our very understanding of agency, consciousness, and intelligence. In looking closely, we see that plants, rather than imitate human intelligence, have perhaps formed a parallel system. What is intelligent life if not a vine that grows leaves to blend into the shrub on which it climbs, a flower that shapes its bloom to fit exactly the beak of its pollinator, a pea seedling that can hear water flowing and make its way toward it? Zo毛 Schlanger takes us across the globe, digging into her own memories and into the soil with the scientists who have spent their waking days studying these amazing entities up close.
What can we learn about life on Earth from the living things that thrive, adapt, consume, and accommodate simultaneously? More important, what do we owe these life forms once we come to understand their rich and varied abilities? Examining the latest epiphanies in botanical research, Schlanger spotlights the intellectual struggles among the researchers conceiving a wholly new view of their subject, offering a glimpse of a field in turmoil as plant scientists debate the tenets of ongoing discoveries and how they influence our understanding of what a plant is.
We need plants to survive. But what do they need us for鈥攊f at all? An eye-opening and informative look at the ecosystem we live in, this book challenges us to rethink the role of plants鈥攁nd our own place鈥攊n the natural world.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published May 7, 2024
3645 people are currently reading
31798 people want to read
About the author
Zo毛 Schlanger
7听books155听followersZoe Schlanger is currently a staff reporter at the Atlantic, where she covers climate change. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, Time, Newsweek, The Nation, Quartz, and on NPR among other major outlets, and in the 2022 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. A recipient of a 2017 National Association of Science Writers' reporting award, she is often a guest speaker in schools and universities. Zoe graduated with a B.A. from New York University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 989 reviews
April 17, 2025
This was an interesting but troubling book for me.
All we humans hunger to more fully understand things outside ourselves, but unfortunately the only way we have to evaluate the world is to use our uniquely human experience as a measuring stick. This anthropomorphizing is a wonderful brain heuristic that allows us to categorize the world and make sense of it. Heuristics like these are powerful tools that keep our very tired human brains from being overloaded. By looking at an object, then equating it to a similar human experience, we can efficiently categorize the whole world using a minimum of brain energy.
"The Light Eaters" was Zoe Schlanger's attempt at helping us understand the sensual capacities of plants. Do they taste, see, hear, think, feel pain, feel kinship and experience other deeply human actions? I applaud her for trying to help all of us understand the capacities of the plant world, but I feel as though this book presents a deeply biased view of the world of plants. This book inadvertently tempts us into believing that the botanical world is a buddy with deeply human emotions.
Now, she didn't start out to do this. Throughout the book, she continually points out that human feelings and plant feelings are quite different. She clearly points out that plants don't have brains or any of the other mammalian systems.
While she proclaims that plants are different, the very language that she uses in this book ascribes deeply human experiences to plants. She鈥檚 trying to walk the line between basic understanding of plants and anthropomorphizing. I think it's almost impossible for humans not to fall into the latter bias.
I have read many evolutionary biology books over the years and I've come to realize that this imprinting of human emotion on the process of eons of biology is often unavoidable.
We routinely ascribe inanimate objects, plants, animals, and all the other things in the world with deeply human attributes that they simply don't possess: a wise oak tree, a stately house, a malicious squirrel.
My friend recently described the amazingly complex relationship she has with her dog. She is powerfully convinced that her dog is suffering complex grief, purposefully plots revenge, and actively plans to disrupt her life. Her relationship with her dog has all the emotion and pathos of a complex crime novel. It is truly stunning to see just how deeply manipulative and emotionally sophisticated she believes her dog to be.
This unfortunate tendency shows up most troublingly in our discussions of evolution. We talk about how a plant "wants" to fight off predators. Plants don't have a brain or the ability to want anything. We talk about how a plant develops special feeding receptors. But when we use the word 鈥渄evelop鈥� we have a tendency to visualize a very human definition of 鈥渄evelop,鈥� which is us purposefully plotting a strategy, then moving methodically to find a solution. Plants don鈥檛 do this because they don鈥檛 have a brain.
I continually find myself falling for this anthropomorphizing trap. As a human, I kid myself into believing that I can envision what it鈥檚 like NOT to be human, but I鈥檝e learned this simply isn鈥檛 possible.
Most of us simply don鈥檛 understand the deep implications of evolution. Throughout Zo毛 Schlanger鈥檚 book you will find words that describe how evolution works and how living creatures change. She uses words like "want," "developed," "protected," "adapted," and 鈥渟trived," to convey the process that plants go through when evolving. But all of these are verbs that describe deeply HUMAN processes. When we attribute deeply human emotions to non-humans, we kid ourselves into believing the world revolves around human existence.
My feeling is that most of us tend to kid ourselves into believing that we understand how evolution works. We envision a plant working through a problem that assures its survival. It 鈥渇igures out鈥� how to evade predators, attain nutrients, and successfully procreate. We carelessly envision plants as little determined humans.
But the truth is that evolution is ABSOLUTELY mindless. It is a game of statistics. A million random genetic mutations naturally occur. 999,999 of them have either a detrimental effect or no effect at all. But one of these mutations randomly improves the entity鈥檚 chance of survival...and it gets passed on. Evolution doesn鈥檛 鈥渉ope,鈥� 鈥渟trive,鈥� 鈥渁dapt,鈥� or 鈥渋mprove,鈥� because it does not possess consciousness or purpose. It鈥檚 math and mathematical equations don鈥檛 strive for solutions.
So what I try to do is catch myself any time I use a VERB when describing a non-human entity. Why? Because most all verbs don鈥檛 work when we鈥檙e talking the completely random statistical effects of evolution. Evolution doesn鈥檛 鈥渋mprove,鈥� 鈥渉one,鈥� 鈥渁dapt,鈥� or 鈥渟eek.鈥� It is a roll of the dice and attributing any sort of human purpose to evolution is to delude ourselves.
For example "that tree suffered through the long summer drought." 鈥淪uffering鈥� is a human emotion. The truth is that I have no idea if a tree feels the emotion of "suffering." What verb can I use to describe that tree? I try to limit myself to verbs that describe my reaction to other objects.
For example, 鈥渟eeing that tree makes me feel sorrow.鈥� But wait a minute, I just did it again! That plant didn't "make" me do anything. Okay, how about "I feel sorrow when viewing that poor thirsty plant." I did it again. "Poor" implies human suffering. "Thirsty" implies a very human feeling as well. You see what a slippery slope this can be.
Zo毛 Schlanger鈥檚 book is filled with interesting facts on the latest research about plant senses. But I think this entire field of study does us all a disservice. Why? Because all of this work is usually undertaken with a hope that we find out how plants are just like humans. We want to believe that what we experience is what plants experience as well. And when humans discover even remotely common biological processes in a plant, we tend to instantly anthropomorphize that plant, endowing it with deeply human emotions that are so dear to the attributes humans recognize in themselves.
This book is interesting, but I also feel that it鈥檚 a troubling temptation for all of us to take a flight of fancy. Plants are not like humans and while this book occasionally makes that point, its very essence is a misguided anthropomorphic premise. This book tempts all of us into putting humans at the center of the universe and lures us into believing that plants are little green buddies who are just like us.
All we humans hunger to more fully understand things outside ourselves, but unfortunately the only way we have to evaluate the world is to use our uniquely human experience as a measuring stick. This anthropomorphizing is a wonderful brain heuristic that allows us to categorize the world and make sense of it. Heuristics like these are powerful tools that keep our very tired human brains from being overloaded. By looking at an object, then equating it to a similar human experience, we can efficiently categorize the whole world using a minimum of brain energy.
"The Light Eaters" was Zoe Schlanger's attempt at helping us understand the sensual capacities of plants. Do they taste, see, hear, think, feel pain, feel kinship and experience other deeply human actions? I applaud her for trying to help all of us understand the capacities of the plant world, but I feel as though this book presents a deeply biased view of the world of plants. This book inadvertently tempts us into believing that the botanical world is a buddy with deeply human emotions.
Now, she didn't start out to do this. Throughout the book, she continually points out that human feelings and plant feelings are quite different. She clearly points out that plants don't have brains or any of the other mammalian systems.
While she proclaims that plants are different, the very language that she uses in this book ascribes deeply human experiences to plants. She鈥檚 trying to walk the line between basic understanding of plants and anthropomorphizing. I think it's almost impossible for humans not to fall into the latter bias.
I have read many evolutionary biology books over the years and I've come to realize that this imprinting of human emotion on the process of eons of biology is often unavoidable.
We routinely ascribe inanimate objects, plants, animals, and all the other things in the world with deeply human attributes that they simply don't possess: a wise oak tree, a stately house, a malicious squirrel.
My friend recently described the amazingly complex relationship she has with her dog. She is powerfully convinced that her dog is suffering complex grief, purposefully plots revenge, and actively plans to disrupt her life. Her relationship with her dog has all the emotion and pathos of a complex crime novel. It is truly stunning to see just how deeply manipulative and emotionally sophisticated she believes her dog to be.
This unfortunate tendency shows up most troublingly in our discussions of evolution. We talk about how a plant "wants" to fight off predators. Plants don't have a brain or the ability to want anything. We talk about how a plant develops special feeding receptors. But when we use the word 鈥渄evelop鈥� we have a tendency to visualize a very human definition of 鈥渄evelop,鈥� which is us purposefully plotting a strategy, then moving methodically to find a solution. Plants don鈥檛 do this because they don鈥檛 have a brain.
I continually find myself falling for this anthropomorphizing trap. As a human, I kid myself into believing that I can envision what it鈥檚 like NOT to be human, but I鈥檝e learned this simply isn鈥檛 possible.
Most of us simply don鈥檛 understand the deep implications of evolution. Throughout Zo毛 Schlanger鈥檚 book you will find words that describe how evolution works and how living creatures change. She uses words like "want," "developed," "protected," "adapted," and 鈥渟trived," to convey the process that plants go through when evolving. But all of these are verbs that describe deeply HUMAN processes. When we attribute deeply human emotions to non-humans, we kid ourselves into believing the world revolves around human existence.
My feeling is that most of us tend to kid ourselves into believing that we understand how evolution works. We envision a plant working through a problem that assures its survival. It 鈥渇igures out鈥� how to evade predators, attain nutrients, and successfully procreate. We carelessly envision plants as little determined humans.
But the truth is that evolution is ABSOLUTELY mindless. It is a game of statistics. A million random genetic mutations naturally occur. 999,999 of them have either a detrimental effect or no effect at all. But one of these mutations randomly improves the entity鈥檚 chance of survival...and it gets passed on. Evolution doesn鈥檛 鈥渉ope,鈥� 鈥渟trive,鈥� 鈥渁dapt,鈥� or 鈥渋mprove,鈥� because it does not possess consciousness or purpose. It鈥檚 math and mathematical equations don鈥檛 strive for solutions.
So what I try to do is catch myself any time I use a VERB when describing a non-human entity. Why? Because most all verbs don鈥檛 work when we鈥檙e talking the completely random statistical effects of evolution. Evolution doesn鈥檛 鈥渋mprove,鈥� 鈥渉one,鈥� 鈥渁dapt,鈥� or 鈥渟eek.鈥� It is a roll of the dice and attributing any sort of human purpose to evolution is to delude ourselves.
For example "that tree suffered through the long summer drought." 鈥淪uffering鈥� is a human emotion. The truth is that I have no idea if a tree feels the emotion of "suffering." What verb can I use to describe that tree? I try to limit myself to verbs that describe my reaction to other objects.
For example, 鈥渟eeing that tree makes me feel sorrow.鈥� But wait a minute, I just did it again! That plant didn't "make" me do anything. Okay, how about "I feel sorrow when viewing that poor thirsty plant." I did it again. "Poor" implies human suffering. "Thirsty" implies a very human feeling as well. You see what a slippery slope this can be.
Zo毛 Schlanger鈥檚 book is filled with interesting facts on the latest research about plant senses. But I think this entire field of study does us all a disservice. Why? Because all of this work is usually undertaken with a hope that we find out how plants are just like humans. We want to believe that what we experience is what plants experience as well. And when humans discover even remotely common biological processes in a plant, we tend to instantly anthropomorphize that plant, endowing it with deeply human emotions that are so dear to the attributes humans recognize in themselves.
This book is interesting, but I also feel that it鈥檚 a troubling temptation for all of us to take a flight of fancy. Plants are not like humans and while this book occasionally makes that point, its very essence is a misguided anthropomorphic premise. This book tempts all of us into putting humans at the center of the universe and lures us into believing that plants are little green buddies who are just like us.
January 6, 2024
Magnificent. There are sentences in this book I read two or three times in admiration and ideas in here I will continue to turn over for a long time. This is a remarkable book.
February 8, 2025
Thank you Zoe for this tedious mumbling over two hundred pages. Thank you for 'scientific' searching if plants have conscious or not. You can write a book about such topics like if humans have souls or if Colorado beetles have dreams about potatoes. Personally I suspect that plants have not conscious because they don't have nervous system but maybe I'm wrong and our human senses make it impossible to notice it. My point is that it has nothing to do with science and this is a topic for pseudo-intellectual babbling, exactly like in this book.
I've learned the word 'anthropomorphism' some time ago and this is exactly what the writer is doing. She takes some actions made by plants as a proof of their intelligence but the same fact that something is going on doesn't prove intelligence, exactly like the fact that people become taller, are able to make offspring, etc. The fact that plants communicate is not a proof of intelligence. The fact that boys communicate with girls is not a proof of intelligence. They are attracted but it proves something else.
I wanted to read something about nature, pure science, and even if there is some information, the whole concept of the book dissuaded me from reading to the end. Maybe before reading nonfiction I should read reviews?
I've learned the word 'anthropomorphism' some time ago and this is exactly what the writer is doing. She takes some actions made by plants as a proof of their intelligence but the same fact that something is going on doesn't prove intelligence, exactly like the fact that people become taller, are able to make offspring, etc. The fact that plants communicate is not a proof of intelligence. The fact that boys communicate with girls is not a proof of intelligence. They are attracted but it proves something else.
I wanted to read something about nature, pure science, and even if there is some information, the whole concept of the book dissuaded me from reading to the end. Maybe before reading nonfiction I should read reviews?
July 9, 2024
Schlanger writes in a very approachable and engaging way. There's a fair bit of overlap of information between this book and when it comes to the arguments in favor of the notion that plants have a form of intelligence but here we get a lot more on why the idea has been so discredited and the history of thinking about the topic which I found particularly interesting.
February 22, 2024
This was an absolutely fascinating exploration of plant intelligence!
At times the paragraphs seemed unending, and I struggled with the long form format, but given the nature of the topic I think that is to be expected. The information was presented clearly and I truly do feel like I came away from this with so much to think about!
At times the paragraphs seemed unending, and I struggled with the long form format, but given the nature of the topic I think that is to be expected. The information was presented clearly and I truly do feel like I came away from this with so much to think about!
August 19, 2024
This is a very good popular-science book that I enjoyed reading, but the style it's written in made me uneasy. I've been putting off writing it up, never a good idea, since things fade if I procrastinate. Well, here's the best I can do. Plants are different than animals. Still, they are alive, and work to protect themselves, stay alive, and fight off predators. The author has talked to a lot of biologists, and has a lot of cool research to report. And evolution is smarter than you are....
It's a good book, and if it sounds like stuff you're interested in, you should read it. But do keep in mind, there's a reason for scientific skepticism about this style of writing.
Bah. Not my best review, that's for sure. Well, it's not like I'm getting paid for this. Anyway: 3.5 star read for me, recommended with caveats.
Earlier stuff:
Author Ed Yong recommends the book: "mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful."
Here's a cool publisher's preview:
Excerpt:
"It鈥檚 humbling to remember that plants are a kingdom of life entirely their own, the product of riotous evolutionary innovation that took a turn away from our branch of life when we were both barely motile, single-celled creatures floating in the prehistoric ocean. We couldn鈥檛 be more biologically different. And yet plants鈥� patterns and rhythms have resonances with ours ..."
A critical review at Science:
This is the stuff that makes me uneasy about the book.
It's a good book, and if it sounds like stuff you're interested in, you should read it. But do keep in mind, there's a reason for scientific skepticism about this style of writing.
Bah. Not my best review, that's for sure. Well, it's not like I'm getting paid for this. Anyway: 3.5 star read for me, recommended with caveats.
Earlier stuff:
Author Ed Yong recommends the book: "mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful."
Here's a cool publisher's preview:
Excerpt:
"It鈥檚 humbling to remember that plants are a kingdom of life entirely their own, the product of riotous evolutionary innovation that took a turn away from our branch of life when we were both barely motile, single-celled creatures floating in the prehistoric ocean. We couldn鈥檛 be more biologically different. And yet plants鈥� patterns and rhythms have resonances with ours ..."
A critical review at Science:
This is the stuff that makes me uneasy about the book.
June 30, 2024
Me, an intellectual, in my non-fiction era.
This was such an interesting read, I kept looking at my plants and thinking about how they don鈥檛 like it when I pet them :(
Other interesting tidbits:
- plants can signal to each other that predators are on their way by releasing airborne particles, so the trees who haven鈥檛 faced the predators can put up defenses
- other types can send out signals to attracts the predators of their predators. So like wasps show up that will eat the lady bugs that were eating the leaves.
- some pitcher plants literally seduce male wasps by producing female wasp pheromones, so the male wasps roll around in their pollen. except plot twist, it seems the male wasps can tell the difference between the real and fake wasps but get pleasure out of it so it鈥檚 like a mutually consensual thing going on.
- Tomato plants put chemical in their leaves that makes caterpillars eat each other instead. That鈥檚 wild!
This was such an interesting read, I kept looking at my plants and thinking about how they don鈥檛 like it when I pet them :(
Other interesting tidbits:
- plants can signal to each other that predators are on their way by releasing airborne particles, so the trees who haven鈥檛 faced the predators can put up defenses
- other types can send out signals to attracts the predators of their predators. So like wasps show up that will eat the lady bugs that were eating the leaves.
- some pitcher plants literally seduce male wasps by producing female wasp pheromones, so the male wasps roll around in their pollen. except plot twist, it seems the male wasps can tell the difference between the real and fake wasps but get pleasure out of it so it鈥檚 like a mutually consensual thing going on.
- Tomato plants put chemical in their leaves that makes caterpillars eat each other instead. That鈥檚 wild!
June 14, 2024
well-reasearched, heady, charismatic, curious, driven/driving, ambitious/striving, anecdotal/super scientifically scenic (enjoyably so), clever, alluring, enriching, deliberate.
after each reading session i couldn鈥檛 shake the 鈥淣ew York State of Mind鈥�- i felt pollinated by it鈥檚 compacting force: it hit me like a train, deadlines, an all-caps bullet list that broiled down to details details details with no time to simmer, very opposite of how i long to feel when connecting with the subject that she pushes with fervent devotion to ripen the empirical world of science to. i wonder if Zoe Schlanger feels that way sometimes too and if having a writerly way with plants who are so unlike the city (or are they鈥�?) is an ideal escape or outlet for the pressures that a stampede of an accelerating, sucessful, high-functioning life in NYC acedemia and NYC-based reporting is. once i stopped wanting 鈥淟ight Eaters鈥� to be more like a humbling escapde (like how the good wind blows through Stephen Harron Buhner, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Mary Oliver, Black Elk 鈥�) i was able to respect it for exactly what it is: a solid and scientific contribution. major nod to Zoe for skipping an MA that she clearly doesn鈥檛 need and instead taking up her own voice and her own lifeforce to invest in the task of delivering our age鈥檚 ripeness with this informationally-dense dazzler, for putting her blood, sweat, and tears into writing it. 鈥済reat work if you can get it鈥� indeed. i think sometimes the public forgets that plenty (most) writers are making careers, because they also have a right to a livlihood and they also have to work (hard) to earn that. few careers are filled with the intensities of such scrutinizing. parts of this book read as though this could be someone鈥檚 first expansive introduction to the subject- i think it would serve well as so. her narrative is young/smart/fast/hip/informational rather than the enlightening elder voice i usually to prefer to sit mountainside with (in a book). however, most every page is overgrown with fascinating facts, the reach for mind-opening (human brain transcendance: is there anything loftier for a human to reach for? can it be reached, or is that what all-too-human hands with human brains do? that鈥檚 what we all fathom to quest...) and beautiful data-driven writing.
i鈥檓 reading reviews that are stating 鈥淟ight Eaters鈥� wasn鈥檛 scientific enough, which i completely disagree with: Zo毛 Schlanger is an intense and intellectually focused woman who has surmounted a lifetime of acedemic pressure to prove things using the scientific method, and she does so *consistently* throughout her book. she has been acedemically trained to appease pedantic authority figures who require she do this often and automatically.
i also see some complaints that she anthropomorphizes too much- again, i disagree, and observed zero concerning or blatant anthropomorphism in this book. i think people are simply picking up on the fact that a human wrote this book about plant intelligence (a driven, clever, curious, emerging young female writer who lives in New York wrote this book about plant intelligence). if you鈥檙e looking for a book that reads the way the natural world makes you feel, hopefully you will find those. think of this book as a lecture - not a walkabout, and not a book written by voice of the land.
as informationally rife and heavy-hitting as this book is, i hope its material softens people for humility to non-human lifeforms rather than to be strident and voracious for 鈥榖ook-knowledge鈥� as the book drives.
takeaway: we are not plants (although we- and our intelligence- are inseperable from our co-evolution that is greatly due to them), we are humans. yet isn鈥檛 it also our task to distil what we take in, and to find a symbiotic way of life with what we put out?
after each reading session i couldn鈥檛 shake the 鈥淣ew York State of Mind鈥�- i felt pollinated by it鈥檚 compacting force: it hit me like a train, deadlines, an all-caps bullet list that broiled down to details details details with no time to simmer, very opposite of how i long to feel when connecting with the subject that she pushes with fervent devotion to ripen the empirical world of science to. i wonder if Zoe Schlanger feels that way sometimes too and if having a writerly way with plants who are so unlike the city (or are they鈥�?) is an ideal escape or outlet for the pressures that a stampede of an accelerating, sucessful, high-functioning life in NYC acedemia and NYC-based reporting is. once i stopped wanting 鈥淟ight Eaters鈥� to be more like a humbling escapde (like how the good wind blows through Stephen Harron Buhner, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Mary Oliver, Black Elk 鈥�) i was able to respect it for exactly what it is: a solid and scientific contribution. major nod to Zoe for skipping an MA that she clearly doesn鈥檛 need and instead taking up her own voice and her own lifeforce to invest in the task of delivering our age鈥檚 ripeness with this informationally-dense dazzler, for putting her blood, sweat, and tears into writing it. 鈥済reat work if you can get it鈥� indeed. i think sometimes the public forgets that plenty (most) writers are making careers, because they also have a right to a livlihood and they also have to work (hard) to earn that. few careers are filled with the intensities of such scrutinizing. parts of this book read as though this could be someone鈥檚 first expansive introduction to the subject- i think it would serve well as so. her narrative is young/smart/fast/hip/informational rather than the enlightening elder voice i usually to prefer to sit mountainside with (in a book). however, most every page is overgrown with fascinating facts, the reach for mind-opening (human brain transcendance: is there anything loftier for a human to reach for? can it be reached, or is that what all-too-human hands with human brains do? that鈥檚 what we all fathom to quest...) and beautiful data-driven writing.
i鈥檓 reading reviews that are stating 鈥淟ight Eaters鈥� wasn鈥檛 scientific enough, which i completely disagree with: Zo毛 Schlanger is an intense and intellectually focused woman who has surmounted a lifetime of acedemic pressure to prove things using the scientific method, and she does so *consistently* throughout her book. she has been acedemically trained to appease pedantic authority figures who require she do this often and automatically.
i also see some complaints that she anthropomorphizes too much- again, i disagree, and observed zero concerning or blatant anthropomorphism in this book. i think people are simply picking up on the fact that a human wrote this book about plant intelligence (a driven, clever, curious, emerging young female writer who lives in New York wrote this book about plant intelligence). if you鈥檙e looking for a book that reads the way the natural world makes you feel, hopefully you will find those. think of this book as a lecture - not a walkabout, and not a book written by voice of the land.
as informationally rife and heavy-hitting as this book is, i hope its material softens people for humility to non-human lifeforms rather than to be strident and voracious for 鈥榖ook-knowledge鈥� as the book drives.
takeaway: we are not plants (although we- and our intelligence- are inseperable from our co-evolution that is greatly due to them), we are humans. yet isn鈥檛 it also our task to distil what we take in, and to find a symbiotic way of life with what we put out?
May 20, 2024
Well, as a vegan I am now royally screwed. This comes across definitely as the work of a journalist and not a scientist. It's interesting that she references such a superior work (Merlin Sheldrake's Entangled Life) - there's an overabundance of awe here without a solid footing on the science. As others complained she's really over anthropomorphizing the findings. At some point early on I had on my bingo card that we'd be hearing a lot about Margulis and... ding-ding, there it was. This just wasn't my cup of science tea I suppose.
abandoned
November 19, 2024Read through page 74.
I have a harder time with books about plant and animal biology than I would like, because these are fascinating worlds. Paradoxically, the fact that so much of this book focuses on the scientists making the discoveries, and the author鈥檚 own feelings about plants, actually made it more of a slog for me鈥擨 wanted it packed with fascinating plant facts like is with animal facts. But it felt like a lot of chaff to get through for the good stuff. Fortunately I鈥檇 picked it up as a buddy read, and my partner finished and passed on only the great plant facts, which for me was the ideal way to experience this book. Because plants are incredibly cool, capable of far more in terms of things like senses and communication than most people give them credit for.
I have a harder time with books about plant and animal biology than I would like, because these are fascinating worlds. Paradoxically, the fact that so much of this book focuses on the scientists making the discoveries, and the author鈥檚 own feelings about plants, actually made it more of a slog for me鈥擨 wanted it packed with fascinating plant facts like is with animal facts. But it felt like a lot of chaff to get through for the good stuff. Fortunately I鈥檇 picked it up as a buddy read, and my partner finished and passed on only the great plant facts, which for me was the ideal way to experience this book. Because plants are incredibly cool, capable of far more in terms of things like senses and communication than most people give them credit for.
June 13, 2024
Plants are so cool man.
October 18, 2024
In 1973, two American authors published The Secret Life of Plants, and it became an instant bestseller. Just like Clever Hans (an early 20th century German horse that was supposed to do math) and similar animal stories in popular culture killed the study of animal intelligence for many years, The Secret Life of Plants, filled with largely fictional claims, killed the field of plant-sensing research for 20 years.
In The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth, Zoe Schlanger attempts to give plants the credits we owe, just as Frans de Waal does to animals in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?. Zoe Schlanger interviewed plant scientists and explained cutting edge research to a wider audience. I enjoyed it very much. It gives me so many topics to follow up. Right now I am looking up Boquila trifoliolata, a shapeshifting plant.
The author is fully aware that plant intelligence is a controversial topic that divides scientists. The use of 鈥渋ntelligence鈥� implies human-ness or at least animal-ness. That鈥檚 because our language is human-centric. We simply don鈥檛 have ready-made words to describe the sensing plants that without brains and nerves but can still 鈥渒now鈥� their surroundings, kins and enemies, have 鈥減ersonalities鈥�, even store 鈥渕emories鈥�.
I agree that modern science, by default, is conservative. A theory or hypothesis can鈥檛 become fact until after vigorous research, peer-reviews, and repeatable, double-blinded experiments. Such an attitude is a must especially in our era of widespread misinformation. And yet, I find the book provides good examples of why we should abandon our anthropocentric views about plants. There is a difference between treating plants as inanimate objects to be exploited, and anthropomorphizing them and projecting our needs and desires onto them, but perhaps we should try to understand them as they are.
In The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth, Zoe Schlanger attempts to give plants the credits we owe, just as Frans de Waal does to animals in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?. Zoe Schlanger interviewed plant scientists and explained cutting edge research to a wider audience. I enjoyed it very much. It gives me so many topics to follow up. Right now I am looking up Boquila trifoliolata, a shapeshifting plant.
The author is fully aware that plant intelligence is a controversial topic that divides scientists. The use of 鈥渋ntelligence鈥� implies human-ness or at least animal-ness. That鈥檚 because our language is human-centric. We simply don鈥檛 have ready-made words to describe the sensing plants that without brains and nerves but can still 鈥渒now鈥� their surroundings, kins and enemies, have 鈥減ersonalities鈥�, even store 鈥渕emories鈥�.
I agree that modern science, by default, is conservative. A theory or hypothesis can鈥檛 become fact until after vigorous research, peer-reviews, and repeatable, double-blinded experiments. Such an attitude is a must especially in our era of widespread misinformation. And yet, I find the book provides good examples of why we should abandon our anthropocentric views about plants. There is a difference between treating plants as inanimate objects to be exploited, and anthropomorphizing them and projecting our needs and desires onto them, but perhaps we should try to understand them as they are.
March 2, 2025
(2.5)鈥漇eeing plants as beings worthy of rights would open up a different realm of being with plants. It would revolutionize our moral system, our legal system, and the way we live on the earth鈥�
The author at her most loopy or she鈥檚 a Lotus Eater who wrote a book about Light eaters鈥�
But even with her gee whiz attitude about plants and her willingness to glom on to radical hypotheses of plant intelligence, communication, sociability she does convey much mystery and insight鈥�
Certain plants are able to mimic other plants like Mystique of the X-men鈥ow does this happen? Seemingly by sharing microbes鈥lants engage in an altruism by not competing as strongly against their genetic kin鈥gain how is this recognition accomplished?
If you鈥檙e reading this to find out more about chlorophyll and chloroplasts you鈥檒l be disappointed鈥E exists more on the margins of plant science鈥inally my pet peeve in reading any of these scientific examinations is how only capitalism makes such fetishized intellectualism possible鈥eople study sagebrush, chipmunks chirping, the clicking sounds grape makes鈥nd while a few insights鈥ike plant kin can be grown closer together for agriculture have some utility鈥o much of what is studied for decades is completely useless鈥�
P. S this stat can鈥檛 be right鈥�
11,000 farmworkers are fatally poisoned by pesticides each year, and another 385 million are severely poisoned but don鈥檛 die, to say nothing of the birth defects, breathing disorders, and other
The author at her most loopy or she鈥檚 a Lotus Eater who wrote a book about Light eaters鈥�
But even with her gee whiz attitude about plants and her willingness to glom on to radical hypotheses of plant intelligence, communication, sociability she does convey much mystery and insight鈥�
Certain plants are able to mimic other plants like Mystique of the X-men鈥ow does this happen? Seemingly by sharing microbes鈥lants engage in an altruism by not competing as strongly against their genetic kin鈥gain how is this recognition accomplished?
If you鈥檙e reading this to find out more about chlorophyll and chloroplasts you鈥檒l be disappointed鈥E exists more on the margins of plant science鈥inally my pet peeve in reading any of these scientific examinations is how only capitalism makes such fetishized intellectualism possible鈥eople study sagebrush, chipmunks chirping, the clicking sounds grape makes鈥nd while a few insights鈥ike plant kin can be grown closer together for agriculture have some utility鈥o much of what is studied for decades is completely useless鈥�
P. S this stat can鈥檛 be right鈥�
11,000 farmworkers are fatally poisoned by pesticides each year, and another 385 million are severely poisoned but don鈥檛 die, to say nothing of the birth defects, breathing disorders, and other
November 26, 2024
The depth of respect that the author has gained for the plant world is as infectious as the vines she so tenderly describes. The abilities of plants, be they biologically or somehow thought-based, are inarguable yet are so unknown by most humans. They truly are remarkable in the ways they defend themselves or how they help each other grow and thrive. I listened to the audiobook, so I also enjoyed the author's gentle, lilting voice as I did chores and computer work. I would most definitely seek out other books by the author.
February 15, 2024
I received an advance reader's edition of this book from HarperCollins in exchange for an honest review.
Environment and science reporter Zoe Schlanger presents an investigation into the current research and scientific thought on plant intelligence - their ability to communicate, their recognition of kin relationships, social interactions, and memories. Traversing the globe, the book presents multiple compelling examples of plants that have adapted and developed intelligent life required to survive and thrive.
This book provides so many compelling examples of plant intelligence: "When such plants find themselves beside their siblings, they rearrange their leaves within two days to avoid shading them. Pea shoot roots appeared to be able to hear water flowing through sealed pipes and grow toward them, and several plants, including lima beans and tobacco, can react to an attack of munching insects by summoning those insects' specific predators to come pick them off" (16). This book provided a whole new way of thinking about plant life from a static, unfeeling growth to an organism capable of advanced and rational decisions. It is wild to think about plants deliberately releasing chemical signals into the air that surrounding plants use to prepare defenses against predators. In effect, the plants under attack can warn nearby plants. And to learn that plants live more reciprocally and communicate more closely with other plants that they correctly identify as their kin. This is a world of social relationships and robust communication. Not in the way we think of in animals, but in their own quiet, stationary way.
Schlanger carefully articulates the reality that for decades the idea of plant "intelligence" has been unwelcome amongst the scientific community because it implied a consciousness akin to that found in animals and humans. But in this book she makes a strong argument that their intelligence is a parallel one but clearly intelligence, nonetheless. Plants aren't randomly growing; they are highly evolved over millennia to make deliberate choices and work in coordination with their surroundings to survive.
Despite offering up such interesting examples and really making me a think a lot, this felt like a slow read. Rather than staying on subject, the author shares random details and background on her travels and the backgrounds of the different scientists she talks to. I think this is meant to add interest and personality to the book, but I would have rather it stayed on the subject matter and just gotten on it with. Instead, it just made the narrative feel scattered. A really fascinating topic about ideas that seem to be building in momentum within the scientific community.
Environment and science reporter Zoe Schlanger presents an investigation into the current research and scientific thought on plant intelligence - their ability to communicate, their recognition of kin relationships, social interactions, and memories. Traversing the globe, the book presents multiple compelling examples of plants that have adapted and developed intelligent life required to survive and thrive.
This book provides so many compelling examples of plant intelligence: "When such plants find themselves beside their siblings, they rearrange their leaves within two days to avoid shading them. Pea shoot roots appeared to be able to hear water flowing through sealed pipes and grow toward them, and several plants, including lima beans and tobacco, can react to an attack of munching insects by summoning those insects' specific predators to come pick them off" (16). This book provided a whole new way of thinking about plant life from a static, unfeeling growth to an organism capable of advanced and rational decisions. It is wild to think about plants deliberately releasing chemical signals into the air that surrounding plants use to prepare defenses against predators. In effect, the plants under attack can warn nearby plants. And to learn that plants live more reciprocally and communicate more closely with other plants that they correctly identify as their kin. This is a world of social relationships and robust communication. Not in the way we think of in animals, but in their own quiet, stationary way.
Schlanger carefully articulates the reality that for decades the idea of plant "intelligence" has been unwelcome amongst the scientific community because it implied a consciousness akin to that found in animals and humans. But in this book she makes a strong argument that their intelligence is a parallel one but clearly intelligence, nonetheless. Plants aren't randomly growing; they are highly evolved over millennia to make deliberate choices and work in coordination with their surroundings to survive.
Despite offering up such interesting examples and really making me a think a lot, this felt like a slow read. Rather than staying on subject, the author shares random details and background on her travels and the backgrounds of the different scientists she talks to. I think this is meant to add interest and personality to the book, but I would have rather it stayed on the subject matter and just gotten on it with. Instead, it just made the narrative feel scattered. A really fascinating topic about ideas that seem to be building in momentum within the scientific community.
June 12, 2024
the world is a prism, not a window. wherever we look, we find new refractions.zo毛 schlanger's the light eaters is a relentlessly fascinating, often compelling probe into the very latest plant science. with contagious enthusiasm and open-minded curiosity, the atlantic staff writer reports on myriad botanical discoveries (many of which should fundamentally alter our consideration of and approach to plant life of all kinds). schlanger situates recent research against the larger background of ongoing scientific skepticism, anthropocentrism, and the linguistic limitations inherent in discussing other species. parts of the light eaters are absolutely riveting and the well-researched evidence schlanger presents for plant intelligence (and even plant consciousness) is quite impressive.
but what happens then? underlying all this is the deeper question, the one that matters most: what will we do with this new understanding? there are two directions to go in: we do nothing at all, and carry on as before, or we change our relationship with plants. at what point do plants enter the gates of our regard? when are they allowed in to the realm of our ethical consideration? is it when they have language? when they have family structures? when they make allies and enemies, have preferences, plan ahead? when we find they can remember? they seem, indeed, to have all these characteristics. it's now our choice whether we let that reality in. to let plants in.
November 18, 2024
This book is interesting, and I did enjoy the cool plant facts I picked up along the way, but there are some SERIOUS issues that need to be addressed.
1. This is not a scientific book. There are interviews and stories and studies discussed, but this is fundamentally not a novel written by a scientist who is an expect in their field. And it shows. This is noticeable jn 2 ways. First, the claims made in this book regarding plant intelligence do not have the conservative narrative that any well regarded researcher would take. Schlanger makes bold statements and draws huge conclusions from studies that do not show the same thing. The second place this was especially noticeable to me was in chapter 10, which concerns inheritance. The way genetic inheritance is presented is extremely shallow. Schlanger mentions that only 30 something percent of height is explained by genetics among many other facts concerning missing inheritance, yet hardly discusses epigenetic factors. She attributes this missing inheritance to a sort of intentional life-shaping on the plants behalf, without showing evidence this may be true. She also leads the reader to consider all genes as Mendelian. Not to mention the philosophical question of what is a gene. Perhaps height is unexplained because our current arbitrary lines we draw for genes are simply incorrect. Oversimplifications like this are everywhere in the book, and it comes off as less of a portrayal of science and more of hopeful wishing.
2. As current research stands the idea of plant intelligence is a philosophical question more than it is a biological one. What is intelligence? What is consciousness? This entire book lies on the foundation of these two questions yet the intricacies of these definitions are barely scratched. Early on, Schlanger claims that the question of plant intelligence is not a semantic one, as intelligence has no specific definition and looks different in plants than in us humans. This is fine, but then she continues to use the words intelligence and consciousness with the same contextual implications as if plants were human agents. She cites Godfrey smith quite a bit which I find hilarious because he does such an excellent job at exactly what this book fails to do. Likewise with her discussions on Kuhn. Two giants of the philosophy of science yet that same atmosphere of inquiry is absent in this book. Schlanger fails to take a critical look at what intelligence or conciseness means, and how it emerges as a property. At what point does the collection of non intelligent properties make something intelligent. Many things she cites as evidence of intelligence, such as plants reacting to sound and memory, have no bearing on the subject by themselves. After all antibodies have a 鈥渕emory鈥� and glass 鈥渞eacts鈥� to sound in that it shatters at certain frequencies. In the same sense we sense sound via mechanistic hair cells in our ears. It is the understanding of that signal that makes it an intelligent characteristic, not the sensing it itself. Phenomenon that can be explained purely in causal physical relationships, like adjusting behavior according to a plants surroundings, by themselves reveal nothing about intelligence or at an even lower bar agency. (Though depending on the definition of agency, some plants could meet this lower bar).
3. The language. Schlanger loves to anthropomorphize plants. To some degree this is unavoidable as most verbs have an inseparable human connotation. But, Schlanger takes this much too far, basically writing about plants as if they are not only animals, but humans. This completely undermines her point that intelligence looks different in plants, because her language implies she doesn鈥檛 see it this way. She will repeatedly say that we don鈥檛 have words to describe the plants experience, but that does not justify the use of some of the language. And it鈥檚 not impossible to write a book like this without this pitiful. One of the books she cites, entangled life, does a PHENOMENAL job of keeping the writing fun and interesting while respecting the scientific discipline it discusses. Overall this book feels like a reporter going down a rabbit hole that she does not understand, which is disappointing because I was hoping to learn from someone who feels credible for the subject matter.
I could go on further. The excessively flowery language. The countless 鈥渨hat ifs鈥�. The lack of addressing the merits of the opposing view. There are just too many issues with this book for me to call it a good read.
1. This is not a scientific book. There are interviews and stories and studies discussed, but this is fundamentally not a novel written by a scientist who is an expect in their field. And it shows. This is noticeable jn 2 ways. First, the claims made in this book regarding plant intelligence do not have the conservative narrative that any well regarded researcher would take. Schlanger makes bold statements and draws huge conclusions from studies that do not show the same thing. The second place this was especially noticeable to me was in chapter 10, which concerns inheritance. The way genetic inheritance is presented is extremely shallow. Schlanger mentions that only 30 something percent of height is explained by genetics among many other facts concerning missing inheritance, yet hardly discusses epigenetic factors. She attributes this missing inheritance to a sort of intentional life-shaping on the plants behalf, without showing evidence this may be true. She also leads the reader to consider all genes as Mendelian. Not to mention the philosophical question of what is a gene. Perhaps height is unexplained because our current arbitrary lines we draw for genes are simply incorrect. Oversimplifications like this are everywhere in the book, and it comes off as less of a portrayal of science and more of hopeful wishing.
2. As current research stands the idea of plant intelligence is a philosophical question more than it is a biological one. What is intelligence? What is consciousness? This entire book lies on the foundation of these two questions yet the intricacies of these definitions are barely scratched. Early on, Schlanger claims that the question of plant intelligence is not a semantic one, as intelligence has no specific definition and looks different in plants than in us humans. This is fine, but then she continues to use the words intelligence and consciousness with the same contextual implications as if plants were human agents. She cites Godfrey smith quite a bit which I find hilarious because he does such an excellent job at exactly what this book fails to do. Likewise with her discussions on Kuhn. Two giants of the philosophy of science yet that same atmosphere of inquiry is absent in this book. Schlanger fails to take a critical look at what intelligence or conciseness means, and how it emerges as a property. At what point does the collection of non intelligent properties make something intelligent. Many things she cites as evidence of intelligence, such as plants reacting to sound and memory, have no bearing on the subject by themselves. After all antibodies have a 鈥渕emory鈥� and glass 鈥渞eacts鈥� to sound in that it shatters at certain frequencies. In the same sense we sense sound via mechanistic hair cells in our ears. It is the understanding of that signal that makes it an intelligent characteristic, not the sensing it itself. Phenomenon that can be explained purely in causal physical relationships, like adjusting behavior according to a plants surroundings, by themselves reveal nothing about intelligence or at an even lower bar agency. (Though depending on the definition of agency, some plants could meet this lower bar).
3. The language. Schlanger loves to anthropomorphize plants. To some degree this is unavoidable as most verbs have an inseparable human connotation. But, Schlanger takes this much too far, basically writing about plants as if they are not only animals, but humans. This completely undermines her point that intelligence looks different in plants, because her language implies she doesn鈥檛 see it this way. She will repeatedly say that we don鈥檛 have words to describe the plants experience, but that does not justify the use of some of the language. And it鈥檚 not impossible to write a book like this without this pitiful. One of the books she cites, entangled life, does a PHENOMENAL job of keeping the writing fun and interesting while respecting the scientific discipline it discusses. Overall this book feels like a reporter going down a rabbit hole that she does not understand, which is disappointing because I was hoping to learn from someone who feels credible for the subject matter.
I could go on further. The excessively flowery language. The countless 鈥渨hat ifs鈥�. The lack of addressing the merits of the opposing view. There are just too many issues with this book for me to call it a good read.
July 15, 2024
The prologue and first chapter were needlessly personal, meandering, and woo-adjacent... so it's fortunate I persisted, because the rest of this book largely sets that aside. This is a great overview of plant research, filled with interesting facts. Some theories that were verboten just a decade or two ago struck me as common knowledge, while some of the new frontiers were crazy to me.
Recommend that people just skip the first two chapters, unless they really need a "personal connection" and why the author cares about plants.
Recommend that people just skip the first two chapters, unless they really need a "personal connection" and why the author cares about plants.
April 10, 2024
After reading The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth, I have to rethink everything I know about my favorite aromas, foods, activities . . . .
This topic is well-researched, and over decades by highly esteemed scientists. It is a bit challenging to get my head around. The author has amassed a trove of studies that support the argument in favor of plant intelligence and communication.
To be quite blunt, I am now questioning the benefits of vegetarianism. We鈥檝e had animal welfare groups for a long time and now I question whether we should have plant welfare groups as well.
Certain aspects of the book are horrifying. I may never enjoy the fragrance of freshly mown grass again.
The book is well-written with plenty of supporting documentation and citations. It is also written for just about anyone to read. You don鈥檛 need a PhD to understand The Light Eaters. Zoe Schlanger may have changed the way we look at the world entirely. It is not just teeming with life, but with intelligent life.
This topic is well-researched, and over decades by highly esteemed scientists. It is a bit challenging to get my head around. The author has amassed a trove of studies that support the argument in favor of plant intelligence and communication.
To be quite blunt, I am now questioning the benefits of vegetarianism. We鈥檝e had animal welfare groups for a long time and now I question whether we should have plant welfare groups as well.
Certain aspects of the book are horrifying. I may never enjoy the fragrance of freshly mown grass again.
The book is well-written with plenty of supporting documentation and citations. It is also written for just about anyone to read. You don鈥檛 need a PhD to understand The Light Eaters. Zoe Schlanger may have changed the way we look at the world entirely. It is not just teeming with life, but with intelligent life.
September 20, 2024
For a debut non-fiction book, Zoe Schlanger did a yeoman job. After several years of technical research,interviews with botanists and field trips and lab work she began the process. She writes with an easy to follow style . The writing is insightful, thought provoking. Admittedly she is not a professional scientist/author like Stephen J Gould, E.O.Wilson or Loren Eisley. But she is a young journalist writing from the vantage point of passion and curiosity and facts as well as theories.
Think the next David Quammen. That good.
Does she ever go off-track and try to say plants are like humans鈥︹€漮ur little buddies?鈥� NO.
For those of you who missed it, she clearly states that 鈥溾€�.words are merely symbols.They draw a perimeter around a feeling for which there is no language. In that sense, INTELLIGENT might be the tightest word-perimeter we鈥檝e got to describe what we are seeing plants do.鈥�
Give the book a try.
Then review it.
Just promise to read it ALL before 鈥ou know鈥�..you think you personally could have done better.
Think the next David Quammen. That good.
Does she ever go off-track and try to say plants are like humans鈥︹€漮ur little buddies?鈥� NO.
For those of you who missed it, she clearly states that 鈥溾€�.words are merely symbols.They draw a perimeter around a feeling for which there is no language. In that sense, INTELLIGENT might be the tightest word-perimeter we鈥檝e got to describe what we are seeing plants do.鈥�
Give the book a try.
Then review it.
Just promise to read it ALL before 鈥ou know鈥�..you think you personally could have done better.
June 24, 2024
The author repeatedly said we should not overly anthropomorphize plants abilities however proceeded to anthropomorphize plants at every possible turn. The failure to differentiate memory from instinct or counting from threshold potential,even after saying vocabulary matter, is an unforgivable lack of nuance. The topic is fascinating but failing to different plants abilities from anthropomorphized qualities that higher animals have evolved is a disservice to the amazing sensory and reactionary discoveries in plants.
July 26, 2024
Whether plants are living, thinking, and sentient is a fascinating topic and the (audio)book initially gripped me. But as I got further along, I found it harder and harder to stay focused. I'm not sure what that is, but it probably could've been a bit shorter - and all authors should consider whether they are really the best person to read the audio editions of their book.
January 10, 2025
A fascinating look into the plant world and the scientists who study them, with insights into animal and human biology. Very well written and easy to read for us non-scientists. 馃憦
July 3, 2024
Feeling like 4.5 stars but rounding up because I did really love it!
Last year I read 鈥淕od, Human, Animal, Machine鈥� by Meghan O鈥橤ieblyn (highly recommend!) and in it she discusses the concept of 鈥渄isenchantment鈥� following the introduction of Cartesian dualism. Basically, Ren茅 Descartes described the mind as different from the body, with the human body being a 鈥渕achine鈥� and the mind being a non-physical 鈥渟oul鈥�. The rest of the natural living world falls into the category of machine, so even if we can explain wondrous things, they are viewed as mechanistic and less enthralling or meaningful compared to human experience.
I agree that this disenchantment has happened, and especially with religion receding, we are starting to see various atomized new agey forms of spirituality take its place (astrology cannot be escaped, much to my chagrin). This doesn鈥檛 have to be the case, however, and I am a firm believer that there should be some form of naturalistic spirituality (spiritual materialism, poetic naturalism.. take your pick) in modern culture.
Enter this book, as well as others like it (e.g., Entangled Life). It was a joy to be led through how our understanding of plants and the conversation amongst scientists have evolved over time. Regardless of where you come down on the plant 鈥渋ntelligence鈥� debate, it鈥檚 clear there is so much happening that we don鈥檛 yet know or understanding, and I find that awe-inspiring. My hope is that, with more wonderful books like this one, we can feel both connected to and enchanted with the natural world on its own terms, with what we already know, will someday know, and may never know.
Last year I read 鈥淕od, Human, Animal, Machine鈥� by Meghan O鈥橤ieblyn (highly recommend!) and in it she discusses the concept of 鈥渄isenchantment鈥� following the introduction of Cartesian dualism. Basically, Ren茅 Descartes described the mind as different from the body, with the human body being a 鈥渕achine鈥� and the mind being a non-physical 鈥渟oul鈥�. The rest of the natural living world falls into the category of machine, so even if we can explain wondrous things, they are viewed as mechanistic and less enthralling or meaningful compared to human experience.
I agree that this disenchantment has happened, and especially with religion receding, we are starting to see various atomized new agey forms of spirituality take its place (astrology cannot be escaped, much to my chagrin). This doesn鈥檛 have to be the case, however, and I am a firm believer that there should be some form of naturalistic spirituality (spiritual materialism, poetic naturalism.. take your pick) in modern culture.
Enter this book, as well as others like it (e.g., Entangled Life). It was a joy to be led through how our understanding of plants and the conversation amongst scientists have evolved over time. Regardless of where you come down on the plant 鈥渋ntelligence鈥� debate, it鈥檚 clear there is so much happening that we don鈥檛 yet know or understanding, and I find that awe-inspiring. My hope is that, with more wonderful books like this one, we can feel both connected to and enchanted with the natural world on its own terms, with what we already know, will someday know, and may never know.
October 17, 2024
Buy.
It was only 50-60 years ago that the maniacs that make up the human race believed that animals felt no pain, had no emotions, had no consciousness. Today this is unthinkable.
Schlanger here makes a very compelling and convincing compilation of the growing evidence that plants have something similar. This is exciting and I can't wait to see what we know about this 50-100 years from now.
It was only 50-60 years ago that the maniacs that make up the human race believed that animals felt no pain, had no emotions, had no consciousness. Today this is unthinkable.
Schlanger here makes a very compelling and convincing compilation of the growing evidence that plants have something similar. This is exciting and I can't wait to see what we know about this 50-100 years from now.
January 31, 2025
4.5 rounded down
I thought this was a fascinating read. Most of the reviews I've read that are critical think the author was anthropomorphizing, to which I say -- did you actually read the book? She explicitly states throughout the nuance of language and understanding, and that while it's clear that plants are very distinct from animals, it also appears they have capabilities that we've underestimated and dismissed out of what seems like an outsized fear of anthropomorphization, and perhaps because we've never taken the time to develop a language nuanced enough to be able to differentiate between different kinds of understanding. Plant intelligence isn't the same as animal or human intelligence, but there is *something* there worth learning and understanding. In a world that increasingly dismisses the natural world, burning it to the ground in capitalistic fervor, I can't say I'm surprised at the easy dismissal of any sort of understanding or wisdom from nature. IDK man, I thought this was cool, fascinating, and very readable.
I thought this was a fascinating read. Most of the reviews I've read that are critical think the author was anthropomorphizing, to which I say -- did you actually read the book? She explicitly states throughout the nuance of language and understanding, and that while it's clear that plants are very distinct from animals, it also appears they have capabilities that we've underestimated and dismissed out of what seems like an outsized fear of anthropomorphization, and perhaps because we've never taken the time to develop a language nuanced enough to be able to differentiate between different kinds of understanding. Plant intelligence isn't the same as animal or human intelligence, but there is *something* there worth learning and understanding. In a world that increasingly dismisses the natural world, burning it to the ground in capitalistic fervor, I can't say I'm surprised at the easy dismissal of any sort of understanding or wisdom from nature. IDK man, I thought this was cool, fascinating, and very readable.
May 21, 2025
I love plants I love science. This book was awesome. I鈥檓 so jaded by academia right now but this made me so excited about all the cool shit scientists are doing with plants and wow it is beautiful. Recommend to anyone who鈥檚 looking for a book to make them smile and appreciate life right now.
April 2, 2025
Listen, sometimes I rejected some of Schlanger's implications. Sometimes I was annoyed by the pop-sci writing style where each scientist needs to be a quirky character. But all in all, I'm sold. Plants are where it's at. They deserve more respect. They're doing interesting things. Let's pay more attention to them.
May 25, 2025
Many reasons that I found this book, which had a chance to be great, boring and irritating.
1. Great title, but misleading. Book was about plant communication, not photosynthesis. I wanted to read about eating light.
2. Author Schlanger strives to write sweeping sentences that she hopes her English professor would be thrilled with (but won't be). Annoying and misplaced.
3. The sense of wonder in each page gets old after the first chapter. Didn鈥檛 help that I listened to the author read it, gasping with awe all the way through. But by 2025 everyone knows that plants communicate, right?
4. She did a lot of work and loves plants. I feel guilty but cannot recommend it. Suzanne Simard and Melvin Sheldrake do it so much better. Or Richard Powers.
1. Great title, but misleading. Book was about plant communication, not photosynthesis. I wanted to read about eating light.
2. Author Schlanger strives to write sweeping sentences that she hopes her English professor would be thrilled with (but won't be). Annoying and misplaced.
3. The sense of wonder in each page gets old after the first chapter. Didn鈥檛 help that I listened to the author read it, gasping with awe all the way through. But by 2025 everyone knows that plants communicate, right?
4. She did a lot of work and loves plants. I feel guilty but cannot recommend it. Suzanne Simard and Melvin Sheldrake do it so much better. Or Richard Powers.
March 22, 2025
I won't soon forget that one scientist likens the scent of fresh cut grass to the plants' screams. Lots of interesting thoughts in here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 989 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.