503
Both are beautiful. (lemmy.today)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

weeds are removed for good reason, though. they are an invasive species with little value and they will end up killing off the rest of the garden if left unchecked.

The heavy handed metaphor is one plant being a cat and the other a rabid leopard. Even if you love all animals, you and the cats aren't safe with a leopard wandering around. But I'm sorry that some parents are so impatient with their kids that they can't break this down to them logically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Counterpoint: Dandelions

    Pretty much the perfect plant that has nothing but positive benefits. People just decided they were a weed despite them being great for the soil, great for bees, lush, resilient, and literally every part of them being edible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    You're missing the point entirely, assuming, incorrect, and actually insulting my mother. Good work.

    The term "weed" is used to mean any plant growing somewhere it is unwanted. It has nothing to do with whether or not a given species is considered invasive. The reason weeds are normally removed is simply because they're growing there they aren't wanted. They made the mistake of coming to life in someone's flower garden and they don't have flowers, or not ones the gardener considers pretty enough or fitting for the section of the garden they appeared in.

    Simply because you have the ability to reach out and rip the plant from the earth and it's completely powerless to stop you, does that give you the right to do so? To kill another living thing for no better reason than you've decided that you don't think it's pretty enough, or dislike the specific place it happened to grow?

    If a more capable form of life saw humans as an invasive species as we seem very likely to kill off the rest of our garden if we remain unchecked and decided to kill us off would you support that?

    If they had seeded our planet with the genetics for humans with a specific range of tan skin and upon returning considered anyone with skin lighter or darker than their ideal for their garden would it be fine for them to kill off anyone who didn't fit what they wanted in a planetary garden?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    entirely, assuming, incorrect, and insulting. Congratulations.

    I work with the info provided. Feel free to clarify without the snark next time.

    The term “weed” is used to mean any plant growing somewhere it is unwanted.

    colloquially, sure. But I was reading it from the ecological perspective. Weeds have a specific term there and my mind goes to the times where I pulled out itchy or outright harmful weeds as a kid in my backyard. Tumbleweeds go past "aesthetically unwanted".

    Simply because you have the ability to reach out and rip the plant from the earth and it’s completely powerless to stop you, does that give you the right to do so?

    That is nature, yea. I'm not going out of my way to pull out "unwanted flowers" that are otherwise harmless. But there are threat levels, so I will do so for (ecological) weeds.

    We're still animals and we hunt down plants and animals alike. And a few animals hunt us. I don't complain if a bear starts chasing me down and eats me. That's just the circle of life. We have issues with overhunting and deforestation, but I don't disagree with the core issue of "plants are eaten by animals and animals are eaten by animals"

    If a more capable form of life saw humans as an invasive species as we seem very likely to kill off the rest of our garden if we remain unchecked and decided to kill us off would you support that?

    As a human, no. I will try to preserve my life. But a more capable life form that can reach earth probably has the ability to do whatever it wants. We wouldn't put up much of a fight against such tech.

    I'd hope we could talk it out, but if not... welp, circle of life I guess.

    “Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god. Thoughts of a Biologist” ― Jean Rostand

    Don't get me wrong, though. Humans collectively are pretty shitty conquerors. We can do a lot better to preserve life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The term "weed" has no formal scientific status at all, including in Ecology. You're conflating how you apparently think of the term with an actual established ecological definition as being an invasive species.

    For the rest you're still completely missing the point. It's ethics and morality applied to a specific situation. If I was standing there with a gun to your head because I've decided you're offensive to my garden you wouldn't genuinely believe it's fine for me to kill you simply because you can't do anything to stop it. Likewise if a bigger, stronger person beat your mother or child to death.

    You would cry out at the injustice. You would feel I had no right. Your life was your own, and it was horrible for me to end it just because I decided I didn't like how you look. That it was unforgivably wrong for that man to beat your mother or child to death just because he didn't like their face and felt like doing it in the moment. You'd want some authority to intervene and punish the killer or stop me from pulling the trigger. You'd think of them as being the heroes, doing the right thing and saving the day, and me or the killer as the evil wrongdoers.

    There's a clear and obvious distinction between taking another life as a necessity because you need to eat in order to survive, and killing on a whim because you decide you don't like how one form of life looks. Even without that, I'd certainly pay money to watch a bear chasing you down and eating you so that I could witness how much you're definitely not talking out your ass when saying that you wouldn't complain about it, because bears needs food.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    The term “weed” has no formal scientific status at all,

    Sure it does. It's not astrophysics precise (because biology in general is a "soft science" in many regards), but it has a meaning when you talk about it in the domain.

    In botany, a weed is a general term for any plant growing where it is not wanted. Weeds interfere with human activities and compete with crop plants for water, light, and nutrients.

    Some weeds can later be found to have previously unknown benefits and be removed from the category, while other cultivated plants can be transplanted to new climates, escape cultivation, and become weeds or invasive species. Thus, the category of weeds is ever-changing, making the term relative.

    The general term for the first sentence is what everyone uses colloquially. But the reasoning for it being unwanted is not "because it looks weird". an otherwise "attractive" plant (like grass) can be a weed in some other context if it's taking nutrients from more ecologically valuable plants.

    It’s ethics and morality applied to a specific situation.

    And I agree. But I also agree there is no morality to a polar bear eating your face. That's just nature. There are lines, I don't know your specific context.

    For me, I was raised removing tumbleweeds. One of the most tenacious and invasive weeds out there. I don't even think they are native to my country. But I sure hold no remorse pulling them up the same way I would a dandelion (even if me blowing on one is technically spreading it out).

    If I was standing there with a gun to your head because I’ve decided you’re offensive to my garden you wouldn’t genuinely believe it’s fine for me to kill you simply because you can’t do anything to stop it.

    Sure. Then a man with a bigger gun will at best arrest you and you'd be thrown in jail. We realized human on human violence needs to be regulated to make it as close to zero as possible. The police have a monopoly on unchecked violence, so our options without consequences are limited and discouraged.

    There’s a clear and obvious distinction between taking another life as a necessity because you need to eat in order to survive, and killing on a whim because you decide you don’t like how one form of life looks.

    Yup.

    I’d certainly pay money to watch a bear chasing you down and eating you so that I could witness how much you’re definitely not talking out your ass when saying that you wouldn’t complain about it, because bears needs food.

    I'd run. I'd try to defend myself. I'd do my best to preserve my life. But trying to shame a bear seems like a useless endeavor. Thtat's all I'm trying to get across with my metaphor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent