Immortal plant?

[Infineon]

Hi guys

It's possible that this might piss some people off, but I still don't have enough posts to put this in the salvia section. If an admin sees this and thinks it would be better off there please move it if you can. Thank you.

Now that we got rid of that, I'll cut to the chase as usual.

I was thinking about this yesterday while coming back from the lectures.

[OFF topic: As some of you might know, I recently bought a salvia plant. She is doing fine, the humidity is a little bit low, but the new leaves grew more strong and they only dry a little at the tips. Other than that, she is doing great.]

Salvia propagates through stem cuttings, that basically means that these plants clone themselves. If the plant does that, doesn't it mean that it is the same plant as it was, say, for 1000 years? It's like you would grow old only at the feet, and after a certain time they would snap, but the you that falls off those feet is still you. I hope you got my drift.

Could this also explain, in a certain way, why this plant has so much to say? and other plants also?...even if they spring seeds, I'd think that the information is packed in the seeds, but then it would be like a reincarnation cycle as opposed to stem cuttings which would be like cheating "direct death" passing the rebirth cycle??? thus the information is stored, but the plant is also aware of it like consciously not subconsciously like we would have certain traits and thoughts passed through the death and rebirth cycle that are hard to acces due to their "saving/storing" in the subconscious?

I will leave it at that so you don't have to read too much. I'd have more to say and in a more complexe way, but I think you unterstood my thought process.

I am looking forward to your replies. Cannot wait to see if anyone else thought about this and what assumptions they made.

Thank you

 

[Global]

Just because you have a "clone" with identical DNA doesn't mean you have the same plant. I recall when they cloned a calico cat, the clone with identical DNA had a substantially different patterning to its coat. It had an entirely different personality with different preferences and a different disposition. So you can clone your favorite whatever, but it doesn't mean it will even be that similar. Ultimately, even with identical DNA, it's still somewhat unclear as to what the "selection mechanism" is for gene expression. I believe hormones play a large role in gene expression and therefore different "hormone environments" may have radical effects of gene expression.

 

[changalvia]

I read something once about salvia evolving in a way that it relies on us keeping it alive for its mind altering eFfects

 

[ayalove]

I've been thinking about this before I even read your post. Wha I concluded was that salvia is just the peak of the genetic tree. It's propagating and avoiding seeding so that it can preserve it's genetic makeup. It's not immortal because every propagation creates brand new cells. Also if I were to take a leaf from my friends plant and then 40 minutes later compare it to a leaf from my plant it would be different. My plant feels way more friendlier than my buddies plant. It's got the same spirit but not the same memory.

 

[Iamrainhawk]

Ive thought of this also, but for the trichocereus family, and other cacti that can be cut and rooted from a mother plant. If you listen to some of Terrence 's talks about psilocybin shrooms, he says that they are practically immortal. In the sense that they spawn from the mycelium and spread out through a whole forest floor like a network of neurons, and never experience death. TheyJust respawn to produce spores (which can survive the vacuum of space ), to add to the network. I think, that in essence, cuttings from a plant that are grown in different locations have the same genetic info (consciousness if u will) BUT, focus on specific genes which traits are necessary for its survival. (this is known as epigenetics) the variables depend on what genes are emphasized during its lifespan due to environmental conditioning. The genes are the same, just some stand out more than other traits. Adaptability at its finest.

I highly doubt they conceive themselves separate conscious entities once grown apart from it's motherplant, perhaps they are more multidimensional than that. But who knows, science has yet to reveal.

 

[Psyren]

Just because you have a "clone" with identical DNA doesn't mean you have the same plant. I recall when they cloned a calico cat, the clone with identical DNA had a substantially different patterning to its coat. It had an entirely different personality with different preferences and a different disposition. So you can clone your favorite whatever, but it doesn't mean it will even be that similar. Ultimately, even with identical DNA, it's still somewhat unclear as to what the "selection mechanism" is for gene expression. I believe hormones play a large role in gene expression and therefore different "hormone environments" may have radical effects of gene expression.

maybe it was the same just evolved...DuNduNDuN

 

[Infineon]

@ayalove...well that's what I mean every plant has it's own "high", if you will, because every plant went through a lot on its own, I highly doubt that we all have our plants from the same motherplant I agree that every single plant feels different according to its history...

@Iamrainhawk...indeed so, science, in my opinion, is not even ankle deep in the subject of botany...we are still at the surface and are still to be amazed by what lies beneath...I think he was talking about the armillaria ostoyae right?

@Psyren...something around those lines, yes...@global // for example, every 7(approx.) years you change your cells completely, but that doesn't mean you are not you anymore, get it?

 

[Global]

Just because you have a "clone" with identical DNA doesn't mean you have the same plant. I recall when they cloned a calico cat, the clone with identical DNA had a substantially different patterning to its coat. It had an entirely different personality with different preferences and a different disposition. So you can clone your favorite whatever, but it doesn't mean it will even be that similar. Ultimately, even with identical DNA, it's still somewhat unclear as to what the "selection mechanism" is for gene expression. I believe hormones play a large role in gene expression and therefore different "hormone environments" may have radical effects of gene expression.

maybe it was the same just evolved...DuNduNDuN

I wouldn't think so. Evolution would imply different genetic coding no?

@global // for example, every 7(approx.) years you change your cells completely, but that doesn't mean you are not you anymore, get it?

This is a pretty faulty analogy. My cells may change, but I don't have a clone of me walking around. These calico clones were genetically identical, yet they were two different cats. Different phenotypes, different personalities, non-shared memories. Not the same cat. I don't think cloning is akin to living forever. I think the consciousness of the old clone dies when that plant (or cat or human or whatever dies) as a whole organism (not just the cells) and some other organism that happens to have identical genetics which are almost guaranteed to be expressed differently to some degree will live on. And for the record, I don't feel like the same person I was 7 years ago

 

[proto-pax]

Everything dies.

 

[Vodsel]

Everything dies.

Yep. Cells die, organisms die, ecosystems die, whatever the higher order is will die as well, and something new will emerge out of it. Immortality and persistence of a genotype are not the same thing.

 

[anrchy]

Everything dies.

Yep. Cells die, organisms die, ecosystems die, whatever the higher order is will die as well, and something new will emerge out of it. Immortality and persistence of a genotype are not the same thing.

Wrong.

Biological immortality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Turritopsis nutricula
The immortal jellyfish. Is capable of reverting back to te polyp stage after becoming sexually mature.

Hydras do not age.

It is believed that lobsters do not die of old age.

Tardigrades or water bear are immortal

Planarian flatworms (both sexual and asexual) appear to exhibit an ability to live indefinitely and have an "apparently limitless [telomere] regenerative capacity fueled by a population of highly proliferative adult stem cells.

 

[Global]

Everything dies.

Yep. Cells die, organisms die, ecosystems die, whatever the higher order is will die as well, and something new will emerge out of it. Immortality and persistence of a genotype are not the same thing.

Wrong.

Biological immortality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Turritopsis nutricula
The immortal jellyfish. Is capable of reverting back to te polyp stage after becoming sexually mature.

Hydras do not age.

It is believed that lobsters do not die of old age.

Tardigrades or water bear are immortal

Planarian flatworms (both sexual and asexual) appear to exhibit an ability to live indefinitely and have an "apparently limitless [telomere] regenerative capacity fueled by a population of highly proliferative adult stem cells.

Ok. This is relatively misleading because all of these organisms can die. To quote the same page you took this information from:

Biological immortality refers to a stable (or decreasing) rate of mortality as a function of chronological age. Some individual cells and entire organisms in some species achieve this state either throughout their existence or after living long enough. This requires that death occur from injury or disease rather than deterioration, i.e., the absence of cellular senescence. However, this definition of immortality has been challenged in the new Handbook of the Biology of Aging,[1] because the increase in rate of mortality as a function of chronological age may be negligible at extremely old ages, also referred to as the late-life mortality plateau. The rate of mortality may cease to increase in old age, but in most cases that rate is typically very high.[2] As a hypothetical example, there is only a 50% chance of a human surviving another year at age 110 or greater. The fact that some multi-cellular organisms do not experience senescence implies that aging is not an Aristotelian inevitability and refutes the prior hypothesis that aging follows a Gompertz model.[3] No actual organism or individual cell is inviolably immortal (i.e. "invincible" or "indestructible"). A biologically immortal living thing can die, for example, upon receiving sufficient injury or otherwise having its body destroyed or diseased.

 

[Infineon]

it's not really "cloning" what the plants do, because when cells divide into two you don't call it cloning now do you?...you are picking on the small words that are commonly used to describe the process of propagation of the plant

it is not cloning in the sense that people are used to understand, like a perfect copy of the other---to the extent that it IS the other...it will not grow the same leaf formation, it will not look anything like the plant it came from( not a mirrored image)

what the plant does is this...it grows to its limits and snaps at a certain point, falls down and reroots itself...it's not a clone, it is in fact the same plant...you could see the stem, leaves and roots as body parts that aid the plant to thrive

the way you look at it means that the plant is a different plant every time you reach a node and go past it...is that the case?...no...just like you have a group of separate cells then tissues then organs working together to form your whole the same way the plant has different parts working together as a whole; when it snaps it regrows its body parts that are missing/that it needs(if it has the necessary conditions)

I think my analogy with the growing of the feet until they snap and then you grow new feet and so on is pretty easy to imagine and is pretty much what happens to the plant.

anyway, "immortal"<---should have been written like this or I should have found another word

but what I noticed is that you guys pick on words and not on the idea which shows for me that language is still the main problem between humans because they search for safety between letters, which is a big problem because ideas do not form with letters and words they are generated with "images"...still waiting for that leap in evolution where we will be able to communicate "telepathically" thus sending ideas with image, intention and emotion---the whole package of information and the thought process

you're taking it way too serious, it was just an idea after all...

 

[Infineon]

just because it leaves something behind after it snaps does not mean that it has cloned itself...plants function in a different way and to be honest scientist have a hard time even considering them alive as you and I; I can safely say that as a species we know actually very little about plants if you step back and look at the whole subject


not to mention the difference between generating seeds and propagating that way or through rerooting after it snaps and falls to the ground...think about that for a moment, how would you explain the difference between these two processes? because the plant can do both...I mean, what is the end result?

and granted, botany is not my strong suit, but after studying and practicing engineering I have seen that many words are just taken from old research and used also in the new ones without considering that those terms do not suit the new findings, of course that the people who always are updated know the difference, but the average people who are only interested in the subject use the old terms for the same process without knowing that the new research demanded a new term for the same process...hope I didn't confuse anyone here with my english

 

[Global]

Ok, well my salvia plant died i.e. not immortal.

 

[Infineon]

well, for me immortal means that it will never die as long as it has everything it needs i.e. it will never die of old age...unless you burn it, starve it, deprive it of sunlight/water/nutrients(totally, that is, because it can do without the optimum also, not as well, but it can manage)

it's like you would never die of old age, but you could die if you would not eat or drink water...but if someone cuts your head off or shoots you, you'd die...immortal does not mean godlike as far as I'm concerned i.e. doesn't matter what you do I will never die, just that you do not die of old age...as long as you maintain a pretty balanced body you will not die.

again just saying, I am not here to upset anyone or anything like that

 

[Vodsel]

Everything dies.

Yep. Cells die, organisms die, ecosystems die, whatever the higher order is will die as well, and something new will emerge out of it. Immortality and persistence of a genotype are not the same thing.

Wrong.

Biological immortality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Turritopsis nutricula
The immortal jellyfish. Is capable of reverting back to te polyp stage after becoming sexually mature.

Hydras do not age.

It is believed that lobsters do not die of old age.

Tardigrades or water bear are immortal

Planarian flatworms (both sexual and asexual) appear to exhibit an ability to live indefinitely and have an "apparently limitless [telomere] regenerative capacity fueled by a population of highly proliferative adult stem cells.

My point was to differentiate the permanence of the genes in a plant and the fact its tissues are hypothetically renewed ad infinitum. Death happens to one level or another. And doesn't matter whether a live organism is potentially able to renew itself indefinitely, it will eventually die nevertheless. Aging and dying are different things. So I stand by what I said.

 

[anrchy]

And I don't wish to argue. But my difference in opinion is in the comment that "everything dies" this cannot be said IMO. What mechanism is it you claim that causes everything to die if it isn't aging?

And of course aging and dying are different things. Everything ages. Not everything that ages dies from aging.

 

[Vodsel]

What mechanism is it you claim that causes everything to die if it isn't aging?

And of course aging and dying are different things. Everything ages. Not everything that ages dies from aging.

Precisely, external influence. I agree that arguing is not the point. But immortality is an idea not happening in the physical world, unless you take the concept of life to the globality of the cosmos and you postulate an eternal or cyclic cosmos.

I doubt we can find a water hydra that has been alive for the last million years. The fact it is virtually immortal, as long as the environment does not change harshly, the hydra is not devoured by a predator, and there are no other natural hazards that kill it, is of course remarkable. But that doesn't change the fact that, in our scale of things, death is an inevitable fact that will happen sooner or later.

Unless we wanted to discuss semantics and the concept of death we are considering, that is. But when you come to a disagreement in the definition of whichever idea you are discussing, I think you have reached a fair point to leave it there.

 

[Global]

And I don't wish to argue. But my difference in opinion is in the comment that "everything dies" this cannot be said IMO. What mechanism is it you claim that causes everything to die if it isn't aging?

And of course aging and dying are different things. Everything ages. Not everything that ages dies from aging.

Planets explode, the sun will go supernova, asteroids and other large debris could easily wipe out life on Earth, along with any number of catastrophic events and natural disasters. Nothing will last forever. Not even these non-aging organisms. All life on Earth will cease at some nexus in time.