Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

Thanks Con for that response. I'll address Con's points this round. I had mentioned plants' superior ability to produce their own food simply from sunlight, which would eliminate world hunger if humans had that superiority. Con attempts to "disprove" that idea: "The sun gives people Vitamin-D through the skin. we are pretty even here." My response: Con, vitamin D is not enough to maintain homeostasis in humans. Plants literally create food for immediate consumption, inside of their bodies, using only photons from the sun; humans CANNOT accomplish this superiority. This speaks to plants' ability to eat a nearly infinite source of food without any help from external organisms. Con, how are humans and plants "pretty even" on photosynthesis? If they were even, humans wouldn't need groups like Feed America, because even the impoverished hungry people can stand outside in the sun. http://www.fpsa.org... Pretty even on photosynthesis? Come on Con. Con continues: "Bugs like honeybees spread pollen, thus letting plants reproduce. But what happens if bugs were to disappear?" My response: I already mentioned and sourced that plants can use the wind for pollination...you ok Con? Without bugs, plants have wind for pollination. Con furthers: "People don't need wind or bugs to reproduce. Plants do. Take away both and plants will not be able to reproduce. This happens all the time." My response: Yeah, people don't need something as simple and ubiquitous as wind to reproduce, rather people must find a willing sexual partner/sperm donor/egg donor which are not only limited resources, they are far from ubiquitous; plants are superior reproducers who need not rely on a such an uncertain acquisition. Yes, taking away wind and bugs would eliminate reproduction for plants, but if we're seriously exercising this hypothetical case of "no wind or bugs" then humans have already died. No wind would mean that there is either no air or no air density fluctuations, both of which would kill most life on the planet, especially humans, eliminating their ability to reproduce however, under water plants could still survive briefly and continue to reproduce. The idea of there being no bugs wouldn't effect underwater plants, so they could still reproduce. Con asserts: "Not all human homes or structures are naturally made." My response: Con, are some human homes supernaturally made? I don't follow this point by Con. Steel, clay, and mud are ALL natural...how do you reconcile this Con? Also, given what I think Con was trying to point out, that not all structures are made of plant matter, Con admits that in fact some homes are made of plant matter, so Con concedes the point that without plants, those "some homes" couldn't exist, speaking to those homes' residents' contingency on plants to maintain homeostasis with shelter. Con mentions: "People can survive in just as many environments as plants." My response: Con, you mean like how humans can survive in an underwater environment, just like aquatic plants? http://www.botgard.ucla.edu... Or how humans can survive in environments of volcanic byproducts? http://www.kidsgeo.com... Con, humans simply do not survive underwater or on active volcanoes for extended periods of time, while plants can survive generation after generation underwater or connected to active volcanoes, so we're not "pretty much equal on this;" plants are superior survivors to humans in extreme climates. Con adds: "Plants, (except for trees) are exponentially smaller then people, so more of them can fit in a smaller space." My response: Yeah, that's why they can reproductively dominate many ecosystems...humans, less so. Con then adds: "People can willingly move so we have plenty of space for each other." My response: Moving requires energy, and needing space speaks to an inadequacy in maintaining homeostasis. Humans require space to successfully reproduce, but "having plenty of space" isn't even an issue for plants, while it is pretty crucial for humans; humans remain inferior organisms for needing so much space. Con continues: "Algae was moved from the plant kingdom and into the marine kingdom, so while it is true that people would go a bit hungry, [without plants] (especially the pansy vegetarians), the human race wouldn't go extinct, as we would simply eat more fish." My response: Without underwater plants, the animals that would otherwise eat the underwater plants would then begin eating the algae. Con, what happens if exponentially more organisms are consuming only algae instead of plants? Algae would be eliminated by over consumption, shrimp would no longer have food and would perish, so fish would no longer be able to eat shrimp and would perish, and as the chain continues, humans would run out of their source of food from animals; human survival is contingent on plants, despite recent classifications of algae as non-plants. Con mentions: "Plants do soak carbon dioxide, but CO2 isn't the only cause of global warming" My response: Con concedes that plants soak up CO2. Con, can humans soak up CO2 by simply breathing, or is this another ability that reduces one cause of global warming that humans simply cannot do? Con adds: "Given enough time, plants can reduce the amount of Co2 in the air, but not completely eliminate it, as plants also release CO2 as well as mammals." My response: "Yes, most plants release carbon dioxide during respiration at night however, plants take up much more carbon dioxide in photosynthesis than they give off in respiration" so CO2 can greatly be reduced simply by a plant's respiration; can humans do that? https://www.arm.gov... Con points out: "Most plants do create cloths and medicine. But not all of it. Insulin, for example, was first derived from pig pancreases." My response: Do pigs eat plants? Then pig products are contingent on plants. Humans use aspirin to stop headaches and in some cases prevent a heart attack; this comes from the willow tree. http://www.nobelprizes.com... Con says: "if people disappeared, the end result would still be the same. The ecosystem would still collapse, as no one would be able to manage it, and take care of it." My response: The last common ancestor for plants lived around 1.6 billion years ago. https://www.quora.com... The last common ancestor for primates lived around 65 million years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Hey Con, were ecosystems collapsing for 1.5 billion years without primates and humans? Con, who was managing the ecosystems pre primates? I imagine the same type of management could currently occur without humans, unless you can give some reason why that management didn't happen for 1.5 billion years or so. Same thing with birds; birds have been on earth way longer than humans and were thriving without humans feeding them bird seed. Con tries to add to the discussion: "Plants aren't the only organisms able to regenerate limbs" My response: So? Can humans regenerate vital appendages? Then other organisms' abilities are irrelevant to this discussion. Plants can regenerate appendages, and humans cannot, period; plants are superior organisms. Con mentions: "The qualities humans have are what makes us special and because we are complex creatures" My response: Plants are complex multi-cellular organisms that can literally turn light into food; sounds much more special to me. Con then says: "Plants, they can't decide if they die or not. People can decide for the plants whether to kill plants or not." My response: Even if every human on earth were to kill hundreds of plants each, it wouldn't even make a dent in the number of plants, not plant species, that exist on earth, which again speaks to plants' overall survival superiority. I refuse to address Con's arguments about AI having superior features, because AI is neither a plant nor a human nor an organism, thus is irrelevant to this discussion's topic of organismic superiority. On to you Con.