Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

For this round, I will disprove some of pro's points in the argument. 1.) Everything that lives needs sunlight to survive. Plants indeed feed off photosynthesis, but people need sunlight too. The sun gives people Vitamin-D through the skin. we are pretty even here. http://health.usnews.com... 2.) Without wind or insects, plants are screwed. Bugs like honeybees spread pollen, thus letting plants reproduce. But what happens if bugs were to disappear? 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. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3.) Not all human homes or structures are naturally made. First world nations like America have sky scrapers made of steel. Some second/third world buildings are also made out of bricks or adobe. Bricks are made out of clay and adobe is made out of mud. sometimes they add straw, though, but that's not the point. 4.) People can survive in just as many environments as plants. So we are pretty much equal on this. 5.) Plants, (except for trees) are exponentially smaller then people, so more of them can fit in a smaller space. However, people can willingly move so we have plenty of space for each other. Plants can't do this and end up crowding each other in small spaces. 6.) Not true actually. Recently, algae was moved from the plant kingdom and into the marine kingdom. shrimp eat the algae, fish eat the shrimp, and we eat the fish. So while it is true that people would go a bit hungry, (especially the pansy vegetarians), the human race wouldn't go extinct, as we would simply eat more fish. 7.) Plants do soak carbon dioxide, but Co2 isn't the only cause of global warming. Methane gas, for example, makes up approximately 1% of the atmosphere, but makes up 7% of green house gasses responsible for global warming. 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. Not to mention the amount of trapped methane gas underwater trapped as air pockets. If something, say an earthquake were to release it, the amount of methane release would dwarf all the Co2 and literally burn the planet. And plants don't soak up methane like Co2. http://www.livescience.com... 8.) No argument here. Most plants do create cloths and medicine. But not all of it. Insulin, for example, was first derived from pig pancreases. so we have equal amounts of sources from natural and non-organic places to get medicine: clothes like nylon: non natural houses, like stone houses: and non-plant life we can eat, like fish. 9.) True, most ecosystems would collapse, and it would be catastrophic. HOWever, 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. For example, we have hunting season to help control deer population. If we can make it stay the same, there would be equally proportional prey to predators. If there is more prey then food, everybody starves. however, if we make sure the amount of prey is less then the amount of food, then everybody gets to eat and not die of starvation. Anther example is during winter. People often leave bird feed out to feed them. If people suddenly stopped feeding the birds during winter, they would die off from starvation and the cold from not having enough calories to stay warm. In turn, the birds prey would multiply, then eat all the food, then they would all die of starvation as well. 10.) Plants aren't the only organisms able to regenerate limbs. For example, there are lizards, planarians, sea cucumbers, sharks, spiders, sponges, and starfish. All these can regenerate something. Lizards regrow limbs, sea cucumbers can clone themselves if cut into multiple pieces, sharks regrow lost teeth, spiders regrow missing legs, you can cut a sponge in half and it'll regrow, and then you can cut the arms off a starfish and the severed limbs will regrow into clones of the original fish. http://www.factmonster.com... You won't actually believe how hard it was to find the few sources I have. Especially the ones that are neutral and not extreme liberal or conservative. Hopefully the ones I have are neutral. Anyway, The qualities humans have are what makes us special and because we are complex creatures. Plants, they can't decide if they die or not. People can decide for the plants whether to kill plants or not. And what about True A.I? The day will come when we become technologically advanced enough to make true A.I. A true A.I has all of these features. A true A.I can think sententiously, it can ponder, it can make independent decisions, it can feel emotions. Basically, True A.I have all the features people have, yet they would be more advanced then us. Even though they have the same psychology as us humans, they would be Superior then plants in every way. If what you say about plants being superior to people because they don't have thoughts or emotions, then how and why would a sentient computer program be Superior to simple organic plant life?