Are the plants after us? Think about it. We regard plants in general as the least dangerous, most unassuming life on the planet. Without self-will and intelligence, plants are no threat to us, the thinking Man.
It’s not like they wouldn’t have reasons to hate us. We have preyed on plants as we have on no other life-form. We’ve burnt, cleared, chopped, sawed, enslaved, mowed, cooked, chewed . . . well, you get the idea. If the plant nation has any awareness at all, it would seem they might notice. Or have they already?
Plants pour toxins into our environment continuously. Sure, they generate free oxygen, but they also produce complex chemical pollution, pollens, and spores. These environmental pollutants attack us at our weakest biological point – our respiratory system. We can go weeks without food, days without water, but if we don’t breath every few seconds we die. Is it coincidence that plants produce massive amounts of respiratory allergens, far more than any other source in our environment, even us?
Blaming our sinus and lung conditions on our own pollution seems politically correct, but is it? Our ancestors lived with campfires, and more recently, fireplaces. If you have been blessed with these experiences, you know how much smoke you end up breathing. Man must have been adapted to such daily encounters with pollution. Why are we now exhibiting such sensitivity? Could the constant and escalating attack on us by the plant nation be the reason? Is our immune system being driven to it’s limit not by smog, but by pollen?
In fact, this attack on animal life may have been going on for a very long time. Commonly accepted paleohistorical theory proposes a massive meteor strike killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. However, the fossil record seems to show the mighty lizards were already dying long before the killing meteor struck, and continued to die long after. I propose that after millions of years of adaptation, the plants were getting the upper hand and animals were already suffering an allergic disaster.
Did the meteor actually save animal life? It would have caused a terrible weather change, a dark winter on the whole world, killing every growing plant where it stood. The animals would have suffered large die-offs, and some extinctions, but mostly survived until the plants grew back and renewed the assault. Far more important, the sudden disaster would have opened the way for some lesser species to flourish, species ignored by the chlorophyl conspiracy until then – our distant ancestors.
Such speculation is unprovable, but modern clues can be found. Incidence of asthma in children is rising, allergy sufferers are becoming legion. And one of the most profitable parts of drug company marketing is the allergy nostrum. You can’t watch television, open a magazine, or even listen to your radio without someone pitching something to clear your respiratory system.
You might wonder if it’s just a phenomenon of American marketing, but in less developed countries we might find other clues. Despite us, the U. S., pouring money, technology, medical aid, volunteers, food, and who knows what else into third world nations, the infant death rate remains shockingly high, and in some places, actually has gotten worse. Babies, with their developing lungs, are more susceptible to allergens, and the infant death rate could be a sign of the vegetable vendetta.
We could be at war and not realize it, unless you ask an allergy sufferer. This terrorist attack by slow strangulation is recognized by those unfortunates. If so, plants of the world are slowly adapting their chemical and biological effects into attacks on the animals of Earth. There is little we can do to retaliate that we don’t do already. Paving over plant habitats doesn’t stop airborne attacks from elsewhere, and mass planticide would be disastrous to our environment in many ways. No, those green guerillas have us by the lungs.
Keep your mower blade sharp, and your weedwhacker loaded, comrades.
No comments:
Post a Comment