Wow, I knew I was a yard slave, but I didn't realize I was under plant conquest and domination....

I read most or all of the book, which means it maintained my interest. But there were one or two stark factual errors that gave me pause, reinforced the impression of someone not of the plant realm reporting on it.

bboy, what were the errors?

I know I have not eaten a single non organic potato (at least in my own home) since reading that last chapter years ago now.

I don't remember now, would have to thumb through the whole thing.

bboy, wasn't that important, just curious. The potato stuff was pretty scary, wasn't it, plantknitter...we grow our own also. And slightly OT, if you haven't tried Milva potatoes, they are really fabulous tasting. Even people who are indifferent about potatoes raved about the flavor and texture.

I only got the last few minutes. I hope it repeats...

When I came across it they soon went into a segment on Cannabis, where it is stated the plant had adapted to law enforcement pressure by becoming shorter etc. and suitable for indoor culture.

Come on!

Artificial selection by humans is not species adaptation. That occurs through natural selection in response to adaptive pressure.

A friend I mentioned this to countered that humans are a part of nature. If we take that view then the terms artificial selection and natural selection lose their distinction.

Pollan makes it clear, both in his book and in his TV show, that the point is NOT that plants are making intellectual decisions about their own survival. The point is that we humans are in an interspecies relationship with them, meaning that what they to offer humans, has been key to their survival (and in some cases our own as well). Among other implications, it suggests a different perception of gardening, and I believe many gardeners already know this symbiosis, at least intuitively.

In that respect we are really no different to certain plants than bees are, a mutual partner in evolution. In a few striking cases, such as tulips, cannabis, apples, and potatoes, the species seem to possess much more than one crucial attribute to make the interspecies relationship thrive.

This manifold survival strategy may be a coincidence, although Pollan ponders out loud whether we humans are really as much in charge here as we think we are. He makes a good case that this (and perhaps any )symbiosis could just as easily suggest an evolutionary advantage based on the plants ability to fulfill our changing human desire for what they may offer.

Pollan makes no claims of HOW the plants do this, only that what these specific plants seem to have done, seems way beyond coincidence. It is a mystery certainly worthy of scientific investigation and commentary.

I do agree with him. This is profound stuff, partly because it suggests a co-creative relationship with plants. I would wonder if we humans possess either the language or the humility to find the answers any time soon.

I asked some of the same questions in my book Why We Garden (published by Holt).

bboy has it right. While Pollan may be interesting for some to read, it should be remembered that he is a writer, and has no background as a scientist, farmer, or botanist. He misses consistently, both in details, and on major points. Our use of plants such as the potato have nothing to do with their ultimate survival or dominance from a biological standpoint. Our use of them in an agricultural sense has only come about through our severe modification of their characteristics, so severe that they cannot survive on their own in a competitive, natural ecosystem. The plants are "doing" nothing, nor does evolution/natural selection, the process that created viable wild potatoes, wild apple species etc., have anything to do with it either. If he wanted plant examples that would form a basis for his plants using humans contention, he would do much better using the many invasive plants such as purple loosestrife or Japanese knotweed, that have spread worldwide by human actions.

You've lost me. Dismissing an original idea as being totally unworthy simply because the originator doesn't have a college degree in the subject, sounds bizarre, and also way over the top arrogant. This "expert fundamentalism" signals that there's certainly no point in continuing this thread. Carry on.

I don't find his ideas particularly original, as coevolution is an old concept with countless examples well known to botanists and people interested in plants. But he packaged them well in his book and most successfully appealed to the general reading public. That is the job of a popular writer which he most certainly is. And my opinion of his ideas themselves have nothing to do with his background (and farmers do not necessarily have college degrees, by the way). I point it out because many think he has such a background in these subjects and that scientists in these fields find his points novel, enlightening or a springboard for investigation. This is not the case.

McDonalds rules the potato world. Long slim hot fries cut from russet burbanks. They sure are tasty.

You can enjoy a TV show or book without believing 100% of it's message.....

If anyone wants to watch it, the full show is on video here:

Here is a link that might be useful: Botany of Desire

Goes to credibility, Your Honor.