What do you think?
Rate this book
The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth
Award-winning environment and science reporter Zoë Schlanger delivers a groundbreaking work of popular science that probes the hidden world of the plant kingdom and reveals the astonishing capabilities of the green life all around us. It takes tremendous biological creativity to be a plant. To survive and thrive while rooted in a single spot, plants have adapted ingenious methods of survival. In recent years, scientists have learned about their ability to communicate, recognize their kin and behave socially, hear sounds, morph their bodies to blend into their surroundings, store useful memories that inform their life cycle, and trick animals into behaving to their benefit, to name just a few remarkable talents. The Light Eaters is a deep immersion into the drama of green life and the complexity of this wild and awe-inspiring world that challenges our very understanding of agency, consciousness, and intelligence. In looking closely, we see that plants, rather than imitate human intelligence, have perhaps formed a parallel system. What is intelligent life if not a vine that grows leaves to blend into the shrub on which it climbs, a flower that shapes its bloom to fit exactly the beak of its pollinator, a pea seedling that can hear water flowing and make its way toward it? Zoë Schlanger takes us across the globe, digging into her own memories and into the soil with the scientists who have spent their waking days studying these amazing entities up close. What can we learn about life on Earth from the living things that thrive, adapt, consume, and accommodate simultaneously? More important, what do we owe these life forms once we come to understand their rich and varied abilities? Examining the latest epiphanies in botanical research, Schlanger spotlights the intellectual struggles among the researchers conceiving a wholly new view of their subject, offering a glimpse of a field in turmoil as plant scientists debate the tenets of ongoing discoveries and how they influence our understanding of what a plant is. We need plants to survive. But what do they need us for—if at all? An eye-opening and informative look at the ecosystem we live in, this book challenges us to rethink the role of plants—and our own place—in the natural world.
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 7, 2024
5194 people are currently reading
37986 people want to read
About the author
Zoë Schlanger
2 books183 followersZoe Schlanger is currently a staff reporter at the Atlantic, where she covers climate change. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, Time, Newsweek, The Nation, Quartz, and on NPR among other major outlets, and in the 2022 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. A recipient of a 2017 National Association of Science Writers' reporting award, she is often a guest speaker in schools and universities. Zoe graduated with a B.A. from New York University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,452 reviews
April 17, 2025
This was an interesting but troubling book for me.
All we humans hunger to more fully understand things outside ourselves, but unfortunately the only way we have to evaluate the world is to use our uniquely human experience as a measuring stick. This anthropomorphizing is a wonderful brain heuristic that allows us to categorize the world and make sense of it. Heuristics like these are powerful tools that keep our very tired human brains from being overloaded. By looking at an object, then equating it to a similar human experience, we can efficiently categorize the whole world using a minimum of brain energy.
"The Light Eaters" was Zoe Schlanger's attempt at helping us understand the sensual capacities of plants. Do they taste, see, hear, think, feel pain, feel kinship and experience other deeply human actions? I applaud her for trying to help all of us understand the capacities of the plant world, but I feel as though this book presents a deeply biased view of the world of plants. This book inadvertently tempts us into believing that the botanical world is a buddy with deeply human emotions.
Now, she didn't start out to do this. Throughout the book, she continually points out that human feelings and plant feelings are quite different. She clearly points out that plants don't have brains or any of the other mammalian systems.
While she proclaims that plants are different, the very language that she uses in this book ascribes deeply human experiences to plants. She’s trying to walk the line between basic understanding of plants and anthropomorphizing. I think it's almost impossible for humans not to fall into the latter bias.
I have read many evolutionary biology books over the years and I've come to realize that this imprinting of human emotion on the process of eons of biology is often unavoidable.
We routinely ascribe inanimate objects, plants, animals, and all the other things in the world with deeply human attributes that they simply don't possess: a wise oak tree, a stately house, a malicious squirrel.
My friend recently described the amazingly complex relationship she has with her dog. She is powerfully convinced that her dog is suffering complex grief, purposefully plots revenge, and actively plans to disrupt her life. Her relationship with her dog has all the emotion and pathos of a complex crime novel. It is truly stunning to see just how deeply manipulative and emotionally sophisticated she believes her dog to be.
This unfortunate tendency shows up most troublingly in our discussions of evolution. We talk about how a plant "wants" to fight off predators. Plants don't have a brain or the ability to want anything. We talk about how a plant develops special feeding receptors. But when we use the word “develop” we have a tendency to visualize a very human definition of “develop,” which is us purposefully plotting a strategy, then moving methodically to find a solution. Plants don’t do this because they don’t have a brain.
I continually find myself falling for this anthropomorphizing trap. As a human, I kid myself into believing that I can envision what it’s like NOT to be human, but I’ve learned this simply isn’t possible.
Most of us simply don’t understand the deep implications of evolution. Throughout Zoë Schlanger’s book you will find words that describe how evolution works and how living creatures change. She uses words like "want," "developed," "protected," "adapted," and “strived," to convey the process that plants go through when evolving. But all of these are verbs that describe deeply HUMAN processes. When we attribute deeply human emotions to non-humans, we kid ourselves into believing the world revolves around human existence.
My feeling is that most of us tend to kid ourselves into believing that we understand how evolution works. We envision a plant working through a problem that assures its survival. It “figures out” how to evade predators, attain nutrients, and successfully procreate. We carelessly envision plants as little determined humans.
But the truth is that evolution is ABSOLUTELY mindless. It is a game of statistics. A million random genetic mutations naturally occur. 999,999 of them have either a detrimental effect or no effect at all. But one of these mutations randomly improves the entity’s chance of survival...and it gets passed on. Evolution doesn’t “hope,” “strive,” “adapt,” or “improve,” because it does not possess consciousness or purpose. It’s math and mathematical equations don’t strive for solutions.
So what I try to do is catch myself any time I use a VERB when describing a non-human entity. Why? Because most all verbs don’t work when we’re talking the completely random statistical effects of evolution. Evolution doesn’t “improve,” “hone,” “adapt,” or “seek.” It is a roll of the dice and attributing any sort of human purpose to evolution is to delude ourselves.
For example "that tree suffered through the long summer drought." “Suffering” is a human emotion. The truth is that I have no idea if a tree feels the emotion of "suffering." What verb can I use to describe that tree? I try to limit myself to verbs that describe my reaction to other objects.
For example, “seeing that tree makes me feel sorrow.” But wait a minute, I just did it again! That plant didn't "make" me do anything. Okay, how about "I feel sorrow when viewing that poor thirsty plant." I did it again. "Poor" implies human suffering. "Thirsty" implies a very human feeling as well. You see what a slippery slope this can be.
Zoë Schlanger’s book is filled with interesting facts on the latest research about plant senses. But I think this entire field of study does us all a disservice. Why? Because all of this work is usually undertaken with a hope that we find out how plants are just like humans. We want to believe that what we experience is what plants experience as well. And when humans discover even remotely common biological processes in a plant, we tend to instantly anthropomorphize that plant, endowing it with deeply human emotions that are so dear to the attributes humans recognize in themselves.
This book is interesting, but I also feel that it’s a troubling temptation for all of us to take a flight of fancy. Plants are not like humans and while this book occasionally makes that point, its very essence is a misguided anthropomorphic premise. This book tempts all of us into putting humans at the center of the universe and lures us into believing that plants are little green buddies who are just like us.
All we humans hunger to more fully understand things outside ourselves, but unfortunately the only way we have to evaluate the world is to use our uniquely human experience as a measuring stick. This anthropomorphizing is a wonderful brain heuristic that allows us to categorize the world and make sense of it. Heuristics like these are powerful tools that keep our very tired human brains from being overloaded. By looking at an object, then equating it to a similar human experience, we can efficiently categorize the whole world using a minimum of brain energy.
"The Light Eaters" was Zoe Schlanger's attempt at helping us understand the sensual capacities of plants. Do they taste, see, hear, think, feel pain, feel kinship and experience other deeply human actions? I applaud her for trying to help all of us understand the capacities of the plant world, but I feel as though this book presents a deeply biased view of the world of plants. This book inadvertently tempts us into believing that the botanical world is a buddy with deeply human emotions.
Now, she didn't start out to do this. Throughout the book, she continually points out that human feelings and plant feelings are quite different. She clearly points out that plants don't have brains or any of the other mammalian systems.
While she proclaims that plants are different, the very language that she uses in this book ascribes deeply human experiences to plants. She’s trying to walk the line between basic understanding of plants and anthropomorphizing. I think it's almost impossible for humans not to fall into the latter bias.
I have read many evolutionary biology books over the years and I've come to realize that this imprinting of human emotion on the process of eons of biology is often unavoidable.
We routinely ascribe inanimate objects, plants, animals, and all the other things in the world with deeply human attributes that they simply don't possess: a wise oak tree, a stately house, a malicious squirrel.
My friend recently described the amazingly complex relationship she has with her dog. She is powerfully convinced that her dog is suffering complex grief, purposefully plots revenge, and actively plans to disrupt her life. Her relationship with her dog has all the emotion and pathos of a complex crime novel. It is truly stunning to see just how deeply manipulative and emotionally sophisticated she believes her dog to be.
This unfortunate tendency shows up most troublingly in our discussions of evolution. We talk about how a plant "wants" to fight off predators. Plants don't have a brain or the ability to want anything. We talk about how a plant develops special feeding receptors. But when we use the word “develop” we have a tendency to visualize a very human definition of “develop,” which is us purposefully plotting a strategy, then moving methodically to find a solution. Plants don’t do this because they don’t have a brain.
I continually find myself falling for this anthropomorphizing trap. As a human, I kid myself into believing that I can envision what it’s like NOT to be human, but I’ve learned this simply isn’t possible.
Most of us simply don’t understand the deep implications of evolution. Throughout Zoë Schlanger’s book you will find words that describe how evolution works and how living creatures change. She uses words like "want," "developed," "protected," "adapted," and “strived," to convey the process that plants go through when evolving. But all of these are verbs that describe deeply HUMAN processes. When we attribute deeply human emotions to non-humans, we kid ourselves into believing the world revolves around human existence.
My feeling is that most of us tend to kid ourselves into believing that we understand how evolution works. We envision a plant working through a problem that assures its survival. It “figures out” how to evade predators, attain nutrients, and successfully procreate. We carelessly envision plants as little determined humans.
But the truth is that evolution is ABSOLUTELY mindless. It is a game of statistics. A million random genetic mutations naturally occur. 999,999 of them have either a detrimental effect or no effect at all. But one of these mutations randomly improves the entity’s chance of survival...and it gets passed on. Evolution doesn’t “hope,” “strive,” “adapt,” or “improve,” because it does not possess consciousness or purpose. It’s math and mathematical equations don’t strive for solutions.
So what I try to do is catch myself any time I use a VERB when describing a non-human entity. Why? Because most all verbs don’t work when we’re talking the completely random statistical effects of evolution. Evolution doesn’t “improve,” “hone,” “adapt,” or “seek.” It is a roll of the dice and attributing any sort of human purpose to evolution is to delude ourselves.
For example "that tree suffered through the long summer drought." “Suffering” is a human emotion. The truth is that I have no idea if a tree feels the emotion of "suffering." What verb can I use to describe that tree? I try to limit myself to verbs that describe my reaction to other objects.
For example, “seeing that tree makes me feel sorrow.” But wait a minute, I just did it again! That plant didn't "make" me do anything. Okay, how about "I feel sorrow when viewing that poor thirsty plant." I did it again. "Poor" implies human suffering. "Thirsty" implies a very human feeling as well. You see what a slippery slope this can be.
Zoë Schlanger’s book is filled with interesting facts on the latest research about plant senses. But I think this entire field of study does us all a disservice. Why? Because all of this work is usually undertaken with a hope that we find out how plants are just like humans. We want to believe that what we experience is what plants experience as well. And when humans discover even remotely common biological processes in a plant, we tend to instantly anthropomorphize that plant, endowing it with deeply human emotions that are so dear to the attributes humans recognize in themselves.
This book is interesting, but I also feel that it’s a troubling temptation for all of us to take a flight of fancy. Plants are not like humans and while this book occasionally makes that point, its very essence is a misguided anthropomorphic premise. This book tempts all of us into putting humans at the center of the universe and lures us into believing that plants are little green buddies who are just like us.
January 6, 2024
Magnificent. There are sentences in this book I read two or three times in admiration and ideas in here I will continue to turn over for a long time. This is a remarkable book.
July 9, 2024
Schlanger writes in a very approachable and engaging way. There's a fair bit of overlap of information between this book and Planta Sapiens: The New Science of Plant Intelligence when it comes to the arguments in favor of the notion that plants have a form of intelligence but here we get a lot more on why the idea has been so discredited and the history of thinking about the topic which I found particularly interesting.
February 22, 2024
This was an absolutely fascinating exploration of plant intelligence!
At times the paragraphs seemed unending, and I struggled with the long form format, but given the nature of the topic I think that is to be expected. The information was presented clearly and I truly do feel like I came away from this with so much to think about!
At times the paragraphs seemed unending, and I struggled with the long form format, but given the nature of the topic I think that is to be expected. The information was presented clearly and I truly do feel like I came away from this with so much to think about!
June 30, 2024
Me, an intellectual, in my non-fiction era.
This was such an interesting read, I kept looking at my plants and thinking about how they don’t like it when I pet them :(
Other interesting tidbits:
- plants can signal to each other that predators are on their way by releasing airborne particles, so the trees who haven’t faced the predators can put up defenses
- other types can send out signals to attracts the predators of their predators. So like wasps show up that will eat the lady bugs that were eating the leaves.
- some pitcher plants literally seduce male wasps by producing female wasp pheromones, so the male wasps roll around in their pollen. except plot twist, it seems the male wasps can tell the difference between the real and fake wasps but get pleasure out of it so it’s like a mutually consensual thing going on.
- Tomato plants put chemical in their leaves that makes caterpillars eat each other instead. That’s wild!
This was such an interesting read, I kept looking at my plants and thinking about how they don’t like it when I pet them :(
Other interesting tidbits:
- plants can signal to each other that predators are on their way by releasing airborne particles, so the trees who haven’t faced the predators can put up defenses
- other types can send out signals to attracts the predators of their predators. So like wasps show up that will eat the lady bugs that were eating the leaves.
- some pitcher plants literally seduce male wasps by producing female wasp pheromones, so the male wasps roll around in their pollen. except plot twist, it seems the male wasps can tell the difference between the real and fake wasps but get pleasure out of it so it’s like a mutually consensual thing going on.
- Tomato plants put chemical in their leaves that makes caterpillars eat each other instead. That’s wild!
August 19, 2024
This is a very good popular-science book that I enjoyed reading, but the style it's written in made me uneasy. I've been putting off writing it up, never a good idea, since things fade if I procrastinate. Well, here's the best I can do. Plants are different than animals. Still, they are alive, and work to protect themselves, stay alive, and fight off predators. The author has talked to a lot of biologists, and has a lot of cool research to report. And evolution is smarter than you are....
It's a good book, and if it sounds like stuff you're interested in, you should read it. But do keep in mind, there's a reason for scientific skepticism about this style of writing.
Bah. Not my best review, that's for sure. Well, it's not like I'm getting paid for this. Anyway: 3.5 star read for me, recommended with caveats.
Earlier stuff:
Author Ed Yong recommends the book: "mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful."
Here's a cool publisher's preview:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Excerpt:
"It’s humbling to remember that plants are a kingdom of life entirely their own, the product of riotous evolutionary innovation that took a turn away from our branch of life when we were both barely motile, single-celled creatures floating in the prehistoric ocean. We couldn’t be more biologically different. And yet plants’ patterns and rhythms have resonances with ours ..."
A critical review at Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
This is the stuff that makes me uneasy about the book.
It's a good book, and if it sounds like stuff you're interested in, you should read it. But do keep in mind, there's a reason for scientific skepticism about this style of writing.
Bah. Not my best review, that's for sure. Well, it's not like I'm getting paid for this. Anyway: 3.5 star read for me, recommended with caveats.
Earlier stuff:
Author Ed Yong recommends the book: "mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful."
Here's a cool publisher's preview:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Excerpt:
"It’s humbling to remember that plants are a kingdom of life entirely their own, the product of riotous evolutionary innovation that took a turn away from our branch of life when we were both barely motile, single-celled creatures floating in the prehistoric ocean. We couldn’t be more biologically different. And yet plants’ patterns and rhythms have resonances with ours ..."
A critical review at Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
This is the stuff that makes me uneasy about the book.
May 20, 2024
Well, as a vegan I am now royally screwed. This comes across definitely as the work of a journalist and not a scientist. It's interesting that she references such a superior work (Merlin Sheldrake's Entangled Life) - there's an overabundance of awe here without a solid footing on the science. As others complained she's really over anthropomorphizing the findings. At some point early on I had on my bingo card that we'd be hearing a lot about Margulis and... ding-ding, there it was. This just wasn't my cup of science tea I suppose.
June 5, 2025
This book is interesting, and I did enjoy the cool plant facts I picked up along the way, but there are some SERIOUS issues that need to be addressed.
1. This is not a scientific book. There are interviews and stories and studies discussed, but this is fundamentally not a book written by a scientist who is an expect in their field. And it shows. This is noticeable jn 2 ways. First, the claims made in this book regarding plant intelligence do not have the conservative narrative that any well regarded researcher would take. Schlanger makes bold statements and draws huge conclusions from studies that do not show the same thing. The second place this was especially noticeable to me was in chapter 10, which concerns inheritance. The way genetic inheritance is presented is extremely shallow. Schlanger mentions that only 30 something percent of height is explained by genetics among many other facts concerning missing inheritance, yet hardly discusses epigenetic factors. She attributes this missing inheritance to a sort of intentional life-shaping on the plants behalf, without showing evidence this may be true. She also leads the reader to consider all genes as Mendelian. Not to mention the philosophical question of what is a gene. Perhaps height is unexplained because our current arbitrary lines we draw for genes are simply incorrect. Oversimplifications like this are everywhere in the book, and it comes off as less of a portrayal of science and more of hopeful wishing.
2. As current research stands the idea of plant intelligence is a philosophical question more than it is a biological one. What is intelligence? What is consciousness? This entire book lies on the foundation of these two questions yet the intricacies of these definitions are barely scratched. Early on, Schlanger claims that the question of plant intelligence is not a semantic one, as intelligence has no specific definition and looks different in plants than in us humans. This is fine, but then she continues to use the words intelligence and consciousness with the same contextual implications as if plants were human agents. She cites Godfrey smith quite a bit which I find hilarious because he does such an excellent job at exactly what this book fails to do. Likewise with her discussions on Kuhn. Two giants of the philosophy of science yet that same atmosphere of inquiry is absent in this book. Schlanger fails to take a critical look at what intelligence or conciseness means, and how it emerges as a property. At what point does the collection of non intelligent properties make something intelligent. Many things she cites as evidence of intelligence, such as plants reacting to sound and memory, have no bearing on the subject by themselves. After all antibodies have a “memory” and glass “reacts” to sound in that it shatters at certain frequencies. In the same sense we sense sound via mechanistic hair cells in our ears. It is the understanding of that signal that makes it an intelligent characteristic, not the sensing it itself. Phenomenon that can be explained purely in causal physical relationships, like adjusting behavior according to a plants surroundings, by themselves reveal nothing about intelligence or at an even lower bar agency. (Though depending on the definition of agency, some plants could meet this lower bar).
3. The language. Schlanger loves to anthropomorphize plants. To some degree this is unavoidable as most verbs have an inseparable human connotation. But, Schlanger takes this much too far, basically writing about plants as if they are not only animals, but humans. This completely undermines her point that intelligence looks different in plants, because her language implies she doesn’t see it this way. She will repeatedly say that we don’t have words to describe the plants experience, but that does not justify the use of some of the language. And it’s not impossible to write a book like this without this pitiful. One of the books she cites, entangled life, does a PHENOMENAL job of keeping the writing fun and interesting while respecting the scientific discipline it discusses. Overall this book feels like a reporter going down a rabbit hole that she does not understand, which is disappointing because I was hoping to learn from someone who feels credible for the subject matter.
I could go on further. The excessively flowery language. The countless “what ifs”. The lack of addressing the merits of the opposing view. There are just too many issues with this book for me to call it a good read.
1. This is not a scientific book. There are interviews and stories and studies discussed, but this is fundamentally not a book written by a scientist who is an expect in their field. And it shows. This is noticeable jn 2 ways. First, the claims made in this book regarding plant intelligence do not have the conservative narrative that any well regarded researcher would take. Schlanger makes bold statements and draws huge conclusions from studies that do not show the same thing. The second place this was especially noticeable to me was in chapter 10, which concerns inheritance. The way genetic inheritance is presented is extremely shallow. Schlanger mentions that only 30 something percent of height is explained by genetics among many other facts concerning missing inheritance, yet hardly discusses epigenetic factors. She attributes this missing inheritance to a sort of intentional life-shaping on the plants behalf, without showing evidence this may be true. She also leads the reader to consider all genes as Mendelian. Not to mention the philosophical question of what is a gene. Perhaps height is unexplained because our current arbitrary lines we draw for genes are simply incorrect. Oversimplifications like this are everywhere in the book, and it comes off as less of a portrayal of science and more of hopeful wishing.
2. As current research stands the idea of plant intelligence is a philosophical question more than it is a biological one. What is intelligence? What is consciousness? This entire book lies on the foundation of these two questions yet the intricacies of these definitions are barely scratched. Early on, Schlanger claims that the question of plant intelligence is not a semantic one, as intelligence has no specific definition and looks different in plants than in us humans. This is fine, but then she continues to use the words intelligence and consciousness with the same contextual implications as if plants were human agents. She cites Godfrey smith quite a bit which I find hilarious because he does such an excellent job at exactly what this book fails to do. Likewise with her discussions on Kuhn. Two giants of the philosophy of science yet that same atmosphere of inquiry is absent in this book. Schlanger fails to take a critical look at what intelligence or conciseness means, and how it emerges as a property. At what point does the collection of non intelligent properties make something intelligent. Many things she cites as evidence of intelligence, such as plants reacting to sound and memory, have no bearing on the subject by themselves. After all antibodies have a “memory” and glass “reacts” to sound in that it shatters at certain frequencies. In the same sense we sense sound via mechanistic hair cells in our ears. It is the understanding of that signal that makes it an intelligent characteristic, not the sensing it itself. Phenomenon that can be explained purely in causal physical relationships, like adjusting behavior according to a plants surroundings, by themselves reveal nothing about intelligence or at an even lower bar agency. (Though depending on the definition of agency, some plants could meet this lower bar).
3. The language. Schlanger loves to anthropomorphize plants. To some degree this is unavoidable as most verbs have an inseparable human connotation. But, Schlanger takes this much too far, basically writing about plants as if they are not only animals, but humans. This completely undermines her point that intelligence looks different in plants, because her language implies she doesn’t see it this way. She will repeatedly say that we don’t have words to describe the plants experience, but that does not justify the use of some of the language. And it’s not impossible to write a book like this without this pitiful. One of the books she cites, entangled life, does a PHENOMENAL job of keeping the writing fun and interesting while respecting the scientific discipline it discusses. Overall this book feels like a reporter going down a rabbit hole that she does not understand, which is disappointing because I was hoping to learn from someone who feels credible for the subject matter.
I could go on further. The excessively flowery language. The countless “what ifs”. The lack of addressing the merits of the opposing view. There are just too many issues with this book for me to call it a good read.
abandoned
November 19, 2024Read through page 74.
I have a harder time with books about plant and animal biology than I would like, because these are fascinating worlds. Paradoxically, the fact that so much of this book focuses on the scientists making the discoveries, and the author’s own feelings about plants, actually made it more of a slog for me—I wanted it packed with fascinating plant facts like An Immense World is with animal facts. But it felt like a lot of chaff to get through for the good stuff. Fortunately I’d picked it up as a buddy read, and my partner finished and passed on only the great plant facts, which for me was the ideal way to experience this book. Because plants are incredibly cool, capable of far more in terms of things like senses and communication than most people give them credit for.
I have a harder time with books about plant and animal biology than I would like, because these are fascinating worlds. Paradoxically, the fact that so much of this book focuses on the scientists making the discoveries, and the author’s own feelings about plants, actually made it more of a slog for me—I wanted it packed with fascinating plant facts like An Immense World is with animal facts. But it felt like a lot of chaff to get through for the good stuff. Fortunately I’d picked it up as a buddy read, and my partner finished and passed on only the great plant facts, which for me was the ideal way to experience this book. Because plants are incredibly cool, capable of far more in terms of things like senses and communication than most people give them credit for.
June 14, 2024
well-reasearched, heady, charismatic, curious, driven/driving, ambitious/striving, anecdotal/super scientifically scenic (enjoyably so), clever, alluring, enriching, deliberate.
after each reading session i couldn’t shake the “New York State of Mind”- i felt pollinated by it’s compacting force: it hit me like a train, deadlines, an all-caps bullet list that broiled down to details details details with no time to simmer, very opposite of how i long to feel when connecting with the subject that she pushes with fervent devotion to ripen the empirical world of science to. i wonder if Zoe Schlanger feels that way sometimes too and if having a writerly way with plants who are so unlike the city (or are they…?) is an ideal escape or outlet for the pressures that a stampede of an accelerating, sucessful, high-functioning life in NYC acedemia and NYC-based reporting is. once i stopped wanting “Light Eaters” to be more like a humbling escapde (like how the good wind blows through Stephen Harron Buhner, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Mary Oliver, Black Elk …) i was able to respect it for exactly what it is: a solid and scientific contribution. major nod to Zoe for skipping an MA that she clearly doesn’t need and instead taking up her own voice and her own lifeforce to invest in the task of delivering our age’s ripeness with this informationally-dense dazzler, for putting her blood, sweat, and tears into writing it. “great work if you can get it” indeed. i think sometimes the public forgets that plenty (most) writers are making careers, because they also have a right to a livlihood and they also have to work (hard) to earn that. few careers are filled with the intensities of such scrutinizing. parts of this book read as though this could be someone’s first expansive introduction to the subject- i think it would serve well as so. her narrative is young/smart/fast/hip/informational rather than the enlightening elder voice i usually to prefer to sit mountainside with (in a book). however, most every page is overgrown with fascinating facts, the reach for mind-opening (human brain transcendance: is there anything loftier for a human to reach for? can it be reached, or is that what all-too-human hands with human brains do? that’s what we all fathom to quest...) and beautiful data-driven writing.
i’m reading reviews that are stating “Light Eaters” wasn’t scientific enough, which i completely disagree with: Zoë Schlanger is an intense and intellectually focused woman who has surmounted a lifetime of acedemic pressure to prove things using the scientific method, and she does so *consistently* throughout her book. she has been acedemically trained to appease pedantic authority figures who require she do this often and automatically.
i also see some complaints that she anthropomorphizes too much- again, i disagree, and observed zero concerning or blatant anthropomorphism in this book. i think people are simply picking up on the fact that a human wrote this book about plant intelligence (a driven, clever, curious, emerging young female writer who lives in New York wrote this book about plant intelligence). if you’re looking for a book that reads the way the natural world makes you feel, hopefully you will find those. think of this book as a lecture - not a walkabout, and not a book written by voice of the land.
as informationally rife and heavy-hitting as this book is, i hope its material softens people for humility to non-human lifeforms rather than to be strident and voracious for ‘book-knowledge’ as the book drives.
takeaway: we are not plants (although we- and our intelligence- are inseperable from our co-evolution that is greatly due to them), we are humans. yet isn’t it also our task to distil what we take in, and to find a symbiotic way of life with what we put out?
after each reading session i couldn’t shake the “New York State of Mind”- i felt pollinated by it’s compacting force: it hit me like a train, deadlines, an all-caps bullet list that broiled down to details details details with no time to simmer, very opposite of how i long to feel when connecting with the subject that she pushes with fervent devotion to ripen the empirical world of science to. i wonder if Zoe Schlanger feels that way sometimes too and if having a writerly way with plants who are so unlike the city (or are they…?) is an ideal escape or outlet for the pressures that a stampede of an accelerating, sucessful, high-functioning life in NYC acedemia and NYC-based reporting is. once i stopped wanting “Light Eaters” to be more like a humbling escapde (like how the good wind blows through Stephen Harron Buhner, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Mary Oliver, Black Elk …) i was able to respect it for exactly what it is: a solid and scientific contribution. major nod to Zoe for skipping an MA that she clearly doesn’t need and instead taking up her own voice and her own lifeforce to invest in the task of delivering our age’s ripeness with this informationally-dense dazzler, for putting her blood, sweat, and tears into writing it. “great work if you can get it” indeed. i think sometimes the public forgets that plenty (most) writers are making careers, because they also have a right to a livlihood and they also have to work (hard) to earn that. few careers are filled with the intensities of such scrutinizing. parts of this book read as though this could be someone’s first expansive introduction to the subject- i think it would serve well as so. her narrative is young/smart/fast/hip/informational rather than the enlightening elder voice i usually to prefer to sit mountainside with (in a book). however, most every page is overgrown with fascinating facts, the reach for mind-opening (human brain transcendance: is there anything loftier for a human to reach for? can it be reached, or is that what all-too-human hands with human brains do? that’s what we all fathom to quest...) and beautiful data-driven writing.
i’m reading reviews that are stating “Light Eaters” wasn’t scientific enough, which i completely disagree with: Zoë Schlanger is an intense and intellectually focused woman who has surmounted a lifetime of acedemic pressure to prove things using the scientific method, and she does so *consistently* throughout her book. she has been acedemically trained to appease pedantic authority figures who require she do this often and automatically.
i also see some complaints that she anthropomorphizes too much- again, i disagree, and observed zero concerning or blatant anthropomorphism in this book. i think people are simply picking up on the fact that a human wrote this book about plant intelligence (a driven, clever, curious, emerging young female writer who lives in New York wrote this book about plant intelligence). if you’re looking for a book that reads the way the natural world makes you feel, hopefully you will find those. think of this book as a lecture - not a walkabout, and not a book written by voice of the land.
as informationally rife and heavy-hitting as this book is, i hope its material softens people for humility to non-human lifeforms rather than to be strident and voracious for ‘book-knowledge’ as the book drives.
takeaway: we are not plants (although we- and our intelligence- are inseperable from our co-evolution that is greatly due to them), we are humans. yet isn’t it also our task to distil what we take in, and to find a symbiotic way of life with what we put out?
March 2, 2025
(2.5)”Seeing plants as beings worthy of rights would open up a different realm of being with plants. It would revolutionize our moral system, our legal system, and the way we live on the earth”
The author at her most loopy or she’s a Lotus Eater who wrote a book about Light eaters…
But even with her gee whiz attitude about plants and her willingness to glom on to radical hypotheses of plant intelligence, communication, sociability she does convey much mystery and insight…
Certain plants are able to mimic other plants like Mystique of the X-men…how does this happen? Seemingly by sharing microbes…plants engage in an altruism by not competing as strongly against their genetic kin…again how is this recognition accomplished?
If you’re reading this to find out more about chlorophyll and chloroplasts you’ll be disappointed…LE exists more on the margins of plant science…finally my pet peeve in reading any of these scientific examinations is how only capitalism makes such fetishized intellectualism possible…people study sagebrush, chipmunks chirping, the clicking sounds grape makes…and while a few insights…like plant kin can be grown closer together for agriculture have some utility…so much of what is studied for decades is completely useless…
P. S this stat can’t be right…
11,000 farmworkers are fatally poisoned by pesticides each year, and another 385 million are severely poisoned but don’t die, to say nothing of the birth defects, breathing disorders, and other
The author at her most loopy or she’s a Lotus Eater who wrote a book about Light eaters…
But even with her gee whiz attitude about plants and her willingness to glom on to radical hypotheses of plant intelligence, communication, sociability she does convey much mystery and insight…
Certain plants are able to mimic other plants like Mystique of the X-men…how does this happen? Seemingly by sharing microbes…plants engage in an altruism by not competing as strongly against their genetic kin…again how is this recognition accomplished?
If you’re reading this to find out more about chlorophyll and chloroplasts you’ll be disappointed…LE exists more on the margins of plant science…finally my pet peeve in reading any of these scientific examinations is how only capitalism makes such fetishized intellectualism possible…people study sagebrush, chipmunks chirping, the clicking sounds grape makes…and while a few insights…like plant kin can be grown closer together for agriculture have some utility…so much of what is studied for decades is completely useless…
P. S this stat can’t be right…
11,000 farmworkers are fatally poisoned by pesticides each year, and another 385 million are severely poisoned but don’t die, to say nothing of the birth defects, breathing disorders, and other
May 25, 2025
Many reasons that I found this book, which had a chance to be great, boring and irritating.
1. Great title, but misleading. Book was about plant communication, not photosynthesis. I wanted to read about eating light.
2. Author Schlanger strives to write sweeping sentences that she hopes her English professor would be thrilled with (but won't be). Annoying and misplaced.
3. The sense of wonder in each page gets old after the first chapter. Didn’t help that I listened to the author read it, gasping with awe all the way through. But by 2025 everyone knows that plants communicate, right?
4. She did a lot of work and loves plants. I feel guilty but cannot recommend it. Suzanne Simard and Melvin Sheldrake do it so much better. Or Richard Powers.
1. Great title, but misleading. Book was about plant communication, not photosynthesis. I wanted to read about eating light.
2. Author Schlanger strives to write sweeping sentences that she hopes her English professor would be thrilled with (but won't be). Annoying and misplaced.
3. The sense of wonder in each page gets old after the first chapter. Didn’t help that I listened to the author read it, gasping with awe all the way through. But by 2025 everyone knows that plants communicate, right?
4. She did a lot of work and loves plants. I feel guilty but cannot recommend it. Suzanne Simard and Melvin Sheldrake do it so much better. Or Richard Powers.
June 13, 2024
Plants are so cool man.
October 18, 2024
In 1973, two American authors published The Secret Life of Plants, and it became an instant bestseller. Just like Clever Hans (an early 20th century German horse that was supposed to do math) and similar animal stories in popular culture killed the study of animal intelligence for many years, The Secret Life of Plants, filled with largely fictional claims, killed the field of plant-sensing research for 20 years.
In The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth, Zoe Schlanger attempts to give plants the credits we owe, just as Frans de Waal does to animals in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?. Zoe Schlanger interviewed plant scientists and explained cutting edge research to a wider audience. I enjoyed it very much. It gives me so many topics to follow up. Right now I am looking up Boquila trifoliolata, a shapeshifting plant.
The author is fully aware that plant intelligence is a controversial topic that divides scientists. The use of “intelligence” implies human-ness or at least animal-ness. That’s because our language is human-centric. We simply don’t have ready-made words to describe the sensing plants that without brains and nerves but can still “know” their surroundings, kins and enemies, have “personalities”, even store “memories”.
I agree that modern science, by default, is conservative. A theory or hypothesis can’t become fact until after vigorous research, peer-reviews, and repeatable, double-blinded experiments. Such an attitude is a must especially in our era of widespread misinformation. And yet, I find the book provides good examples of why we should abandon our anthropocentric views about plants. There is a difference between treating plants as inanimate objects to be exploited, and anthropomorphizing them and projecting our needs and desires onto them, but perhaps we should try to understand them as they are.
In The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth, Zoe Schlanger attempts to give plants the credits we owe, just as Frans de Waal does to animals in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?. Zoe Schlanger interviewed plant scientists and explained cutting edge research to a wider audience. I enjoyed it very much. It gives me so many topics to follow up. Right now I am looking up Boquila trifoliolata, a shapeshifting plant.
The author is fully aware that plant intelligence is a controversial topic that divides scientists. The use of “intelligence” implies human-ness or at least animal-ness. That’s because our language is human-centric. We simply don’t have ready-made words to describe the sensing plants that without brains and nerves but can still “know” their surroundings, kins and enemies, have “personalities”, even store “memories”.
I agree that modern science, by default, is conservative. A theory or hypothesis can’t become fact until after vigorous research, peer-reviews, and repeatable, double-blinded experiments. Such an attitude is a must especially in our era of widespread misinformation. And yet, I find the book provides good examples of why we should abandon our anthropocentric views about plants. There is a difference between treating plants as inanimate objects to be exploited, and anthropomorphizing them and projecting our needs and desires onto them, but perhaps we should try to understand them as they are.
June 24, 2024
The author repeatedly said we should not overly anthropomorphize plants abilities however proceeded to anthropomorphize plants at every possible turn. The failure to differentiate memory from instinct or counting from threshold potential,even after saying vocabulary matter, is an unforgivable lack of nuance. The topic is fascinating but failing to different plants abilities from anthropomorphized qualities that higher animals have evolved is a disservice to the amazing sensory and reactionary discoveries in plants.
May 24, 2024
If you read one paragraph on each page you’ll get the entirety of this book.
December 10, 2025
dazzling revelations here. plants maybe can see! hear! communicate! distinguish and support their family! make distinct choices! the whole plant is maybe the brain! a plant is maybe a kind of hive! i'm kind of the worst imaginable reader for this bcs she keeps going "of course, no one is going to assume this means plants are sentient the way we are. readers are smart" and i'm like muppet animal shaking PLANTS ARE SENTIENT!!!!! ALIENS ALREADY LIVE AMONG US AND THEY ARE PLANTS!!!!!!!! sometimes a bit of a long read in the interims between interviews but very very very cool, kept disrupting my wife's tamora pierce experience to share plant information, which she liked.
February 15, 2024
I received an advance reader's edition of this book from HarperCollins in exchange for an honest review.
Environment and science reporter Zoe Schlanger presents an investigation into the current research and scientific thought on plant intelligence - their ability to communicate, their recognition of kin relationships, social interactions, and memories. Traversing the globe, the book presents multiple compelling examples of plants that have adapted and developed intelligent life required to survive and thrive.
This book provides so many compelling examples of plant intelligence: "When such plants find themselves beside their siblings, they rearrange their leaves within two days to avoid shading them. Pea shoot roots appeared to be able to hear water flowing through sealed pipes and grow toward them, and several plants, including lima beans and tobacco, can react to an attack of munching insects by summoning those insects' specific predators to come pick them off" (16). This book provided a whole new way of thinking about plant life from a static, unfeeling growth to an organism capable of advanced and rational decisions. It is wild to think about plants deliberately releasing chemical signals into the air that surrounding plants use to prepare defenses against predators. In effect, the plants under attack can warn nearby plants. And to learn that plants live more reciprocally and communicate more closely with other plants that they correctly identify as their kin. This is a world of social relationships and robust communication. Not in the way we think of in animals, but in their own quiet, stationary way.
Schlanger carefully articulates the reality that for decades the idea of plant "intelligence" has been unwelcome amongst the scientific community because it implied a consciousness akin to that found in animals and humans. But in this book she makes a strong argument that their intelligence is a parallel one but clearly intelligence, nonetheless. Plants aren't randomly growing; they are highly evolved over millennia to make deliberate choices and work in coordination with their surroundings to survive.
Despite offering up such interesting examples and really making me a think a lot, this felt like a slow read. Rather than staying on subject, the author shares random details and background on her travels and the backgrounds of the different scientists she talks to. I think this is meant to add interest and personality to the book, but I would have rather it stayed on the subject matter and just gotten on it with. Instead, it just made the narrative feel scattered. A really fascinating topic about ideas that seem to be building in momentum within the scientific community.
Environment and science reporter Zoe Schlanger presents an investigation into the current research and scientific thought on plant intelligence - their ability to communicate, their recognition of kin relationships, social interactions, and memories. Traversing the globe, the book presents multiple compelling examples of plants that have adapted and developed intelligent life required to survive and thrive.
This book provides so many compelling examples of plant intelligence: "When such plants find themselves beside their siblings, they rearrange their leaves within two days to avoid shading them. Pea shoot roots appeared to be able to hear water flowing through sealed pipes and grow toward them, and several plants, including lima beans and tobacco, can react to an attack of munching insects by summoning those insects' specific predators to come pick them off" (16). This book provided a whole new way of thinking about plant life from a static, unfeeling growth to an organism capable of advanced and rational decisions. It is wild to think about plants deliberately releasing chemical signals into the air that surrounding plants use to prepare defenses against predators. In effect, the plants under attack can warn nearby plants. And to learn that plants live more reciprocally and communicate more closely with other plants that they correctly identify as their kin. This is a world of social relationships and robust communication. Not in the way we think of in animals, but in their own quiet, stationary way.
Schlanger carefully articulates the reality that for decades the idea of plant "intelligence" has been unwelcome amongst the scientific community because it implied a consciousness akin to that found in animals and humans. But in this book she makes a strong argument that their intelligence is a parallel one but clearly intelligence, nonetheless. Plants aren't randomly growing; they are highly evolved over millennia to make deliberate choices and work in coordination with their surroundings to survive.
Despite offering up such interesting examples and really making me a think a lot, this felt like a slow read. Rather than staying on subject, the author shares random details and background on her travels and the backgrounds of the different scientists she talks to. I think this is meant to add interest and personality to the book, but I would have rather it stayed on the subject matter and just gotten on it with. Instead, it just made the narrative feel scattered. A really fascinating topic about ideas that seem to be building in momentum within the scientific community.
September 2, 2025
Review after book club Sept. 03
November 26, 2024
The depth of respect that the author has gained for the plant world is as infectious as the vines she so tenderly describes. The abilities of plants, be they biologically or somehow thought-based, are inarguable yet are so unknown by most humans. They truly are remarkable in the ways they defend themselves or how they help each other grow and thrive. I listened to the audiobook, so I also enjoyed the author's gentle, lilting voice as I did chores and computer work. I would most definitely seek out other books by the author.
June 12, 2024
the world is a prism, not a window. wherever we look, we find new refractions.zoë schlanger's the light eaters is a relentlessly fascinating, often compelling probe into the very latest plant science. with contagious enthusiasm and open-minded curiosity, the atlantic staff writer reports on myriad botanical discoveries (many of which should fundamentally alter our consideration of and approach to plant life of all kinds). schlanger situates recent research against the larger background of ongoing scientific skepticism, anthropocentrism, and the linguistic limitations inherent in discussing other species. parts of the light eaters are absolutely riveting and the well-researched evidence schlanger presents for plant intelligence (and even plant consciousness) is quite impressive.
but what happens then? underlying all this is the deeper question, the one that matters most: what will we do with this new understanding? there are two directions to go in: we do nothing at all, and carry on as before, or we change our relationship with plants. at what point do plants enter the gates of our regard? when are they allowed in to the realm of our ethical consideration? is it when they have language? when they have family structures? when they make allies and enemies, have preferences, plan ahead? when we find they can remember? they seem, indeed, to have all these characteristics. it's now our choice whether we let that reality in. to let plants in.
November 11, 2025
Thank you Zoe for this amazingly well written book! As a STEM major I enjoyed it immensely and am still going down a rabbit hole of research papers, some of which you cited and others being offshoots :)
For future readers I’ll leave the most intriguing findings we have discovered about plants and related species. These topics are currently hot topics and still undergoing immense research :)
1. Plants release aromatic chemicals when being eaten by predators or when suffering drought that can be a signal to other plants to up their defenses for the oncoming attack-even going as far as to ensure their offspring genetically are prepared for the attack
2. Plants have been shown to actually PICK their partners and show PREFERENCE! completely different from what we thought was random
3. Plants have PERSONALITIES! certain plants that release chemicals more flamboyantly when attacked are often ignored by their peers LOL, similar to the boy who cried wolf
4. Plants use electric impulses and we still aren’t sure how or why.. but when mapping a plant that has a leaf cut we can see the impulse travel through the WHOLE PLANT eerily similar to a nervous system (keep in mind this isn’t like ours but could be possible evidence of a plant like nervous systems that is analogous to ours)
5. Plants use Glutamate-a neuro transmitter common in animals with a nervous system- and we still aren’t sure how it works in plants given how different our structures are. But the speed of which these signals move are too fast to be described as diffusion.
6. Tricomes, tiny hairlike structures on plants leaves and sometimes stems, have been shown in one species to be used for sound. More research is being done to see if other species have similar uses for these structures
7. Some plant species have been observed to COUNT. They know what intervals bees visit them as and adjust their nectar accordingly, and when those intervals change, within a days notice the plants will respond by coordinating to the new schedule.
8. A species of vine has been shown to mimic other plant leaves, and we still don’t know how this is done. Can they see? Is it the microbes?
For future readers I’ll leave the most intriguing findings we have discovered about plants and related species. These topics are currently hot topics and still undergoing immense research :)
1. Plants release aromatic chemicals when being eaten by predators or when suffering drought that can be a signal to other plants to up their defenses for the oncoming attack-even going as far as to ensure their offspring genetically are prepared for the attack
2. Plants have been shown to actually PICK their partners and show PREFERENCE! completely different from what we thought was random
3. Plants have PERSONALITIES! certain plants that release chemicals more flamboyantly when attacked are often ignored by their peers LOL, similar to the boy who cried wolf
4. Plants use electric impulses and we still aren’t sure how or why.. but when mapping a plant that has a leaf cut we can see the impulse travel through the WHOLE PLANT eerily similar to a nervous system (keep in mind this isn’t like ours but could be possible evidence of a plant like nervous systems that is analogous to ours)
5. Plants use Glutamate-a neuro transmitter common in animals with a nervous system- and we still aren’t sure how it works in plants given how different our structures are. But the speed of which these signals move are too fast to be described as diffusion.
6. Tricomes, tiny hairlike structures on plants leaves and sometimes stems, have been shown in one species to be used for sound. More research is being done to see if other species have similar uses for these structures
7. Some plant species have been observed to COUNT. They know what intervals bees visit them as and adjust their nectar accordingly, and when those intervals change, within a days notice the plants will respond by coordinating to the new schedule.
8. A species of vine has been shown to mimic other plant leaves, and we still don’t know how this is done. Can they see? Is it the microbes?
November 30, 2024
Zoë Schlanger’s The Light Eaters ambitiously attempts to bridge the gap between botany, philosophy, and ecological ethics. Unfortunately, her exploration falters under the weight of speculative reasoning, romanticized anthropomorphism, and a fundamental disregard for the rigor and precision of scientific philosophy.
Schlanger’s central thesis - that plants deserve respect and perhaps moral consideration - is a noble and necessary argument for promoting ecological awareness. However, her methods and rhetoric undermine this goal. By relying on metaphors of intentionality, intelligence, and communication to describe plant behavior, Schlanger anthropomorphizes plants in ways that are not only scientifically inaccurate but potentially misleading to her audience. Terms such as “whisper networks” and “alarm calls” suggest a cognitive agency and purpose in plants that cannot be substantiated by the biological evidence she cites. While poetic, this language sacrifices clarity for emotional appeal, making it difficult for the reader to distinguish between empirical observation and speculative fiction.
One of the most glaring issues in The Light Eaters is Schlanger’s failure to operationalize key terms such as “communication,” “intelligence,” and “intentionality.” These terms are central to her argument yet are treated with conceptual vagueness, leaving them open to misinterpretation. For instance, while chemical signaling between plants may meet a broad, mechanistic definition of communication in biology, it does not imply awareness or purpose. Schlanger’s insistence on framing such phenomena as intentional communication conflates evolutionary adaptations with human-like cognition, a logical leap that betrays a lack of respect for the scientific method.
Furthermore, Schlanger’s apparent misunderstanding of evolutionary principles weakens her analysis. Evolutionary processes are inherently parsimonious, favoring traits and behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction without requiring intentionality or consciousness. Her anthropomorphic framing adds unnecessary complexity, ignoring the more profound insight that plants function as emergent systems shaped by environmental interactions. This perspective - plants as part of a dynamic, interdependent ecological system - is far more compelling and scientifically grounded than the mythic narratives she constructs.
Schlanger also claims that science lacks consensus on definitions such as “communication” and “intelligence,” a statement that is both reductive and misleading. While definitions vary across disciplines, there is substantial agreement within biology about the mechanistic nature of plant signaling. Rather than engaging with these frameworks, Schlanger dismisses them in favor of speculative and mystical interpretations that lack empirical support.
Even if one were to grant Schlanger the benefit of the doubt - that her aim is to make these ideas accessible to a broader audience - her execution remains problematic. By over-relying on metaphor and speculative language, she obfuscates rather than clarifies. For an audience unfamiliar with scientific principles, her arguments may seem compelling but ultimately mislead rather than inform. Her narrative fails to respect both her readers’ intelligence and the complexity of the phenomena she describes.
In sum, while The Light Eaters may provoke discussion, its lack of scientific rigor, logical coherence, and respect for established methodologies makes it a deeply flawed contribution to the discourse on plant behavior and ecological ethics. Schlanger’s argument would benefit from grounding itself in the scientific realities of evolution and emergent systems rather than relying on anthropomorphic and speculative narratives. The result is a book that, despite its noble intentions, risks perpetuating misconceptions rather than fostering genuine understanding.
Schlanger’s central thesis - that plants deserve respect and perhaps moral consideration - is a noble and necessary argument for promoting ecological awareness. However, her methods and rhetoric undermine this goal. By relying on metaphors of intentionality, intelligence, and communication to describe plant behavior, Schlanger anthropomorphizes plants in ways that are not only scientifically inaccurate but potentially misleading to her audience. Terms such as “whisper networks” and “alarm calls” suggest a cognitive agency and purpose in plants that cannot be substantiated by the biological evidence she cites. While poetic, this language sacrifices clarity for emotional appeal, making it difficult for the reader to distinguish between empirical observation and speculative fiction.
One of the most glaring issues in The Light Eaters is Schlanger’s failure to operationalize key terms such as “communication,” “intelligence,” and “intentionality.” These terms are central to her argument yet are treated with conceptual vagueness, leaving them open to misinterpretation. For instance, while chemical signaling between plants may meet a broad, mechanistic definition of communication in biology, it does not imply awareness or purpose. Schlanger’s insistence on framing such phenomena as intentional communication conflates evolutionary adaptations with human-like cognition, a logical leap that betrays a lack of respect for the scientific method.
Furthermore, Schlanger’s apparent misunderstanding of evolutionary principles weakens her analysis. Evolutionary processes are inherently parsimonious, favoring traits and behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction without requiring intentionality or consciousness. Her anthropomorphic framing adds unnecessary complexity, ignoring the more profound insight that plants function as emergent systems shaped by environmental interactions. This perspective - plants as part of a dynamic, interdependent ecological system - is far more compelling and scientifically grounded than the mythic narratives she constructs.
Schlanger also claims that science lacks consensus on definitions such as “communication” and “intelligence,” a statement that is both reductive and misleading. While definitions vary across disciplines, there is substantial agreement within biology about the mechanistic nature of plant signaling. Rather than engaging with these frameworks, Schlanger dismisses them in favor of speculative and mystical interpretations that lack empirical support.
Even if one were to grant Schlanger the benefit of the doubt - that her aim is to make these ideas accessible to a broader audience - her execution remains problematic. By over-relying on metaphor and speculative language, she obfuscates rather than clarifies. For an audience unfamiliar with scientific principles, her arguments may seem compelling but ultimately mislead rather than inform. Her narrative fails to respect both her readers’ intelligence and the complexity of the phenomena she describes.
In sum, while The Light Eaters may provoke discussion, its lack of scientific rigor, logical coherence, and respect for established methodologies makes it a deeply flawed contribution to the discourse on plant behavior and ecological ethics. Schlanger’s argument would benefit from grounding itself in the scientific realities of evolution and emergent systems rather than relying on anthropomorphic and speculative narratives. The result is a book that, despite its noble intentions, risks perpetuating misconceptions rather than fostering genuine understanding.
July 26, 2024
Whether plants are living, thinking, and sentient is a fascinating topic and the (audio)book initially gripped me. But as I got further along, I found it harder and harder to stay focused. I'm not sure what that is, but it probably could've been a bit shorter - and all authors should consider whether they are really the best person to read the audio editions of their book.
dnf
June 1, 2025DNF. I was expecting more science and less philosophical rambling.
December 17, 2025
mi-a plăcut foarte mult.
Am aflat lucruri noi despre plante și toate simțurile lor; consider că sunt cu adevărat inteligente deși este un termen ce își face foarte greu loc în lumea vegetală.
Structură faină, informații ușor de parcurs.
Am aflat lucruri noi despre plante și toate simțurile lor; consider că sunt cu adevărat inteligente deși este un termen ce își face foarte greu loc în lumea vegetală.
Structură faină, informații ușor de parcurs.
March 24, 2025
I disliked this book a lot. It was very clear from the beginning she was not a botanist or a scientist but someone who read a lot of wiki articles a a few science journals. When she stated at then beginning of the book that science doesn’t change I knew what I was in for. I read this as a garden book club assignment & that was her audience, old white ladies that played Bach to their orchids. As someone who studied & taught botany, I was appalled at how she humanized her plant subjects while continually warning her readers not to. Her personal experiences weren’t relevant in many cases & were unnecessary. Very disappointed in this sophomoric book.
July 15, 2024
The prologue and first chapter were needlessly personal, meandering, and woo-adjacent... so it's fortunate I persisted, because the rest of this book largely sets that aside. This is a great overview of plant research, filled with interesting facts. Some theories that were verboten just a decade or two ago struck me as common knowledge, while some of the new frontiers were crazy to me.
Recommend that people just skip the first two chapters, unless they really need a "personal connection" and why the author cares about plants.
Recommend that people just skip the first two chapters, unless they really need a "personal connection" and why the author cares about plants.
June 21, 2025
I have mixed feelings about this one.
It was an interesting book about plant intelligence. I found a lot of it pretty fascinating. I think it’s great to bring attention to plants and try to understand them more. I learned some things from this book and I truly appreciate that knowledge. I think I just didn’t love the author’s writing style. The author came off a bit self righteous to me so I just didn’t enjoy reading parts of it. I’m glad I read it but I didn’t love it.
It was an interesting book about plant intelligence. I found a lot of it pretty fascinating. I think it’s great to bring attention to plants and try to understand them more. I learned some things from this book and I truly appreciate that knowledge. I think I just didn’t love the author’s writing style. The author came off a bit self righteous to me so I just didn’t enjoy reading parts of it. I’m glad I read it but I didn’t love it.
July 30, 2025
I love ‘The Light Eaters: how the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth’ by Zoe Schlanger. The book is full of plant facts I had no idea of. I learned of new and controversial researches and information. The problem with many of the researches and facts Schlanger includes from plant specialists, botanists and biologists is while the observed plant behaviors are reproducible and obvious, how to describe these behaviors is the part which is controversial. The observations are based on lab-based visual examinations, and instruments of measurement, such as those which pick up electrical activity going on inside plants, and ‘vivisection’, so to speak, that definitely result in scientific results which fulfill all standards for rigorous scientific methodology. But the measured and observed activities all appear to show plant bodies are doing everything mammalian bodies do. Does this mean plants are, *ahem*, intelligent? Plants don’t have a brain. Right? But all descriptions, if accurately written down, of plant ‘behaviors’ appear to show plants might have intelligence. Scientists do not want to use that word intelligence in regards to plant activities. At all. Those who have, have been laughed at and scorned, even losing job promotions.
So. Schlanger talks to scientists afraid to use the word and those not afraid to use the word, all the while detailing their experiments and observations.
I have copied the book blurb:
”“A masterpiece of science writing.” –Robin Wall Kimmerer, author of Braiding Sweetgrass
“Mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful.” –Ed Yong, author of An Immense World
“Rich, vital, and full of surprises. Read it!” –Elizabeth Kolbert, author of Under a White Sky and The Sixth Extinction
“A brilliant must-read. This book shook and changed me.” –David George Haskell, author of Sounds Wild and Broken, The Songs of Trees, and The Forest Unseen
Award-winning Atlantic staff writer Zoë Schlanger delivers a groundbreaking work of popular science that probes the hidden world of the plant kingdom and reveals the astonishing capabilities of the green life all around us.
It takes tremendous biological creativity to be a plant. To survive and thrive while rooted in a single spot, plants have adapted ingenious methods of survival. In recent years, scientists have learned about their ability to communicate, recognize their kin and behave socially, hear sounds, morph their bodies to blend into their surroundings, store useful memories that inform their life cycle, and trick animals into behaving to their benefit, to name just a few remarkable talents.
The Light Eaters is a deep immersion into the drama of green life and the complexity of this wild and awe-inspiring world that challenges our very understanding of agency, consciousness, and intelligence. In looking closely, we see that plants, rather than imitate human intelligence, have perhaps formed a parallel system. What is intelligent life if not a vine that grows leaves to blend into the shrub on which it climbs, a flower that shapes its bloom to fit exactly the beak of its pollinator, a pea seedling that can hear water flowing and make its way toward it? Zoë Schlanger takes us across the globe, digging into her own memories and into the soil with the scientists who have spent their waking days studying these amazing entities up close.
What can we learn about life on Earth from the living things that thrive, adapt, consume, and accommodate simultaneously? More important, what do we owe these life forms once we come to understand their rich and varied abilities? Examining the latest epiphanies in botanical research, Schlanger spotlights the intellectual struggles among the researchers conceiving a wholly new view of their subject, offering a glimpse of a field in turmoil as plant scientists debate the tenets of ongoing discoveries and how they influence our understanding of what a plant is.
We need plants to survive. But what do they need us for—if at all? An eye-opening and informative look at the ecosystem we live in, this book challenges us to rethink the role of plants—and our own place—in the natural world.”
People literally would not exist as life on Earth if it wasn’t for the activities and evolution of plant life. They put the oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere. Full stop. Yet we are doing our utmost to wipe out plant life because it gets in the way of “progress”.
*Sigh*
I highly recommend this science read! And talking to your plants. Please. Perhaps they are returning your affection….
The book has an extensive Notes section and an Index section.
So. Schlanger talks to scientists afraid to use the word and those not afraid to use the word, all the while detailing their experiments and observations.
I have copied the book blurb:
”“A masterpiece of science writing.” –Robin Wall Kimmerer, author of Braiding Sweetgrass
“Mesmerizing, world-expanding, and achingly beautiful.” –Ed Yong, author of An Immense World
“Rich, vital, and full of surprises. Read it!” –Elizabeth Kolbert, author of Under a White Sky and The Sixth Extinction
“A brilliant must-read. This book shook and changed me.” –David George Haskell, author of Sounds Wild and Broken, The Songs of Trees, and The Forest Unseen
Award-winning Atlantic staff writer Zoë Schlanger delivers a groundbreaking work of popular science that probes the hidden world of the plant kingdom and reveals the astonishing capabilities of the green life all around us.
It takes tremendous biological creativity to be a plant. To survive and thrive while rooted in a single spot, plants have adapted ingenious methods of survival. In recent years, scientists have learned about their ability to communicate, recognize their kin and behave socially, hear sounds, morph their bodies to blend into their surroundings, store useful memories that inform their life cycle, and trick animals into behaving to their benefit, to name just a few remarkable talents.
The Light Eaters is a deep immersion into the drama of green life and the complexity of this wild and awe-inspiring world that challenges our very understanding of agency, consciousness, and intelligence. In looking closely, we see that plants, rather than imitate human intelligence, have perhaps formed a parallel system. What is intelligent life if not a vine that grows leaves to blend into the shrub on which it climbs, a flower that shapes its bloom to fit exactly the beak of its pollinator, a pea seedling that can hear water flowing and make its way toward it? Zoë Schlanger takes us across the globe, digging into her own memories and into the soil with the scientists who have spent their waking days studying these amazing entities up close.
What can we learn about life on Earth from the living things that thrive, adapt, consume, and accommodate simultaneously? More important, what do we owe these life forms once we come to understand their rich and varied abilities? Examining the latest epiphanies in botanical research, Schlanger spotlights the intellectual struggles among the researchers conceiving a wholly new view of their subject, offering a glimpse of a field in turmoil as plant scientists debate the tenets of ongoing discoveries and how they influence our understanding of what a plant is.
We need plants to survive. But what do they need us for—if at all? An eye-opening and informative look at the ecosystem we live in, this book challenges us to rethink the role of plants—and our own place—in the natural world.”
People literally would not exist as life on Earth if it wasn’t for the activities and evolution of plant life. They put the oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere. Full stop. Yet we are doing our utmost to wipe out plant life because it gets in the way of “progress”.
*Sigh*
I highly recommend this science read! And talking to your plants. Please. Perhaps they are returning your affection….
The book has an extensive Notes section and an Index section.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,452 reviews