Amazon.com Widgets
  • This Is True, Do Some Research

    According to sources trees are legally alive, giving us a reason not to cut them down. The world needs trees trees are alive, they are the balance of life, if trees hold life together it makes perfect sense that trees are legally alive, they keep humans alive, so they should be alive legally.

  • Yes, obviously they are

    Trees are living things, anyone who says no to this is an idiot that needs to go back to preschool. Now whether or not the are conscious in any way is a totally different question. But yes they are certainly living. Let's please clear the air on this lol please
    I'm a different guy then the other person who did this.

  • Yes, obviously they are

    Trees are living things, anyone who says no to this is an idiot that needs to go back to preschool. Now whether or not the are conscious in any way is a totally different question. But yes they are certainly living. Let's please clear the air on this lol please

  • No. Trees are breaking the law!

    Trees may be alive, but they are not legally allowed to be alive. There was a nationwide ban on living trees long ago, I believe it was after that Paul Bunyan story was written. It's a strange law and impossible to enforce because those trees are everywhere, but hey, rules are rules!

  • They don't have a heart....

    I'm not going to open my big mouth and say something off base but I studied trees last year and I didn't see anything that says they 'alive'. However I don't know about 'legally'. But I don't believe so. Scientifically they are plants. Legally they could be anything. But trees make our houses so it's impractical to group them as living...Legally of course.

  • No neural system, therefore, not conscious

    To be considered "alive" in legal terms, something must have some form of consciousness. A tree has no neural system and therefore cannot "feel" as we do. They can sense their environment, sure, but not on a level that we would consider to be alive. Trees are also necessary, but so are crops in fields, yet no one is pushing to ban the harvesting of crops. So in conclusion, trees are not advanced enough biologically to have any legal rights or influence

  • Depends on how you define alive

    If you define alive by saying it's anything that is made by nature and can independently sustain itself, then yeah, it's alive. If you define it by saying it has to have a consciousness and be aware of itself and it's surroundings and not just a biological machine, then no, it is not alive. I believe the second choice. Though it may be alive, it's not necessarily living.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.