Should plants, microbes, and inanimate objects be respected? What are the criteria for subjective needs?

This article explores the scope of subjective needs and respect for plants, microbes, and inanimate objects, as well as animals, based on the arguments of Yuval Harari. It argues that we should respect objects that have subjective needs, and explains that expressing dissatisfaction can be a criterion.

 

Yuval Harari, author of Homo Deus, takes a critical view of animal husbandry, arguing that it provides only what is necessary for survival and reproduction, while failing to fulfill subjective needs. He argues that animals should be treated with respect and that their subjective needs should be met. Although Homo Deus only mentions animals, we can extend our thinking and apply the same type of consideration to plants, microorganisms, and inanimate objects in addition to humans and animals. Should we recognize the subjective needs of plants, microbes, and inanimate objects and respect them? How far can we extend the scope of respect? And how do we determine the characteristics of what deserves respect?
I consider the ability to express dissatisfaction to be a characteristic of respect. According to Yuval Harari’s argument, animals need to have their subjective needs met, which means they need to be respected. From this, I derive a single claim: ‘subjective needs must exist in order to be respected’. The criterion for determining whether something deserves our respect is whether it has a need to have its subjective needs met, and to determine this, we must first determine whether it has a subjective need. If the subjective need does not exist, then the subjective need does not need to be fulfilled and therefore does not need to be respected.
So how do we know if someone has a subjective need? I believe the answer is: by expressing dissatisfaction. Subjective needs are not the same as survival and reproduction needs. Even if everything necessary for survival and reproduction is provided, subjective needs may not be met. Even if a child has enough food to survive, how will he behave if he doesn’t have a toy that all his friends have? He or she will complain to his or her parents and ask for a toy. Toys are not necessary for survival, but children need something more than survival, and this is what we call subjective needs. Unmet subjective needs lead to complaints. This dissatisfaction is not caused by an essential need not being met, but rather a desire for a better life. From this, it can be argued that the object that can express discontent has subjective needs and therefore deserves respect.
It is self-evident that human beings are dissatisfied when their subjective needs are not met, and the subjective needs of animals are well described in Homo deus. But what about plants? Do they have subjective needs and can they express dissatisfaction? There is a lot of research on how plants respond to external stress. One study showed that when tomatoes were grown in a salinity-stressed environment, their leaf area became smaller, there was a pronounced stunting effect from the root to the top of the plant, and stomata closed, reducing photosynthetic efficiency. Another study showed that plants are stressed by a variety of factors during the growing process, with water deficit stress having the most devastating effect on crop yields. So, even if plants have all the requirements they need to thrive, if their subjective need to grow in a better environment is not met, they express their dissatisfaction by not growing well or producing less. And there are studies that actually analyze whether plants are unhappy with their current situation. One study showed that you can even predict plant stress by analyzing the absorption and refraction of light when you shine different wavelengths of light on a plant’s leaves. We can now prove, not only by observation, but also by scientific analysis, that plants express their dissatisfaction in stressful environments. Therefore, we can say that plants deserve respect.
Next, let’s look at inanimate objects. Not many people would think that inanimate objects have subjective needs. We don’t think of someone as lacking respect if they casually kick a rock rolling on the ground. Basically, inanimate objects have no life. Since inanimate objects are not alive, they do not have the requirements to survive and reproduce. It is unlikely that they have subjective needs, which are higher-level needs than survival and reproduction. Some people argue that inanimate objects contribute greatly to the environment in which living things live, and that living things can’t live without them, so they should be treated with respect. However, I don’t think this is a realistic argument. While it is true that inanimate objects contribute greatly to the lives of living things, it is the living things that decide how to utilize them. Inanimate objects have no subjective need to tell living things how to use them, or to complain when they are not used according to their wishes. This can be refuted by applying the argument that inanimate objects cannot be respected because they don’t have a subjective existence. Therefore, the conclusion is that inanimate objects cannot be respected.
What about microorganisms? There are many studies that show that microorganisms respond to external stress. For example, the explosive TNT acts as a stressor for bacteria, causing them to produce stress shock proteins. If the stress shock proteins produced by bacteria are their way of complaining about the explosive environment, then microorganisms have subjective needs and express their dissatisfaction with the situation, and should be respected. However, in real life, I don’t think we respect microbes. We use microorganisms in large quantities in chemical or food processes, we are taught to wash our hands thoroughly when we come home to wash away microorganisms, and we heat and cook our food to thoroughly remove microorganisms that adhere to food. From this, it would seem that humans have little respect for microbes. Why is there such a disconnect between research and real life? I believe it’s because we can’t observe microbial complaints on a macroscopic scale. Even when microbes produce proteins as a sign of dissatisfaction, it is invisible to us, which means that we have a hard time respecting microbes if we can’t communicate it to them. In this context, I would ultimately argue that microbes are not respectable, and that the scope of respectability extends to plants.
However, the argument that “objects to be respected must be able to express dissatisfaction” is limited by the fact that it determines the fulfillment of an object’s subjective needs from a human perspective. If we determine the scope of respect from a human perspective, we will inevitably make unfavorable judgments about entities that cannot directly communicate with humans. For example, as shown in the microorganism example in the previous paragraph, even if an entity has clearly made some kind of communication about its environment, humans are unlikely to respect it if it cannot communicate that communication to humans. Also, even if an entity is well adjusted to its environment, humans may misinterpret the entity’s behavior as expressing dissatisfaction because it is out of the ordinary. These limitations are difficult to completely overcome as long as we are thinking in human terms. Therefore, we should try to overcome these limitations as much as possible by being as objective as possible about the target.
Another limitation is that the basis for respect is weakened for humans and animals who are unable to express their dissatisfaction. For example, suppose a person is in a car accident and is lying unconscious in a hospital bed in a vegetative state. He or she has no means of expressing dissatisfaction. He can’t speak, and he can’t even communicate through his eyes. According to the argument, this person cannot be respected. However, we show respect to a person in a vegetative state, and we don’t treat them with disrespect. How can we resolve this contradiction? I believe that when we consider an object, we should consider not only its characteristics, but also the characteristics of the species to which it belongs. Each individual in a species is a minor variation within the larger framework of a single species. Therefore, I argue that when we think about the characteristics of an object, we cannot separate them from the characteristics of the species it belongs to, and that the characteristics of the species should also be taken into account when deciding whether an object deserves respect.