a

  • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
    21·
    4 days ago

    Well yeah, we are much more likely to have to deal with poisonous brands than poisonous plants these days.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
    174·
    4 days ago

    1. Can I see some evidence for that, please? Like, a peer reviewed study?

    2. Who was the sample of ‘people’?

    3. What is the distinction between different plants? Like, just kitchen fruits and vegetables I’d expect to be much more than 10, unless you group them all in ‘drupes’, ‘fruits’, etc

    4. Even if a random distributed sample of modern English speaking people do recognise more logos than plants, that’s likely because there’s a large advertising industry trying to make it so, whereas plant recognition is learnt in school or home.

    • Zombie@feddit.uk
      12·
      4 days ago

      I think point 4 is the point the poster is trying to make.

      We’re so far removed from nature, so far removed from the thing that lets us live, eat, and thrive, that more of us know bullshit brands than the plants we can enjoy looking at, the ones we must avoid, and the ones we can eat. Inherited knowledge is being lost. Yes, with the internet, if you’re inclined, you can look these things up but most people aren’t doing that.

      It’s sad. And I don’t mean the modern usage of sad as in lame, it’s sad as in depressing.

    • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
      1·
      4 days ago
      1. I suspect it’s the plant, rather than just the hit we eat. i.e. Does someone recognise an apple tree that’s not in fruit, rather than recognise an apple.

      Would like the evidence/data and methodology though, for sure. Can believe it, though. At least in urban spaces in the UK.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    52·
    3 days ago

    Your post didn’t quite work, it somehow got posted here instead of im14andthisisdeep