>Do plants have rights?
If you want to argue for plants rights, then you could use the fact that all trees and all plants are much younger than fish. Fish are 2.3 as much as 2.7 billion years old, however trees are only about 133 million years old.
So if a fish gets chattel rights, why not also trees which is a much more highly evolved organism with evolutionary apparatus that no fish can boast of?
No, plants don't even qualify for the admittedly few rights on the books for chattel: such as but not limited to pigs, cows, chickens, fish, etc because although there are electrical signals happening in the leaves, trunks and roots that you might call "brain activity" if you really squint, nobody has successfully demonstrated that this activity is how plants win the war under the soil by zigging and zagging, pushing and pulling with the skill of a military commander who plans and carries out strikes and defensive manuevers using available methodologies such as making area denial systems, making dirt impermeable to water, or letting it through at various rates.
So yes, trees do have a brain in the same way chattel does, and plants engage in the same kind of war that animals and people engage in, but it's at the molecular level and under the soil where it can't be easily seen. This means Trees should be chattel and are therefore fascists under the soil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko
