Amy Youngs has engineered a cactus to glow in response to human interaction. I don’t quit know if this was done genetically but I would think that there is a non-organic mechanism involved here somewhere. Regardless of how it was done it was done to promote the idea of developing new types of plants that would respond to humans in a way that humans would interpret as an emotional response. This emotional interpretation is then supposed to lead to and, likely would for many people, the person taking care of the plant.
It would be great if we took better care of our plants. I regret not taking better care of the cactus that I had when I lived in Florida but we need not be convinced or have it insinuated to us that plants respond to us emotionally to take better care of them. Is it really right, in the truest sense of the word, to perform a kind deed on the basis of a lie. Should I paint a better picture because I believe it will make the canvas happier or are there higher laws that we should seek to honor as we relate to the world that would give us verifiable reasons for acting benevolently and verifiable ethical standards?
Certainly being good stewards of creation is ethically correct but this is true because of a transcendental standard that should motivate us whether we get emotional satisfaction from plants or not.