this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
317 points (88.2% liked)
science
14767 readers
106 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And the deal with Cthulhu is that he gets to devour whoever you've sacrificed, and in return he provides a benefit to the survivors: allowing them to live long enough to provide more sacrifices. It's basically the same deal.
Also, if anyone reading this happens to be a seed on a fruit meant to be devoured by humans then I have bad news about your final destination: it's rather a stinky place that is not in any way conducive to your growth. The cake is a lie.
It's not even remotely similar.
Also, that "stinky place" to us is heaven to a plant. Kinda how the foul oxygen they excrete is life-giving air to us.
The stinky place isn't soil. It's a sewer or a landfill, because that's where human waste ends up. Neither can support plant life because they are devoid of light, just like the realm of Cthulhu.
Doesn't change the plant-animal arrangement from the perspective of the plant, it's still freely given. We just hold up our end through agriculture.
It's freely given by a plant just as human sacrifices are freely given by a cult.
You're saying that again as if I didn't just enumerate the several fundamental differences. I get that you made an observation that you like, but it's not really accurate.
You just asserted that the fruit is freely given, but you haven't supported that.
I mean, one could also say that cows and pigs willingly sacrifice themselves so humans will continue to feed their descendants, but there isn't any evidence of that either.
Basic botany and critical thinking skills. The difference between fruit bearing plants and animals is that slaughter isn't an intrinsic part of animal reproduction. If you can present an alternate theory that better explains why angiosperms spend the energy to encase their seeds in stuff that animals find delicious, I'm happy to concede. All the evidence suggests they co-evolved with animals to take advantage of an efficient method of seed dispersal.
If you want to make a teleological argument, then you could equally ask why agricultural animals, compared to wild animals, have much higher fat content and other characteristics that humans find delicious.
All evidence suggests those features are favored by humans, who are the animals currently responsible for ensuring their continued reproduction.
Yes, that's how agriculture works. You select the ones that are the plumpest and tastiest and breed those. Doesn't change the origin.
So cows and pigs - like many fruiting plants - co-evolved with the creatures that fed on them. In both cases, those creatures became necessary for their long-term survival.
Angiosperm co-evolution goes back hundreds of millions of years. Animal husbandry goes back what, 10,000? That's an evolutionary blip. Yes, long enough to select for traits we prefer, but not long enough to develop the kind of symbiosis we see with fruits. Domestic pigs and cows do get some benefits from being kept, but we certainly aren't necessary, except maybe some sheep.
Why does the length of time matter? Domesticated varieties of cows and pigs would go extinct if humans stopped raising them for meat. The only niche where they can survive is a farm. They are in symbiosis now even if they weren't 10,000 years ago.
Time matters because that's how evolution cements biological distinction. Domesticated cow and pig varieties can certainly survive off of farms. There's the famous example of the cow that escaped to live with a herd of bison, and feral pigs are a well known phenomenon. Yes they are in symbiosis, but it's not biologically obligatory symbiosis.
By that reasoning, fruit is not in a biologically obligatory symbiosis with the animals that eat it. There are many cases of fruit falling to the ground uneaten and forming a new plant near its parent. Those plants eke out an existence just as feral pigs do.
Yes, and this is an undesirable result. You can eke out an existence with no legs, but it is not the preferred state of things. You're just debatelording now.
Yes, it's possible but undesirable for both pigs and fruits to survive without assistance from humans. In both cases, that assistance is offered because humans eat the creatures they assist.
You still haven't explained why this relationship is good for fruits but bad for pigs.
Because "good" and "bad" have nothing to do with my point, which is about purpose. The purpose of fruits is to be eaten, that is their explicit function. While the pigs get some benefits (in principle, in practice factory farms are horrific places which are absolutely less desirable to the pigs than the wild) they do not volunteer themselves for slaughter the way plants volunteer fruit for consumption.
Being eaten is the core benefit of fruit, and all else being equal being eaten is preferable to not. All else being equal, the pig benefits more by not being eaten, and just living peacefully on a farm.
And how did you determine what the purpose of fruit is? It certainly can't communicate its preferences or desires.
All you can observe is that the species as a whole thrives when fruit is consumed. But the same is true of farm animals. You are simply projecting the motivations you want to see, like self-sacrifice, onto one but not the other. After all, many fruits are poisonous. That suggests that fruits don't want to be eaten, but animals evolved mechanisms to safely eat some fruit.
Finally, factory farms certainly cause animals to suffer but from an evolutionary perspective thriving is not about avoiding suffering. It's about producing offspring, and in that sense farm animals thrive. And given that the OP is about the potential suffering of plants, I don't see why fruit farms are any less horrific than animal farms.
I don't know of a single fruit that's poisonous to every animal. There are fruits that are poisonous to certain animals, but that serves mostly to select for particular animals. A popular example is capsaicin, which is painful for mammals to eat but doesn't affect birds. This suggests that these fruits do want to be eaten, they're just selective about which animals eat them.
And even assuming the most woo-woo levels of plant consciousness, fruit farms create nowhere near the suffering of factory farms. Factory farms are a life of constant suffering, fruit farms are just plants vibing.
Again, you're just debatelording at this point.