The continued life & growth of both plants would be the profit incentive, wouldn’t it?
The continued life & growth of people in a community helping each other is the exact motivation that usually makes the profit incentive useless
Fungi won’t trade if the tree is not giving a fair offer. So while they don’t trade for profit they sure as hell aren’t engaging in charity.
Mutual aid, in other words.
A marketplace, of sorts
No. Flat out no. There is no competition and they’re literally providing what they are capable of to take care of the others’ need. Mutual aid is not a marketplace and the fact you instinctually thought of it that way tells me you need a book on capitalist realism.
There’s no competition between trees? Hmm…
Not all competition is mediated via markets. Mushrooms will compete by injecting themselves into their adversaries using their own internal pressure.
Yeah, bacteria secreting digestive enzymes would have been a better example.
There likely could be other benefits to them sharing such as:
- when there is more than they can use, particularly that the mushroom does not like in their environment
- producing more leaves is likely highly beneficial for the mushroom, for shade both living and fallen, nutrients and cover with fallen leaves.
Similar for the tree, but also mushrooms are recycling minerals from dead material.
I don’t know if there’d be “stingy” trees (aside from vastly different nutrient needs), I could see it more of miscommunication or having too much difference with language/biologic pathways.
Trees that rely on myco networks usually only get giant because of previous myco networking bonds, which funnel excess nutrients between not just the fungi but also other trees within the system. And depending on the involved species, this sometimes includes multiple plant species exchanging nutrients.
change your name. Assuming you aren’t underage so that psychotic pedo fuck would’t be interested.
I assumed it was ironic. Don’t ya think?
In case there are seriously any “
social Darwinists” eugenicists here:https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism
https://www.northwestern.edu/onebook/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/essays/darwin-morality.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/09/evolutionary-theory-gone-wrong-darwin
From your first article
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is entirely focused on an explanation of life’s biological diversity. It is a scientific theory meant to explain observations about species. Yet some have used the theory to justify a particular view of human social, political, or economic conditions. All such ideas have one fundamental flaw: They use a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose. In doing so they misrepresent and misappropriate Darwin’s original ideas”
So what is this post trying to do?
I think the post is pointing out that nature doesn’t work the way social darwinists think it does. Although symbiosis between different species, as shown here, isn’t the strongest argument they could have chosen. Personally I would have gone with (non-kin) altruism.
Friendly reminder that cooperation is mutually beneficial and the mathematical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma is to cooperate but not be a pushover.
That fungus would eat the tree if it had the abiliry
Don’t kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat you and everyone you care about.
Don’t ascribe motivations to biological processes.
That fungus wouldn’t eat the tree because it doesn’t eat the tree. There are tree eating fungi but that is not one of them.
That fungus is proof of cooperation being mutually beneficial and evidence of how “altruism” works out in favor of the cooperators.
There are tree eating fungi but that is not one of them.
Based on what?
According to my quick research, symbiotic fungus doesn’t fruit unless the tree is in trouble. That tree seems fine, so then the fungus probably isn’t good for the tree
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza
I don’t think that’s true.
I think you’re right
Your dog would kill you in a heartbeat if he thought he could
Which is unfortunate, since you would also slaughter your dog if you ever realize you can
Oh gods, no… What have I done?
I mean, yeah?
I’m sure if I slipped and died in the shower my cats would eat me, and I’d eat them if it was between that and starvation
So why isn’t that happening?
Are you letting a free meal loiter your hallways?Uh oh.
Killing the emergency rations now means they won’t be fresh in an emergency!
The mathematical solution to the prisoners dilemma depends on how the variables are framed. The standard values are chosen to represent your point and so don’t provide evidence of anything.
In the sense of the values awarded for cooperation vs competition? Sure it’s an approximation but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary. The entire point is to explore the nature of altruistic behavior, which we know exists. We know there are deer who groom each other even though it is in each deer’s best interest to be groomed but not groom in turn. There is a larger benefit to betrayal than to cooperation but a cost associated with everyone acting selfishly.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a model of reality. Sure you can insert numbers that make it work in reverse but it’s as valid as saying gravity is 4m/s² proves that I won’t die by jumping off this building.
In any form it’s fundamentally misleading as a model.
Even if we were to accept that the dilemma proves the value of universal cooperation, achieving that outcome would create the most fertile environment for exploration. When everyone is trusting, that’s the best time to lie.
Your ignorance of the solution is on full display, and you should probably go look up what the solution is before you act like you know what you’re talking about.
My students will be so disappointed to learn of my ignorance when I cover that topic this year. I’ll have to get your input on my lesson plans. 😏
I despair for your school
Hence backbone.
The best strategy is cooperation… with backbone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza for general interest
… although i don’t think mycorrhiza produces mushrooms.
What? The first picture in the article is a mycorrhizal mushroom (the fly agaric). If you mean edible fungi, then all of the members of the boletus family (which includes porcini) are mycorrhizal.
They are actually maximizing their profit
The libtards will say: CaPiTaLisM iS nAtUrAl
THE PLANTS HAVE GONE WOKE
I don’t see why social darwinists wouldn’t like it. I mean, that fungi is thriving. Thus, it must be a really strong individual who made good decisions (associating with trees when it was advantageous).
I dont understand. They share recources right? Thats what i learnt in school.
It’s called an ecosystem
