• MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    The “species domestication” bit is just the social part of evolution (less agressive, more cooperarive) mistaken as self-domestication.

  • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I thought it was fungi, as they are the ones breaking both plants and us down, are the oldest of all of us, both feed plants and us, etc.

      • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        Fungi are older than literal roots. The first land plants relied on them for nutrient exchange before evolving a radical system. My mind was blown away during a presentation by Dr. Toby Kiers about the latest research on mycorrhizal networks. They directly imaged nutrients moving both ways through those narrow filaments! Which is impressive on its own, but completely mind-fucked me when I noticed they were in real-time. https://www.spun.earth/networks/mycorrhizal-fungi

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Radiolab Episode from Tree to Shining Tree (air date 7/30/2016) is a really fun episode about mushroom networks.

      • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Fungi are much older. Source

        Plants are older than thought: 500 million years old. Source

        The earliest fungi started to develop 1.5 billion years ago, with other types 635 to 400 million years ago. Source

        In fact, both flora and fauna can’t survive without fungi. Source

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You mean the thing where we put tons of greenhouse gases in the air which warms the planet and makes it even better for photosynthesizing life, but even worse for mammals?

  • mushroommunk@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Sadly I’ve still never seen any real papers on this being an actual theory.

    I still want to believe I’m Ent livestock though.

    • deranger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s because it doesn’t really make sense, plants came before animals. Plants do not need us to survive, but we need plants to survive.

      • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Plants came before moths, but there are some desert plants whose life cycle is dependent on a species of moth pollinating them. How things were in the past influences but isn’t the sole arbiter of how things are in the present or future.

        Which isn’t to say that it’s strictly true, I think it serves more purpose as a thinking exercise than a scientific theory. But I don’t think it’s impossible that it’s true, either.

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          “Some” being a key word there. Plants, as a whole, are not dependent on mammals for their existence.

          • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah, I don’t think the OP was saying every plant in existence is dependent on humans. But crops are, and we’re dependent on them. Co-domestication, I guess.

            • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              most of them, but they all can naturalized and go feral and become weeds. plants that are triploid which is artificially induced by people are totally dependant on humans for survival, aka watermelon, cavendish banannas ,etc. crops become feral overtime.

              the advatange of plants becoming feral, is that most of them have high ploidy numbers for chromosones, rather than the usual 2 copies. some can have 1-20+ copies of thier chromosome., even crops, this allows plants to have copies of genes that can be somewhat detremental, but not affect the plants fitness, because they multiple copies of the same normal gene, those same copies can also evolve to give selective advantage. thats why some weeds or invasive plants are very hard to eradicate. reproduce extremely fast, asexually or otherwise or poisonous which makes them highly resistant to pests.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          plants like magnolia used beetles for pollination, magnoliads being a very ancient lingeage of plants. its only very later before bees, moths, and then butterflies became the dominant pollinators, and then mammals.

      • jrs100000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        We don’t need chickens to survive either. It doesn’t mean we didn’t domesticate them.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        plants came from red algae i believe, that was able to survive on land as primitive bryphytes, or thier ancestors. carbiniferous period is when they really took off. Plants encorporated both chloroplast and mitochondria endosymbionts in thier evolution.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Consider the Navel Orange. Completely unable to reproduce on its own, yet it has millions of progeny because of people like you!

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        its a clone of a clone, much like the cavendish bannana, and cultivars of watermelons. and apples too.

        fun fact, there is actually a cold tolerant wild orange that grows in the wild, the trifoliate orange, but its not super edible because its extremely bitter flesh, and it has thorns, and its more resistant to disease than domesticated oranges.

      • mushroommunk@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That reminds me. Need to go clone some grape cultivars and do some more guerilla gardening at my buddy’s house

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The botany of desire is a fun book written on the subject. Michael Pollan is not a scientist though, he’s a science and environmental journalist and Harvard professor.

  • Eq0@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    For anyone interested: Welcome to Night Bale is a great horror/surrealist podcast. Definitely recommend

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Look man. Mycelium. It’s all connected don’t you see? I don’t mean clones. They’re not clones. Its something else. It’s one BIG connection. It’s one BIG organism.

      And it’s MASSIVE. You think it’s just a little mushroom on the forest floor. But under that mushroom is a string. A string that connects to another string that may be connects to a root or another mushroom. Then strings with no mushrooms between the trees. And the strings outpace the trees.

      So the direction the trees grow in? Isn’t decided by the trees, or the larger environment around it at all. It’s decided by the mycelium. They grow outward, find the nutrients, and set the conditions for seeds to grow there, and change conditions elsewhere.

      The war between fungi and bacteria is an ancient and bloody one.

      I don’t fear the bacteria. No. They can colonize and grow resistance to antibacterials produced by the fungi and chemists. But fungi? Fungi can communicate. Fungi can parasitize. Fungi can grow in radiation contaminated environments.

      They are the dominant lifeform on this planet.

      And if you still don’t believe me, wait until you inexplicably have a yeast infection despite practicing hygiene taught at a super young age. That itch. That pain. It’s a higher evolved organism consuming everything.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 day ago

    That top sentence has a bunch of flavor text. Livestock implies they’re intentionally being kept as livestock. Plants aren’t sentient. That’s like saying evolution is intentional.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean it’s true… but there’s a pretty reasonable case that humans aren’t sentient. We think we’re doing shit for a good reason but at the end of the day on a large scale we’re just going through the motions of what our environment leads us to do.

      • stray@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        This is why I don’t like determining an organism’s value based on how “sentient” it is. I prefer to admit that I treat dogs and pigs better than carrots and fish because I empathize with them more, entirely of my own bias. I don’t think I have any more or less value than a blade of grass; we’re both products of happenstance just running our programming, and we won’t be around long.

    • Nikls94@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Plants aren’t sentient by our understanding of sentience there’s evidence that they communicate via the mycelium network and give their own offspring more nutrients than others. That‘s the two I can think of without googling

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        What other understanding of sentience would we fucking use?!
        The mycelium network thing is way overblown - it allows some crude, undetectedundirected signals to pass.

        • Nikls94@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I see it as a problem to solve - we know that signals pass because of the results, but we have yet to detect them

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            I typo’d “undirected” if that affects anything.

            My point is, people talk about this as if it’s the plants having a nice chat and a cup of tea and talking about politics. It isn’t - it’s more like a dog being able to smell some dog piss and understand something about the dog that pissed there.