this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
773 points (99.9% liked)

196

16488 readers
1688 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

Trading for food to eat is now "profit incentive"? How is there profit if you consume what you take?

Edit: and don't get me started on the violence used in our own market systems. Thankfully Mushrooms learned long ago to eat the rich, because "surplus profit" are just resources that aren't being used.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

How do you know they aren't consuming more than what they need to barely survive?

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Because consuming more than what you can use or need is not a competitive advantage. The mushroom that trades that surplus instead of wastefully consuming it will have a more resilient support structure. It's a different perspective where you view the fitness of an individual in regards to how well it embeds itself in the system by making itself useful to others, not by how well it can "extract profit" from its surroundings (like a cancer or obesity).

[–] BunEnjoyer@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Yes, but there are likely factors produced by both parties in the symbiotic relationship that keep each other in check. Otherwise one of the parties could become parasitic instead.

This whole conversation comparing evolutionary mechanisms that are complex enough to include self sacrifice just to have more "you", is a poor analogy anyways. While humans evolved their social dynamics, i'd like to think we can operate beyond what's best for our species.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)