1143
Spearmint (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 71 points 8 months ago

On the other hand, being useful to humans have made them some of the most widespread and successful plant species on the planet.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Being useful to humans is the single most important factor in evolutionary success rates.

Sure, there's 8 billion of us, but we collectively KILL ~~30 billion~~ 70. 70 goddamn billion chickens every year, and there's always more of those fuckers. We kill more than double the number of chickens every year than are ever currently even alive. That's how many chickens there are.

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 3 points 8 months ago

Will humanity ever get rid of chickens???

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Hawaii hasn't been able to get them off of one island so... No

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Wait, are you telling me that Hawaii has wild chickens? Are we gonna have a Chicken War, like Australia did with Emus?

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

If you go to Honolulu you'll see them wandering on the streets. They're all over the place. I think they're seen as a nuisance? I dunno I thought they were charming.

[-] Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Didn't work out so well for the rhinos to be fair.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Rhinos aren't super useful.

Being super useful has a few requirements. Elephants, for instance, are incredibly useful. They're large, they carry burdens well, they can be trained and will behave well if they're treated well, they're social and understand commands.

But they have one baby every 22 months and it takes years before they're fertile. So they're not super useful. Rhinos, similarly, do not reproduce fast enough to check off the super box.

[-] Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If the rhinos are not useful why do we need to hunt them so much they're going extinct?

The animal also needs to be tamable if it wants to thrive.

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago
[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I'm on a strict enough diet already for medical reasons, trying to get that to work without animal products would be a nightmare I don't think I can deal with.

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago

I don't know your condition, so I can't tell you what you can or can't do. Reducing is a good enough step towards lessening animal cruelty in the world, though, so consider that maybe.

Avoiding animal-derived ingredients in medicine or finding medicine that is not animal-tested is a pain and another thing entirely, however. I get it.

Just know your priorities, I guess. If you don't care, that's fine too.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't think so. Humans eating chicken is a temporary thing either way, if we get flesh from cell cultures or go extinct, what you think happens with the overbred cows and chicken? Goal of evolution is survival, not spread.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

To be clear, I don't think that's going to happen. Like I appreciate what the near meat movement is doing, I'll grant you the conditions these animals live in isn't good and there's a debate to be had about the ethicality of raising livestock at all, let alone the way we currently do it.

We can't even move away from corn syrup which is causing the largest health crisis in history because a small section of the Midwest can't grow much else but corn. You think we're going to let the entire meat industry crumble for some vat grown goo I've got a bridge to sell you.

That said, let's say that yes, meat loses popularity for whatever reason and the industry crumbles. 90 billion cattle and 70 billion chickens become useless what happens to them?

In short, saving a few specimens on small farms, extinction. These animals will die, the cattle will die in childbirth or starve. The chickens simply won't be able to sustain themselves, and will succumb to disease and the fucking awful effects of how horribly inbred these animals are.

When their usefulness to humans ends, their one survival advantage goes with it. And so, you've supported my point. Usefulness to humans is the best survival advantage a species can have. They just only get that advantage while they're useful.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If you can grow corn, you can grow soybeans on the same land. My parents live in Indiana. Corn, soybeans, and pigs. For hundreds of miles of highway, that's all you'll see. Maybe some woods, but there aren't any deep forests left.

It's not the growing conditions that prevent the switch, it's the subsidies and stubbornness to switch crops, because they'll have to buy another part for their combine harvester that isn't even close to paid off

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I hear you, I really do. You're not picking up what I'm saying.

It's not about whether or not the switch is possible, the switch isn't fucking happening. If we can't get away from the awful habit that's literally killing us, we're not getting away from the awful habit that's keeping us alive. It doesn't matter if alternatives become available, because they are now and we aren't switching.

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Livestock is bred to be slaughtered. No life to be had there since they die in the end regardless and do not have good lives in the slightest (regardless of the conditions they live in), so in terms of animal welfare, it's the best possible outcome for them to not be raised at all. Take in as many of these animals in animal sanctuaries and let them live there as far as possible. But arguing that pigs, chickens etc. must be bred in order to them not getting extinct is a cruel thought. My two cents.

Edit: Plus, the livestock we know today only exists because of breeding. These are not naturally-occurring animals except for maybe chickens. Same thing that happens with dog breeds, cat breeds etc.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah evolutionary advantages don't really factor welfare in to the equation. Like I said, the welfare of these creatures isn't good. That doesn't matter for what we're talking about.

Did the animal successfully reproduce? If yes, then it has succeeded evolutionarily. The best way to ensure an animal reproduces is if humans want it to reproduce. An animal will reproduce more often more successfully when humans intervene.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Grass: is useless

Humans: "Growing a nutritionally useless plant demonstrates that Im so wealthy I can afford to waste arable land"

Grass: is now one of the dominant species on earth

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

We made grains from grass. If you let most grasses get tall enough to seed, they look like green wheat.

Also I'm not certain, but wheat and corn may give grass a run for their money in acreage cover, if you count the wheat and corn as a single species, but count each specific grass separately.

[-] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

Hey! grass made us quit the trees and stand up, let's pay it back!

this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
1143 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

11173 readers
2991 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS