kay@lemmings.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 year agoCapitalists and social darwinists literally shaking and crying rn rulelemmings.worldimagemessage-square18fedilinkarrow-up110arrow-down10
arrow-up110arrow-down1imageCapitalists and social darwinists literally shaking and crying rn rulelemmings.worldkay@lemmings.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 year agomessage-square18fedilink
minus-squareZoboomafoo@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoThat fungus would eat the tree if it had the abiliry
minus-squarehuginn@feddit.itlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoDon’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.
minus-squareZoboomafoo@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-21 year ago 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
That fungus would eat the tree if it had the abiliry
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.
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