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

196

17934 readers
508 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 120 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Fungi won’t trade if the tree is not giving enough nutrients. So while they don’t trade for profit they sure as hell aren’t engaging in charity.

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 87 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Mutual aid, in other words.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] kay@lemmings.world 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's no competition between trees? Hmm...

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Not all competition is mediated via markets. Mushrooms will compete by injecting themselves into their adversaries using their own internal pressure.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeha, but they are showing an instance of nature in which things work one way and ask "why can't humans XYZ if even a mushroom can? ", but there are also plenty of instances in which nature is savage.

There is a constant war in the roots of trees, does that mean humans should be in constant war?

Plus, there IS a profit incentive. Those mushrooms are trading. What they get in return is the profit incentive.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 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 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] stanka@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Where in that response did you see the word capitalism. Economics exist outside of your agenda/baggage.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago

"market place" is a concept of competition in contrast to Kropotkin's concept of mutual aid

[–] Cicraft@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So in dum dum terms the trees are keeping the fungus as a pet?

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

As much as a person can keep an outdoor cat as a pet...

[–] BunEnjoyer@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

More like two people sharing resources to reproduce more effectively while having a gun pointed towards each other at all times

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

There likely could be other benefits to them sharing such as:

  1. when there is more than they can use, particularly that the mushroom does not like in their environment
  2. 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. EDIT: Also I gotta imagine that giant trees don't even bother counting it for mushrooms so long as they aren't stressed. Sugar water is in the grid, take as much as you want.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I bet you chestnut trees are stingy little assholes. Prickly fucks.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago

At first, I read that as you accusing them of being a stingy asshole chestnut tree and I was about to inform you that you were in fact talking to a lemon, not a tree 😄

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] kay@lemmings.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

change your name. Assuming you aren't underage so that psychotic pedo fuck would't be interested.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

I assumed it was ironic. Don’t ya think?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 81 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Friendly reminder that cooperation is mutually beneficial and the mathematical solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to cooperate but not be a pushover.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That fungus would eat the tree if it had the abiliry

[–] huginn@feddit.it 25 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] stanka@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago

Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So why isn't that happening?
Are you letting a free meal loiter your hallways?

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 years ago

Killing the emergency rations now means they won't be fresh in an emergency!

[–] essellburns@beehaw.org 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 67 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 21 points 2 years ago

It's called an ecosystem

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zxk@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

Someone get that mushroom an Ayn Rand book

[–] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't see why social darwinists wouldn't like it. I mean, that fungus is thriving. Thus, it must be a really strong individual who made good decisions (associating with trees when it was advantageous).

[–] pozbo@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Isn't survival the single biggest trade incentive though? Like, I go to work everyday so I can buy food, but not because it's so yummy in my tummy, I do it because I'll die if I don't.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I dont understand. They share recources right? Thats what i learnt in school.

[–] FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yea but why would they share if there's no money to be made 🤔

[–] 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The continued life & growth of both plants would be the profit incentive, wouldn't it?

[–] kay@lemmings.world 18 points 2 years ago

The continued life & growth of people in a community helping each other is the exact motivation that usually makes the profit incentive useless

[–] bev@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

You can do trade only with contacts. If you don't know someone it's hard to trade.

[–] danikpapas@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

They are actually maximizing their profit

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The libtards will say: CaPiTaLisM iS nAtUrAl

load more comments
view more: next ›