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.
There likely could be other benefits to them sharing such as:
- when there is more than they can use, particularly that the mushroom does not like in their environment
- 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.
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.
change your name. Assuming you aren't underage so that psychotic pedo fuck would't be interested.
I assumed it was ironic. Don’t ya think?
Yeah, bacteria secreting digestive enzymes would have been a better example.
Friendly reminder that cooperation is mutually beneficial and the mathematical solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to cooperate but not be a pushover.
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.
Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about.
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.
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.
THE PLANTS HAVE GONE WOKE
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza for general interest
In case there are seriously any "
social Darwinists" eugenicists here:https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism
https://www.northwestern.edu/onebook/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/essays/darwin-morality.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/09/evolutionary-theory-gone-wrong-darwin
From your first article
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is entirely focused on an explanation of life's biological diversity. It is a scientific theory meant to explain observations about species. Yet some have used the theory to justify a particular view of human social, political, or economic conditions. All such ideas have one fundamental flaw: They use a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose. In doing so they misrepresent and misappropriate Darwin's original ideas"
So what is this post trying to do?
I think the post is pointing out that nature doesn't work the way social darwinists think it does. Although symbiosis between different species, as shown here, isn't the strongest argument they could have chosen. Personally I would have gone with (non-kin) altruism.
It's called an ecosystem
Someone get that mushroom an Ayn Rand book
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).
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.
I dont understand. They share recources right? Thats what i learnt in school.
Yea but why would they share if there's no money to be made 🤔
💀
The continued life & growth of both plants would be the profit incentive, wouldn't it?
The continued life & growth of people in a community helping each other is the exact motivation that usually makes the profit incentive useless
You can do trade only with contacts. If you don't know someone it's hard to trade.
They are actually maximizing their profit
The libtards will say: CaPiTaLisM iS nAtUrAl
It's called symbiosis. They both profit from it.
How do I know? Because it evolved. Why did it evolve? Because it gives them an advantage.
