Conservation VS Herclivation

[Publica]

that's like saying a computer will engage in a cost-benfit analysis if you program it to follow certain criteria. Like not trade with computers that are programmed not to share. There's no analysis for the fungi, it's simply how they are 'programmed' to act by evolution.

And humans aren't 'programmed' to act by evolution?

We were wanderers from the beginning. We knew every stand of tree for a hundred miles. When the fruits or nuts were ripe, we were there. We followed the herds in their annual migrations. We rejoiced in fresh meat. through stealth, feint, ambush, and main-force assault, a few of us cooperating accomplished what many of us, each hunting alone, could not. We depended on one another. Making it on our own was as ludicrous to imagine as was settling down.

Working together, we protected our children from the lions and the hyenas. We taught them the skills they would need. And the tools. Then, as now, technology was the key to our survival.

When the drought was prolonged, or when an unsettling chill lingered in the summer air, our group moved on—sometimes to unknown lands. We sought a better place. And when we couldn't get on with the others in our little nomadic band, we left to find a more friendly bunch somewhere else. We could always begin again.

For 99.9 percent of the time since our species came to be, we were hunters and foragers, wanderers on the savannahs and the steppes. There were no border guards then, no customs officials. The frontier was everywhere. We were bounded only by the Earth and the ocean and the sky—plus occasional grumpy neighbors.

When the climate was congenial, though, when the food was plentiful, we were willing to stay put. Unadventurous. Overweight. Careless. In the last ten thousand years—an instant in our long history—we've abandoned the nomadic life. We've domesticated the plants and animals. Why chase the food when you can make it come to you?

For all its material advantages, the sedentary life has left us edgy, unfulfilled. Even after 400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten. The open road still softly calls, like a nearly forgotten song of childhood. We invest far-off places with a certain romance. This appeal, I suspect, has been meticulously crafted by natural selection as an essential element in our survival. Long summers, mild winters, rich harvests, plentiful game—none of them lasts forever. It is beyond our powers to predict the future. Catastrophic events have a way of sneaking up on us, of catching us unaware. Your own life, or your band's, or even your species' might be owed to a restless few—drawn, by a craving they can hardly articulate or understand, to undiscovered lands and new worlds.

Herman Melville, in Moby Dick, spoke for wanderers in all epochs and meridians: "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..."

Maybe it's a little early—maybe the time is not quite yet—but those other worlds, promising untold opportunities, beckon. Silently, they orbit the sun, waiting. - Carl Sagan

Wanderers - a short film by Erik Wernquist

The purpose of SpaceX, the reason for creating SpaceX, was to accelerate the advent of humanity, becoming a spacefaring civilization, to help advance rocket technology to a point where we could potentially become a multiplanet species and a true spacefaring civilization. - Elon Musk

Of course we are. I never argued otherwise. It's why people care for their children and relatives. But humanity has, generally speaking, overcome our 'programming'. We are sapient, capable of making choices that go against that evolutionary priorities.

[Alvecia]

Let's prove plants and fungi have the capability to engage in a cost/benefit analysis.

Hell, any analysis at all.

I guess that you didn't actually read the study that I cited...

'This is one of the first recorded examples of a 'biological market' operating in which both partners reward fair trading rather than one partner having the advantage and exploiting the other,' said Professor Stuart West of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, an author of the paper. 'We've shown that both plants and fungi can be choosy, 'playing the market' and looking for a better trading partner if they aren't getting a good deal.

I believe the researchers have done you a disservice by trying to analogise their findings. These trees and fungi aren’t actively bartering, they’re following their adapted behaviour. Far more akin to a basic computer program than any complex interaction.
If(a > b, c < d)
{
Do x
}
Else
{
Do y
}

[Galloism]

Let's prove plants and fungi have the capability to engage in a cost/benefit analysis.

Hell, any analysis at all.

I guess that you didn't actually read the study that I cited...

'This is one of the first recorded examples of a 'biological market' operating in which both partners reward fair trading rather than one partner having the advantage and exploiting the other,' said Professor Stuart West of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, an author of the paper. 'We've shown that both plants and fungi can be choosy, 'playing the market' and looking for a better trading partner if they aren't getting a good deal.

Their choice of words being poor doesn’t prove that plants/fungi engage in analysis.

[Neutraligon]

I seem to recall that Xero had some issues understanding what a market is in one of his previous threads.

[The Free Joy State]

I guess that you didn't actually read the study that I cited...

Their choice of words being poor doesn’t prove that plants/fungi engage in analysis.

The study says that plants exchange the energy-rich carbohydrate they produce with phosphorus from fungi. Which sounds legit. The study comes from the University of Oxford. However, I doubt, when they used their metaphor in 2011, that they thought anyone would ever take it literally.

Don't blame the poor scientists for that.

(As an aside, I also noted that "markets", "trading" and "playing the market" appear in quotes throughout the article, supporting the common theory that it was a metaphor and not to be taken as a literal statement).

As for the awareness of plants: plants do have a kind of basic functioning -- the kind that allows them to respond to stimuli as described and absorb beneficial nutrients. But they lack any higher-order processing to engage in analyses:

6. Would you say, then, that plants “think”?
No I wouldn’t, but maybe that’s where I’m still limited in my own thinking! To me thinking and information processing are two different constructs. I have to be careful here since this is really bordering on the philosophical, but I think purposeful thinking necessitates a highly developed brain and autonoetic, or at least noetic, consciousness. Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn’t include, in my understanding, the ability to think. Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks.

7. Do you see any analogy between what plants do and what the human brain does? Can there be a neuroscience of plants, minus the neurons?
First off, and at the risk of offending some of my closest friends, I think the term plant neurobiology is as ridiculous as say, human floral biology. Plants do not have neuron just as humans don’t have flowers!

But you don’t need neurons in order to have cell to cell communication and information storage and processing. Even in animals, not all information is processed or stored only in the brain. The brain is dominant in higher-order processing in more complex animals, but not in simple ones. Different parts of the plant communicate with each other, exchanging information on cellular, physiological and environmental states. For example root growth is dependent on a hormonal signal that’s generated in the tips of shoots and transported to the growing roots, while shoot development is partially dependent on a signal that’s generated in the roots. Leaves send signals to the tip of the shoot telling them to start making flowers. In this way, if you really want to do some major hand waving, the entire plant is analogous to the brain.

Note the phrase: "major hand-waving". The plant is not a brain, and it does not function in the same way as a human brain.

Higher order consciousness is not needed for simple cell-to-cell communication, which appears to be what is being described in the University of Oxford study. But it would be needed for cost/profit analyses.

[Xerographica]

The Free Joy State, thanks for finding and sharing a source. But even if we assume that plants don't think, I'm not exactly sure that it would necessarily mean that they don't want. When I see that my Ruellia brevifolia is wilty then I know that it wants water. Just like when it blooms I know that it wants to reproduce and when the seed pods burst open and catapult the seeds in every direction I know that the plant wants to colonize the entire planet and beyond.

Every organism wants to colonize everywhere. Life is synonymous with colonization and life is the most important part of nature.

Why are you under the impression that the Oxford study used "market" as a metaphor? Something either is, or isn't, a market. From the researchers' perspectives, and that of my own, plants and fungi trading nutrients with each other is a market.

According to this source, here are the properties of a biological market...

- Commodities are exchanged between individuals that differ in the degree of control over these commodities
- Trading partners are chosen from a number of potential partners.
- There is competition among the members of the chosen class to be the most attractive partner. This competition by 'outbidding' causes an increase in the value of the commodity offered.
- Supply and demand determine the bartering value of commodities exchanged.
- Commodities on offer can be advertised. As in commercial advertisements there is a potential for false information.

[Publica]

The Free Joy State, thanks for finding and sharing a source. But even if we assume that plants don't think, I'm not exactly sure that it would necessarily mean that they don't want. When I see that my Ruellia brevifolia is wilty then I know that it wants water. Just like when it blooms I know that it wants to reproduce and when the seed pods burst open and catapult the seeds in every direction I know that the plant wants to colonize the entire planet and beyond.

Every organism wants to colonize everywhere. Life is synonymous with colonization and life is the most important part of nature.

Why are you under the impression that the Oxford study used "market" as a metaphor? Something either is, or isn't, a market. From the researchers' perspectives, and that of my own, plants and fungi trading nutrients with each other is a market.

According to this source, here are the properties of a biological market...

- Commodities are exchanged between individuals that differ in the degree of control over these commodities
- Trading partners are chosen from a number of potential partners.
- There is competition among the members of the chosen class to be the most attractive partner. This competition by 'outbidding' causes an increase in the value of the commodity offered.
- Supply and demand determine the bartering value of commodities exchanged.
- Commodities on offer can be advertised. As in commercial advertisements there is a potential for false information.

A non-sentient being cannot want, because wanting is a desire, an emotion. Are you next going to argue your plants are happy or sad, or feel pain?

[The Free Joy State]

The Free Joy State, thanks for finding and sharing a source. But even if we assume that plants don't think, I'm not exactly sure that it would necessarily mean that they don't want. When I see that my Ruellia brevifolia is wilty then I know that it wants water. Just like when it blooms I know that it wants to reproduce and when the seed pods burst open and catapult the seeds in every direction I know that the plant wants to colonize the entire planet and beyond.

In order to actively want, one must actively think.

Plants, as it has being said, do not think. They are neither sentient nor sapient. Even a human foetus -- which is developing an actual brain -- lacks any consciousness until the third trimester.

Plants engage in simple cell-to-cell communication. But that does not mean they want things. They evolved to act in a certain way that will enable survival, and thus that is how they act. That does not require the higher-order consciousness required to "want" something.

Every organism wants to colonize everywhere. Life is synonymous with colonization and life is the most important part of nature.

"Life" is synonymous with many things, including "existence", and "being". "Colonisation" is not one of the recognised synonyms.

Why are you under the impression that the Oxford study used "market" as a metaphor? Something either is, or isn't, a market. From the researchers' perspectives, and that of my own, plants and fungi trading nutrients with each other is a market.

They put in in air-quotes, continuously. When something is not meant to be taken literally, it is put in air-quotes. That supports my theory.

Also, my view is supported by the article saying that it is "reminiscent of a market economy". "Reminiscent", meaning "resembling something" or "reminding one of". i.e. Analogous with, but not literally the same thing.

EDIT Also, I suggest that you cannot summon the researchers' perspectives and say they certainly agree with you, unless you know them and their intentions personally.

Furthermore, the difficulties with this theory being misunderstood has being raised in scientific journals (highlighted; and the original source -- which has a paywall)

The goal of biological markets theory is not to draw analogies to human markets. Rather, biological market theory is a tool to analyse exchange patterns. When applied correctly, it allows scientists to make testable predictions about resource exchange patterns, and how these vary across species  and environment. In the past, mycorrhizal researchers could only vaguely refer to “context-­‐dependency” to explain the variability in their results. Biological market theory now allows us to dissect this variability and generate specific and precise predictions for plant-­‐mycorrhizal outcomes

Which appears pretty explicit to me.

[The Holy Therns]

The Free Joy State, thanks for finding and sharing a source. But even if we assume that plants don't think, I'm not exactly sure that it would necessarily mean that they don't want.

YES! That is EXACTLY what it means!

[The Free Joy State]

A non-sentient being cannot want, because wanting is a desire, an emotion. Are you next going to argue your plants are happy or sad, or feel pain?

Pre-emptively responding. It should be obvious, but plants feel no pain. They lack that level of cognition [underlining mine]:

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. […]

So they might not be in pain, but they're struggling.
All organisms try to maintain homeostasis, and they'll do anything to have that. But whether there is suffering? That's a definition that we put on things. Let's say you have an elm tree on top of a mountain, and the same elm tree in a valley. On top of a [windy] mountain it's going to be short with few branches, few leaves, and a thick trunk. If it stayed at the same height with the same number of branches, it would be blown over. So we know that plants actively respond to the wind by inhibiting vertical growth, and by increasing their girth. It's an active response. It's not like it's responding to damage. It's changing its own response in order to survive.

So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell.

And to be clear, am I right that a plant knows it's being damaged?
You can definitely kill a plant, but it doesn't care.

TL;DR: Plants detect their environment and respond at a cellular level. They are not cognisant and they do not care: pluck them, kill them, eat them. They lack the capacity to care.

[Esternial]

A non-sentient being cannot want, because wanting is a desire, an emotion. Are you next going to argue your plants are happy or sad, or feel pain?

Pre-emptively responding. It should be obvious, but plants feel no pain. They lack that level of cognition [underlining mine]:

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. […]

So they might not be in pain, but they're struggling.
All organisms try to maintain homeostasis, and they'll do anything to have that. But whether there is suffering? That's a definition that we put on things. Let's say you have an elm tree on top of a mountain, and the same elm tree in a valley. On top of a [windy] mountain it's going to be short with few branches, few leaves, and a thick trunk. If it stayed at the same height with the same number of branches, it would be blown over. So we know that plants actively respond to the wind by inhibiting vertical growth, and by increasing their girth. It's an active response. It's not like it's responding to damage. It's changing its own response in order to survive.

So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell.

And to be clear, am I right that a plant knows it's being damaged?
You can definitely kill a plant, but it doesn't care.

TL;DR: Plants detect their environment and respond at a cellular level. They are not cognisant and they do not care: pluck them, kill them, eat them. They lack the capacity to care.

Indeed. You could otherwise claim our skin (or pretty much all our individual organs) also "want" things.

Hell, you can even go further and claim coffee machines have desires. A desire to make a cup of joe. If that's the case I've been abusing my coffee machine because I rarely drink coffee at home.

[The Holy Therns]

Pre-emptively responding. It should be obvious, but plants feel no pain. They lack that level of cognition [underlining mine]:

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. […]

So they might not be in pain, but they're struggling.
All organisms try to maintain homeostasis, and they'll do anything to have that. But whether there is suffering? That's a definition that we put on things. Let's say you have an elm tree on top of a mountain, and the same elm tree in a valley. On top of a [windy] mountain it's going to be short with few branches, few leaves, and a thick trunk. If it stayed at the same height with the same number of branches, it would be blown over. So we know that plants actively respond to the wind by inhibiting vertical growth, and by increasing their girth. It's an active response. It's not like it's responding to damage. It's changing its own response in order to survive.

So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell.

And to be clear, am I right that a plant knows it's being damaged?
You can definitely kill a plant, but it doesn't care.

TL;DR: Plants detect their environment and respond at a cellular level. They are not cognisant and they do not care: pluck them, kill them, eat them. They lack the capacity to care.

Indeed. You could otherwise claim our skin (or pretty much all our individual organs) also "want" things.

Hell, you can even go further and claim coffee machines have desires. A desire to make a cup of joe. If that's the case I've been abusing my coffee machine because I rarely drink coffee at home.

You monster.

[Galloism]

Pre-emptively responding. It should be obvious, but plants feel no pain. They lack that level of cognition [underlining mine]:

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. […]

So they might not be in pain, but they're struggling.
All organisms try to maintain homeostasis, and they'll do anything to have that. But whether there is suffering? That's a definition that we put on things. Let's say you have an elm tree on top of a mountain, and the same elm tree in a valley. On top of a [windy] mountain it's going to be short with few branches, few leaves, and a thick trunk. If it stayed at the same height with the same number of branches, it would be blown over. So we know that plants actively respond to the wind by inhibiting vertical growth, and by increasing their girth. It's an active response. It's not like it's responding to damage. It's changing its own response in order to survive.

So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell.

And to be clear, am I right that a plant knows it's being damaged?
You can definitely kill a plant, but it doesn't care.

TL;DR: Plants detect their environment and respond at a cellular level. They are not cognisant and they do not care: pluck them, kill them, eat them. They lack the capacity to care.

Indeed. You could otherwise claim our skin (or pretty much all our individual organs) also "want" things.

Hell, you can even go further and claim coffee machines have desires. A desire to make a cup of joe. If that's the case I've been abusing my coffee machine because I rarely drink coffee at home.

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Indeed. You could otherwise claim our skin (or pretty much all our individual organs) also "want" things.

Hell, you can even go further and claim coffee machines have desires. A desire to make a cup of joe. If that's the case I've been abusing my coffee machine because I rarely drink coffee at home.

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

Nobody knows what subatomic particles want.

[Publica]

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

Nobody knows what subatomic particles want.

Protons and neutrons want to stick together.

[The Holy Therns]

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

Nobody knows what subatomic particles want.

Starring Mel Gibson.

[Galloism]

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

Nobody knows what subatomic particles want.

They're always buzzing around, constantly moving, and yet nobody really knows what they're doing. Isn't that just a little bit suspicious?

Besides, when the subatomic world sends us their particles, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good particles.

[Valrifell]

I mean hell, let's go all in. Hydrogen wants to bond with either another element or another hydrogen atom. It doesn't want to hang out alone.

Won't anyone please consider the wants of Hydrogen?

Nobody knows what subatomic particles want.

There's actually an SCP about microscopic particles that experience conciousness when observed and detest it.

[Xerographica]

Just ran across this relevant blog entry...

A growing number of studies on the impact of invasive species have found no evidence that non-native plant species increase in abundance in the countryside at the expense of non-native species, and concluded that the negative effects of non-native plants on British biodiversity (and elsewhere) have been exaggerated, and that other factors such as changes in land use and management and climate change are much more important drivers to changes in the abundance and distribution of native plants. Exotic species may, in fact, help natives in many environments, in a number of ways.

These are complex but fascinating ideas. However, what concerns me as much as the effect of exotic plants on the environment is some of emotive language used, especially in the media, in framing this debate. A call for ‘native only’ planting and ‘eradicating alien species’ has uncomfortable nationalistic or even xenophobic overtones, especially in a multicultural city like London. It’s no wonder that the Daily Mail loves reporting on the ‘threat’ to the country from ‘foreign’ plants and animals, using language designed to conjure up fear. As the ecologist Mark Davis points out, perhaps it’s time to abandon the native vs alien concept, and judge species on whether they are producing benefits or harm to biodiversity, human health, ecological services and economies, rather than from where they originated. - Jonathan Gregson, In defence of aliens

[Xerographica]

Anybody else watching American Vandal on Netflix? Here's a relevant snippet from season 2 episode 5...

Hot Janitor: These are lichens.
Peter: What's a lichen?
HJ: Well, it's kind of like an epiphyte. It grows on some of the Doug firs and the other trees around here, but it blows out in some of the high winds during storms, so I try to collect it and put it back, you know.
Peter: You put it back in the tree?
HJ: Yeah, I mean, that's where it wants to be.

Plants have preferences... just like people do.

[The Free Joy State]

Anybody else watching American Vandal on Netflix? Here's a relevant snippet from season 2 episode 5...

Hot Janitor: These are lichens.
Peter: What's a lichen?
HJ: Well, it's kind of like an epiphyte. It grows on some of the Doug firs and the other trees around here, but it blows out in some of the high winds during storms, so I try to collect it and put it back, you know.
Peter: You put it back in the tree?
HJ: Yeah, I mean, that's where it wants to be.

Plants have preferences... just like people do.

It's apparently a mockumentary.

You expect us to really, seriously accept a few lines in a mockumentary as evidence for your theory, over actual scientific evidence?

And the previous blog excerpt does not prove that plants "want" anything. They lack the capacity. It has been said, and supported by sources.

From qualified scientists. Not mockumentary characters.

[The Two Jerseys]

Anybody else watching American Vandal on Netflix? Here's a relevant snippet from season 2 episode 5...

Hot Janitor: These are lichens.
Peter: What's a lichen?
HJ: Well, it's kind of like an epiphyte. It grows on some of the Doug firs and the other trees around here, but it blows out in some of the high winds during storms, so I try to collect it and put it back, you know.
Peter: You put it back in the tree?
HJ: Yeah, I mean, that's where it wants to be.

Plants have preferences... just like people do.

It's apparently a mockumentary.

You expect us to really, seriously accept a few lines in a mockumentary as evidence for your theory, over actual scientific evidence?

And the previous blog excerpt does not prove that plants "want" anything. They lack the capacity. It has been said, and supported by sources.

From qualified scientists. Not mockumentary characters.

"But these go up to eleven..."

[Dogmeat]

It's apparently a mockumentary.

You expect us to really, seriously accept a few lines in a mockumentary as evidence for your theory, over actual scientific evidence?

And the previous blog excerpt does not prove that plants "want" anything. They lack the capacity. It has been said, and supported by sources.

From qualified scientists. Not mockumentary characters.

"But these go up to eleven..."

For $2,000.00, I'll build you one that goes to twelve.

[Lanoraie II]

sound of moist hands rubbing together

I F*CKING LOVE THIS THREAD!

So here's my problem with your standing--I am all for biodiversity. I mean, hell, that's mainly what conservation is about. But, we really, really, REALLY should not be introducing new species to any ecosystem. The native plants are the ones best fitted to their systems and even if the introduction of hummingbirds to Africa *might* make more flowers bloom, there is so much that can go wrong, starting with disruption of the food chain, down to accidentally killing off entire species through unintended consequences and thus destroying the point in the first place.

This idea that we have to spread and introduce new species is honestly kind of infuriating, both for plants and humans. Keep the native species in their native habitats. There is no need to introduce anything new unless it's to control something that was already introduced and you're absolutely certain you can keep that new introduction under control and can make educated guesses as to the pros and cons of what impacts it will have on the environment.

Humans need to stop tampering with species, except to remove invasive ones, and protect native ones. Honestly. It is largely the rule that yes, introducing new species will result in a net loss in biodiversity, because that's usually what happens. Take a look at the gypsy moth, for starters.

Edit: Oh, I already replied to this thread once....shows how bad my memory is. Well this time it actually has substance! Yay?

If a habitat really wants biodiversity, it will happen naturally. We shouldn't force it.

[Xerographica]

After all, nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose. - Emma Marris, Opinion: It's Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil