• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    It’s freely given by a plant just as human sacrifices are freely given by a cult.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      You’re saying that again as if I didn’t just enumerate the several fundamental differences. I get that you made an observation that you like, but it’s not really accurate.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        You just asserted that the fruit is freely given, but you haven’t supported that.

        I mean, one could also say that cows and pigs willingly sacrifice themselves so humans will continue to feed their descendants, but there isn’t any evidence of that either.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 days ago

          Basic botany and critical thinking skills. The difference between fruit bearing plants and animals is that slaughter isn’t an intrinsic part of animal reproduction. If you can present an alternate theory that better explains why angiosperms spend the energy to encase their seeds in stuff that animals find delicious, I’m happy to concede. All the evidence suggests they co-evolved with animals to take advantage of an efficient method of seed dispersal.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            If you want to make a teleological argument, then you could equally ask why agricultural animals, compared to wild animals, have much higher fat content and other characteristics that humans find delicious.

            All evidence suggests those features are favored by humans, who are the animals currently responsible for ensuring their continued reproduction.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 days ago

              Yes, that’s how agriculture works. You select the ones that are the plumpest and tastiest and breed those. Doesn’t change the origin.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                14 days ago

                So cows and pigs - like many fruiting plants - co-evolved with the creatures that fed on them. In both cases, those creatures became necessary for their long-term survival.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  Angiosperm co-evolution goes back hundreds of millions of years. Animal husbandry goes back what, 10,000? That’s an evolutionary blip. Yes, long enough to select for traits we prefer, but not long enough to develop the kind of symbiosis we see with fruits. Domestic pigs and cows do get some benefits from being kept, but we certainly aren’t necessary, except maybe some sheep.

                  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    14 days ago

                    Why does the length of time matter? Domesticated varieties of cows and pigs would go extinct if humans stopped raising them for meat. The only niche where they can survive is a farm. They are in symbiosis now even if they weren’t 10,000 years ago.