this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
405 points (100.0% liked)

196

667 readers
27 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 70 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 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.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 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.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 10 months 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 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

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

[–] huginn@feddit.it 53 points 10 months 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.

[–] essellburns 13 points 10 months 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 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.

[–] essellburns 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

In any form it's fundamentally misleading as a model.

Even if we were to accept that the dilemma proves the value of universal cooperation, achieving that outcome would create the most fertile environment for exploitation. When everyone is trusting, that's the best time to lie.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your ignorance of the solution is on full display, and you should probably go look up what the solution is before you act like you know what you're talking about.

[–] essellburns 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My students will be so disappointed to learn of my ignorance when I cover that topic this year. I'll have to get your input on my lesson plans. 😏

[–] huginn@feddit.it 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] essellburns 1 points 10 months ago

It's a university

Hence backbone.

The best strategy is cooperation... with backbone.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That fungus would eat the tree if it had the abiliry

[–] huginn@feddit.it 16 points 10 months ago (1 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.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Swallowtail 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

I think you're right

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 3 points 10 months 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 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 10 months ago

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

[–] stanka@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

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

[–] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 44 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 13 points 10 months ago

It's called an ecosystem

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

… although i don’t think mycorrhiza produces mushrooms.

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What? The first picture in the article is a mycorrhizal mushroom (the fly agaric). If you mean edible fungi, then all of the members of the boletus family (which includes porcini) are mycorrhizal.

[–] aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago
[–] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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).

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 months ago

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

[–] danikpapas@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

They are actually maximizing their profit

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The libtards will say: CaPiTaLisM iS nAtUrAl

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

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

[–] kay@lemmings.world 12 points 10 months ago

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

[–] i3c8XHV@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

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.