• marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That’s not how life works. Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life, until we get down to individual amino acid chains which are very arguably not life the same way a fetus is not life.

      • Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we’re driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event.

        • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, “We’re too small, too insignificant to change the climate.” This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We’re not smol beans. We’re not powerless. We’re not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn’t have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn’t have changed the climate, and we wouldn’t be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period.

          If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously.

          But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we’re just another one of God’s Creations we’re going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet.

            • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it’s “symbiotic” in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It’s dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn’t exist on land.

              And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants.

              And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point.

              • dreamy (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                They do not “eat fungi corpses” you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition.

                And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life.

                I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved.

                I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point.

                It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding.

                • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition.

                  …So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word ‘decomposition’ means?

                  I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved.

                  It’s apparently not / that / hard.

                  It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding.

                  It’s crazy we’ve gone from your position of plants don’t destroy other life to maybe life doesn’t exist so quickly.

                  • dreamy (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Plants don’t decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn’t say that the absorption of rotten fungi is “eating”. Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you’re proposing.

                    We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn’t. Protocell formation is still hard, that’s why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn’t have become life. This was my point.

                    I said “this is just you conceding” in response to this, nothing to do with “life doesn’t exist so quickly”:

                    I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life