3 ms·
I replied to a sibling with what I meant to reply to yours. See there. One quick thing I would add is, "NO" nature would not keep making them. It is only our d
by torgoguys 11y ago
I replied to a sibling with what I meant to reply to yours. See there.
One quick thing I would add is, "NO" nature would not keep making them. It is only our direct action that props up these artificially selected species (q.v., hybrids that require us to actively produce them, or your favorite variety of apple which is a clone of some great-grandparent tree or the fact that these crops would not compete well with other plants because we've selected them for their food production, not overall hardiness. They'd be out competed. They put too much of their energy into producing stuff that doesn't optimally help produce a new generation, and thus require our tending).
Your statement is a bit like saying "if we disappeared tomorrow nature would keep making sheep." Probably not (at least medium term). Sheep generally require our protection to avoid being killed. It probably wouldn't take long for a predator species to take hold in a given area and kill them all.
- rhinoceraptor 11y agoBut you would agree that there's a qualitative difference between a Snicker's bar and a banana, right? Sure, the banana is a selectively bred, sterile monocrop but the candy is made of 20 ingredients, resembling nothing found in nature in composition and nutrition.