11 ms·

Why bumblebees love cats and other beautiful relationships

164 points by Petiver 6y ago

buran77 6y ago
> For the next 250 years, despite the best efforts of the English to free themselves from this commercial yoke, the secret of that prodigious dye remained unknown to all but a select fortunate few of Spanish producers. But no production secret can stay that way forever, and so in the closing years of the eighteenth century, British spies succeeded in spiriting away the tightly kept formula: in order to obtain the longed-for carmine, you needed cochineals, and to get cochineals you had to have prickly pears. History makes this point again and again, spying seems to be the best way every superpower kickstarted many of their efforts.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  While it did happen numerous times, it's also going to be repeated far more often than "eventually the British figured it out independently/bought the secret." Superpowers like to boast about their achievements after all.
- ajuc 6y ago
  I find it highly unlikely they couldn't solve this mystery for 250 years given that a similar insect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cochineal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cochineal was used for producing very similar dye in Central and Eastern Europe for centuries already at that point, and was one of the main exports of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (till the imported dye won over because of higher yields = cheaper price). To this point the month June in Polish ("czerwiec") and the color red ("czerwony") are derived from the word "czerw" which means "worm".
  - ivanbakel 6y ago
    The two insects don't seem to be that closely related, and red dye comes from a variety of sources. Besides, even if the English suspected that there was some kind of Mexican cochineal, the mystery of how to farm it would still be a problem. >till the imported dye won over because of higher yields = cheaper price I'd be interested to know if this is true, or if the imported dye was more valuable for being a brighter colour. Do you have a source? Wikipedia is not specific about the reason for the decline in demand of Polish cochineal.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    It could be they knew it was an insect but couldn't discern which one. There are after all tens to hundreds of thousands of new world insect species. It also could be a Gladwellian over fancification.
RobertoG 6y ago
>>"I am sure that many of the erudite readers of this little book know On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin inside and out. " I can't parse that sentence. Does it make sense? (English is not my first language)
- nielu 6y ago
  Well, I'm also not a native speaker, but it makes sense to me. Author is implying that every reader of his book knows "On the Origin of Species" very well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- foo_foo_can_do 6y ago
  looks right. You could re-write it as follows for clarity: "I am sure that many of you are familiar with Darwin's book On the Origin of Species"
- rvieira 6y ago
  I mean ... I get what he's saying but no, it's not well written and it's tautological. Since erudite literally means having a deep knowledge: "I am sure many experts on X know X inside out"
  - jan_Inkepa 6y ago
    Erudite may be referring to generally well-read. Anyway, the sentence reads ok to me fwiw.
    - rvieira 6y ago
      I'd agree, except it reads to me as "many of the erudite readers _of this_ little book", it seems to imply erudites of Darwin's book.
      - ashtonbaker 6y ago
sammalloy 6y ago
> There is a famous story along these lines told for the first time by the German biologists Ernst Haeckel and Carl Vogt. As the story goes, the fortunes of England would seem to depend on cats. By nourishing themselves on mice, cats increase the chances of survival of bumblebees, which, in turn, pollinate shamrocks, which then nourish the beef cows that provide the meat to nourish British sailors, thus permitting the British navy—which, as we all know, is the mainstay of the empire—to develop all of its power. T. H. Huxley, expanding on the joke, added that the true force of the empire was not cats but the perseverant love of English spinsters for cats, which kept the cat population so high. As a point of curiosity, there is a similar observation found in the Buddhist Pali Canon (I think), popularized by Thich Nhat Hanh in his 1987 book "Old Path, White Clouds". It is apparently a very old text, commonly referred to as the "universe in a teacup" in certain circles. To summarize, one can be said to discern the entire universe in a simple teacup (or bowl) in the same way that one can trace the power of the British Empire to a cat. > Without water, the potter would not have been able to mix the clay he used to fashion the bowl....Fire was necessary to complete the bowl. Looking deeply, I can see the presence of heat and fire in the bowl...I see the air. Without air, the fire could not have burned and the potter could not have lived. I see the potter and his skillful hands. I see his consciousness. I see the kiln and the wood stacked in the kiln. I see the trees the wood came from. I see the rain, sun, and earth which enabled the trees to grow...I can see thousands of interpenetrating elements which gave rise to this bowl...Contemplating the bowl, it is possible to see the interdependent elements which gave rise to the bowl...these elements are present within and without the bowl. Your own awareness is one of the elements. If you took away heat and returned it to the sun, if you returned the clay to the earth and the water to the river, if you returned the potter to his parents and the wood to the forest trees, could the bowl still exist? [...] Look deeply at this bowl, and you can see the entire universe. This bowl contains the entire universe.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  Kinda makes Milton Friedman's Lesson of the Pencil feel even more oversimplified than it already is
pvaldes 6y ago
The prosaic reality is that bumblebees don't have any particular feelings about cats. Not more that they would feel about other carnivores. Using the same argument we could easily link being rich in England with the presence of rats in their house (that also eat lots of mice); or other similar nonsense. (But, yep. I agree that this old histories full of literary licenses feel warm inside and are entertaining as long as we take in mind that literature is not the same as science).
- foxhop 6y ago
  I disagree, I have cat mint at my house and my cat would sleeps under the shade of the plant while at least a hundred bumble bees collect nector and pollen from the bright purple flowers. My cat eats insects like grasshoppers and moths but was not scared of the bees, or tried to catch any, and many landed on her. Sometimes nature is stranger than reality, cat mint has similar to properties to catnip. The cats appear to understand the bumblebees, the bumblebees do not pay much attention to people or cats. The mint has direct relationships with both animals and insects. Unless of course if you start rooting around in their underground nests, at which point the will fly toward your head like a mimi drone and force you to stop with their persistent dive bombs. I've never been stung but they get aggressive when protecting brood. This was at least a 3 way simbiotic relationship. My cat passed away November 2019, mice live under the cat mint plant now. I have kittens planned in preparation fo next year's gardening season. Video is related (shut off audio, it's poor quality): https://youtu.be/cLm7nBy7M9g https://youtu.be/cLm7nBy7M9g I can't explain the relationships but yet they still persist and can be witnessed in real time.
- vhold 6y ago
  Agreed, although it would be interesting if it turned out that bumblebee queens are attracted to the smell of cat urine when choosing where to establish a hive. Seems like that, or something similar, would be a possible evolutionary adaptation. Then you could say they have a "feeling" for cats.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Whenever we over-anthropomorphize animals, we are disappointed; but, whenever we under-anthropomorphize them, we tend to be surprised. The truth is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to us humans than not in their emotional complexity, for many, many more animals than we give credit.
twobitshifter 6y ago
Today no one would chose an introduced species like cats as an example of symbiosis. Outdoor cats are an invasive species which are destroying the native bird populations, and as a result the larger food chain. They are a huge problem for ecosystems.
- bredren 6y ago
  I’ve heard this many times but do not know enough to say how big of a problem it is ecologically. I walk my cat on a leash (am on a walk now) and he is the first cat I’ve not allowed outside on his own. Cat walking and the belief you’ve espoused is extremely decisive, but not for the reason you’ve said. Letting your cat roam free is a tacit acknowledgment that one doesn’t really care that much for the animal, because they will make time to monitor it. I’m certain it makes no sense that cats are allowed to roam free, no more than dogs. But it has taken many years for me to get to this position.
  - sosborn 6y ago
    > I’ve heard this many times but do not know enough to say how big of a problem it is ecologically. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/feral-cats/ https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/...
    - bredren 6y ago
      Thanks for this. I suspect that much of the idea of “outdoor” cats as a thing has to do with tolerance of feral cat populations to begin with. Whereas wild dogs are too large and aggressive to tolerate.
  - nessus42 6y ago
    > Letting your cat roam free is a tacit acknowledgment that one doesn’t really care that much for the animal This is untrue. I've owned both indoor cats and indoor/outdoor cats. Anyone who has seen the joy that a cat experiences while outdoors would never claim that a cat owner who wants their cat to experience this joy, "doesn't really care that much for the animal". Maybe an outdoor cat will live a shorter life than an indoor cat, but that hasn't been my personal experience. In fact, I had an outdoor cat that lived for 22 years. In any case, a shorter but happier life is not without its merits. The cat I currently have is an indoor-only cat, but she only rarely displays the kind of joy that my outdoor cats would routinely. As for walking her on a leash, I have tried, but she will not tolerate the harness, and will manage to escape from it if I persist.
jonplackett 6y ago
There's also the story of the man who decided the USA needed to have all the birds mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, so he imported and released them, with similarly disastrous results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin#Starling_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin#Starling_re...
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  It seems odd to recount a historical anecdote while simultenously linking to a source that casts considerable doubt over it.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    I think there’s some doubt over why he did it, but it seemed like he did still do it?
DubiousPusher 6y ago
> If there is someone who still has this gap in their education, you are urged to fill it without any further delay. Maybe Origin holds up better than I would guess but honestly, I'm never going to read that thing. You've got time to read a few thousand books in your life. And I would bet there are many modern books which cover the same material with a more accessible bent and more up to date and comprehensive information. I'm not saying this as some kind of philistine. I studied literature for several years at university. I enjoy it. I've read Dante, Ovid, Thucidydes, Chaucer, Kant, and many more. But most those books are really interesting in historical or pedagogical kind of way. They show you the development of writing as it progressed. And they demonstrate the changing of human philosophy and epistemology. But frankly, most modern people can derive the same concepts and style as they've been handed down and filtered through subsequent authors. Despite the hullabaloo about people declining to read, we live in an amazing literary time. Really good books are being written right now on just about every subject. The writing world is so competitive that authors really have to hone their skill. Especially in the non-fiction category which for several decades has been under a deluge of well researched, focused and didactic books.
- kiliantics 6y ago
  Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. There is a framework of understanding that used to be common knowledge which now only experts and enthusiasts possess. I fear that most people in positions to make decisions that impact our natural environment have insufficient understanding of the potential consequences. Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing and digging ourselves ever deeper into. People have been taught to have more faith in industrial and technological solutions to any problems, rather than appreciating a need to be stewards of the life support systems of this world that we depend on.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    > Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. Yes and there are many great contemporary books that cover just these things, from Gould, to Dawkins, to Wilson, to Dennett, to Sagan. It is rare that the originator of an idea is also its best exponent. Though given the praise of its accessibility and interest here I'm willing to give Origin another thought. > Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing I'm not sure this is true. Environmentalism was basically born in the 60s. Conservation some 40-60 years before that. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about the health benefits of smoke, heavy metals and oil. Americans nearly extincted the buffalo for its industrial uses. An Australian tycoon almost extinct an island chain of penguins and seals by reducing them down to oil which was sold round the world. I could go on as there are many stories of human exploitation of the natural world that go back to ancient times (read about how Roman silver mines in Spain reshaped the Earth into a hell hole there) and beyond. We are honestly probably at peak -people caring about the environment-. It obviously has to go a lot further if we are to avert disaster and stop the extinction event humans have been driving for 15,000 years. But we are hardly at a nadir for people's understanding and love of the natural world.
pierrebai 6y ago
The example, taken from the Origin of Species, of the OP is interesting, but then it goes on to list multiple inter-dependencies. It does not address one question: are these inter-dependencies required, strict and essential to the survival of the affected species. IOW, are not the species flexible enough and adaptable enough that any change would be fixed by a substitute or a change in behaviour? There are many claims, both around ecology and climate changes, that hinge on the idea that the current state of the world as a whole is desirable, good and fragile. That is the main thing that always irks me. Life survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, multiple glaciations, etc. But it is always portrayed as a fragile system. That always seemed to me a bit hypocritical.
- necovek 6y ago
  We do know with reasonable certainty that life is adaptable and likely to survive any man made catastrophe: as humans go extinct if they don't do much to prevent their effects on the ecosystem, Earth and life will likely find a new equillibrium for the mid-term future (millions of years). But we are worried about short term future that directly affects the human species, and even knowing what environment we'd be living in for that short term (thousands of years). If humans want to go past those thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, it seems some change of behaviour is needed, and a better understanding of the inter-relations between species.
skadamou 6y ago
If you found this interesting but don't want to dive into reading Darwin's works (as the author seems to imply we should) I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". I haven't read "On the Origin of Species" but I'd bet "The Selfish Gene" will probably be a more efficacious read for most people
trhway 6y ago
>Mice, argues Darwin, are among the principal enemies of bumblebees. They eat their larvae and destroy their nests. On the other hand, as everyone knows, mice are the favorite prey of cats. One consequence of this is that, in proximity to those villages with the most cats, one finds fewer mice and more bumblebees. the same with birds - rats are able to eat eggs, so having a bunch of cats on a farm/village naturally results in having a booming bird population.
peter_d_sherman 6y ago
>"The ecological relationships that Darwin brings to our attention tell us of a world of bonds much more complex and ungraspable than had ever previously been supposed. Relationships so complex as to connect everything to everything in a single network of the living."
mastrsushi 6y ago
"and other beautiful relationships" Can this site just grow a pair?

164 points by Petiver 6y ago

> For the next 250 years, despite the best efforts of the English to free themselves from this commercial yoke, the secret of that prodigious dye remained unknown to all but a select fortunate few of Spanish producers. But no production secret can stay that way forever, and so in the closing years of the eighteenth century, British spies succeeded in spiriting away the tightly kept formula: in order to obtain the longed-for carmine, you needed cochineals, and to get cochineals you had to have prickly pears. History makes this point again and again, spying seems to be the best way every superpower kickstarted many of their efforts.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
While it did happen numerous times, it's also going to be repeated far more often than "eventually the British figured it out independently/bought the secret." Superpowers like to boast about their achievements after all.
ajuc 6y ago
I find it highly unlikely they couldn't solve this mystery for 250 years given that a similar insect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cochineal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cochineal was used for producing very similar dye in Central and Eastern Europe for centuries already at that point, and was one of the main exports of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (till the imported dye won over because of higher yields = cheaper price). To this point the month June in Polish ("czerwiec") and the color red ("czerwony") are derived from the word "czerw" which means "worm".
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  The two insects don't seem to be that closely related, and red dye comes from a variety of sources. Besides, even if the English suspected that there was some kind of Mexican cochineal, the mystery of how to farm it would still be a problem. >till the imported dye won over because of higher yields = cheaper price I'd be interested to know if this is true, or if the imported dye was more valuable for being a brighter colour. Do you have a source? Wikipedia is not specific about the reason for the decline in demand of Polish cochineal.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  It could be they knew it was an insect but couldn't discern which one. There are after all tens to hundreds of thousands of new world insect species. It also could be a Gladwellian over fancification.

RobertoG 6y ago

>>"I am sure that many of the erudite readers of this little book know On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin inside and out. " I can't parse that sentence. Does it make sense? (English is not my first language)

nielu 6y ago
Well, I'm also not a native speaker, but it makes sense to me. Author is implying that every reader of his book knows "On the Origin of Species" very well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foo_foo_can_do 6y ago
looks right. You could re-write it as follows for clarity: "I am sure that many of you are familiar with Darwin's book On the Origin of Species"
rvieira 6y ago
I mean ... I get what he's saying but no, it's not well written and it's tautological. Since erudite literally means having a deep knowledge: "I am sure many experts on X know X inside out"
- jan_Inkepa 6y ago
  Erudite may be referring to generally well-read. Anyway, the sentence reads ok to me fwiw.
  - rvieira 6y ago
    I'd agree, except it reads to me as "many of the erudite readers _of this_ little book", it seems to imply erudites of Darwin's book.
    - ashtonbaker 6y ago

sammalloy 6y ago

> There is a famous story along these lines told for the first time by the German biologists Ernst Haeckel and Carl Vogt. As the story goes, the fortunes of England would seem to depend on cats. By nourishing themselves on mice, cats increase the chances of survival of bumblebees, which, in turn, pollinate shamrocks, which then nourish the beef cows that provide the meat to nourish British sailors, thus permitting the British navy—which, as we all know, is the mainstay of the empire—to develop all of its power. T. H. Huxley, expanding on the joke, added that the true force of the empire was not cats but the perseverant love of English spinsters for cats, which kept the cat population so high. As a point of curiosity, there is a similar observation found in the Buddhist Pali Canon (I think), popularized by Thich Nhat Hanh in his 1987 book "Old Path, White Clouds". It is apparently a very old text, commonly referred to as the "universe in a teacup" in certain circles. To summarize, one can be said to discern the entire universe in a simple teacup (or bowl) in the same way that one can trace the power of the British Empire to a cat. > Without water, the potter would not have been able to mix the clay he used to fashion the bowl....Fire was necessary to complete the bowl. Looking deeply, I can see the presence of heat and fire in the bowl...I see the air. Without air, the fire could not have burned and the potter could not have lived. I see the potter and his skillful hands. I see his consciousness. I see the kiln and the wood stacked in the kiln. I see the trees the wood came from. I see the rain, sun, and earth which enabled the trees to grow...I can see thousands of interpenetrating elements which gave rise to this bowl...Contemplating the bowl, it is possible to see the interdependent elements which gave rise to the bowl...these elements are present within and without the bowl. Your own awareness is one of the elements. If you took away heat and returned it to the sun, if you returned the clay to the earth and the water to the river, if you returned the potter to his parents and the wood to the forest trees, could the bowl still exist? [...] Look deeply at this bowl, and you can see the entire universe. This bowl contains the entire universe.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vanderZwan 6y ago
Kinda makes Milton Friedman's Lesson of the Pencil feel even more oversimplified than it already is

pvaldes 6y ago

The prosaic reality is that bumblebees don't have any particular feelings about cats. Not more that they would feel about other carnivores. Using the same argument we could easily link being rich in England with the presence of rats in their house (that also eat lots of mice); or other similar nonsense. (But, yep. I agree that this old histories full of literary licenses feel warm inside and are entertaining as long as we take in mind that literature is not the same as science).

foxhop 6y ago
I disagree, I have cat mint at my house and my cat would sleeps under the shade of the plant while at least a hundred bumble bees collect nector and pollen from the bright purple flowers. My cat eats insects like grasshoppers and moths but was not scared of the bees, or tried to catch any, and many landed on her. Sometimes nature is stranger than reality, cat mint has similar to properties to catnip. The cats appear to understand the bumblebees, the bumblebees do not pay much attention to people or cats. The mint has direct relationships with both animals and insects. Unless of course if you start rooting around in their underground nests, at which point the will fly toward your head like a mimi drone and force you to stop with their persistent dive bombs. I've never been stung but they get aggressive when protecting brood. This was at least a 3 way simbiotic relationship. My cat passed away November 2019, mice live under the cat mint plant now. I have kittens planned in preparation fo next year's gardening season. Video is related (shut off audio, it's poor quality): https://youtu.be/cLm7nBy7M9g https://youtu.be/cLm7nBy7M9g I can't explain the relationships but yet they still persist and can be witnessed in real time.
vhold 6y ago
Agreed, although it would be interesting if it turned out that bumblebee queens are attracted to the smell of cat urine when choosing where to establish a hive. Seems like that, or something similar, would be a possible evolutionary adaptation. Then you could say they have a "feeling" for cats.
t-writescode 6y ago
Whenever we over-anthropomorphize animals, we are disappointed; but, whenever we under-anthropomorphize them, we tend to be surprised. The truth is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to us humans than not in their emotional complexity, for many, many more animals than we give credit.

twobitshifter 6y ago

Today no one would chose an introduced species like cats as an example of symbiosis. Outdoor cats are an invasive species which are destroying the native bird populations, and as a result the larger food chain. They are a huge problem for ecosystems.

bredren 6y ago
I’ve heard this many times but do not know enough to say how big of a problem it is ecologically. I walk my cat on a leash (am on a walk now) and he is the first cat I’ve not allowed outside on his own. Cat walking and the belief you’ve espoused is extremely decisive, but not for the reason you’ve said. Letting your cat roam free is a tacit acknowledgment that one doesn’t really care that much for the animal, because they will make time to monitor it. I’m certain it makes no sense that cats are allowed to roam free, no more than dogs. But it has taken many years for me to get to this position.
- sosborn 6y ago
  > I’ve heard this many times but do not know enough to say how big of a problem it is ecologically. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/feral-cats/ https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/...
  - bredren 6y ago
    Thanks for this. I suspect that much of the idea of “outdoor” cats as a thing has to do with tolerance of feral cat populations to begin with. Whereas wild dogs are too large and aggressive to tolerate.
- nessus42 6y ago
  > Letting your cat roam free is a tacit acknowledgment that one doesn’t really care that much for the animal This is untrue. I've owned both indoor cats and indoor/outdoor cats. Anyone who has seen the joy that a cat experiences while outdoors would never claim that a cat owner who wants their cat to experience this joy, "doesn't really care that much for the animal". Maybe an outdoor cat will live a shorter life than an indoor cat, but that hasn't been my personal experience. In fact, I had an outdoor cat that lived for 22 years. In any case, a shorter but happier life is not without its merits. The cat I currently have is an indoor-only cat, but she only rarely displays the kind of joy that my outdoor cats would routinely. As for walking her on a leash, I have tried, but she will not tolerate the harness, and will manage to escape from it if I persist.

jonplackett 6y ago

There's also the story of the man who decided the USA needed to have all the birds mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, so he imported and released them, with similarly disastrous results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin#Starling_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin#Starling_re...

ivanbakel 6y ago
It seems odd to recount a historical anecdote while simultenously linking to a source that casts considerable doubt over it.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  I think there’s some doubt over why he did it, but it seemed like he did still do it?

DubiousPusher 6y ago

> If there is someone who still has this gap in their education, you are urged to fill it without any further delay. Maybe Origin holds up better than I would guess but honestly, I'm never going to read that thing. You've got time to read a few thousand books in your life. And I would bet there are many modern books which cover the same material with a more accessible bent and more up to date and comprehensive information. I'm not saying this as some kind of philistine. I studied literature for several years at university. I enjoy it. I've read Dante, Ovid, Thucidydes, Chaucer, Kant, and many more. But most those books are really interesting in historical or pedagogical kind of way. They show you the development of writing as it progressed. And they demonstrate the changing of human philosophy and epistemology. But frankly, most modern people can derive the same concepts and style as they've been handed down and filtered through subsequent authors. Despite the hullabaloo about people declining to read, we live in an amazing literary time. Really good books are being written right now on just about every subject. The writing world is so competitive that authors really have to hone their skill. Especially in the non-fiction category which for several decades has been under a deluge of well researched, focused and didactic books.

kiliantics 6y ago
Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. There is a framework of understanding that used to be common knowledge which now only experts and enthusiasts possess. I fear that most people in positions to make decisions that impact our natural environment have insufficient understanding of the potential consequences. Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing and digging ourselves ever deeper into. People have been taught to have more faith in industrial and technological solutions to any problems, rather than appreciating a need to be stewards of the life support systems of this world that we depend on.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. Yes and there are many great contemporary books that cover just these things, from Gould, to Dawkins, to Wilson, to Dennett, to Sagan. It is rare that the originator of an idea is also its best exponent. Though given the praise of its accessibility and interest here I'm willing to give Origin another thought. > Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing I'm not sure this is true. Environmentalism was basically born in the 60s. Conservation some 40-60 years before that. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about the health benefits of smoke, heavy metals and oil. Americans nearly extincted the buffalo for its industrial uses. An Australian tycoon almost extinct an island chain of penguins and seals by reducing them down to oil which was sold round the world. I could go on as there are many stories of human exploitation of the natural world that go back to ancient times (read about how Roman silver mines in Spain reshaped the Earth into a hell hole there) and beyond. We are honestly probably at peak -people caring about the environment-. It obviously has to go a lot further if we are to avert disaster and stop the extinction event humans have been driving for 15,000 years. But we are hardly at a nadir for people's understanding and love of the natural world.

pierrebai 6y ago

The example, taken from the Origin of Species, of the OP is interesting, but then it goes on to list multiple inter-dependencies. It does not address one question: are these inter-dependencies required, strict and essential to the survival of the affected species. IOW, are not the species flexible enough and adaptable enough that any change would be fixed by a substitute or a change in behaviour? There are many claims, both around ecology and climate changes, that hinge on the idea that the current state of the world as a whole is desirable, good and fragile. That is the main thing that always irks me. Life survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, multiple glaciations, etc. But it is always portrayed as a fragile system. That always seemed to me a bit hypocritical.

necovek 6y ago
We do know with reasonable certainty that life is adaptable and likely to survive any man made catastrophe: as humans go extinct if they don't do much to prevent their effects on the ecosystem, Earth and life will likely find a new equillibrium for the mid-term future (millions of years). But we are worried about short term future that directly affects the human species, and even knowing what environment we'd be living in for that short term (thousands of years). If humans want to go past those thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, it seems some change of behaviour is needed, and a better understanding of the inter-relations between species.

skadamou 6y ago

If you found this interesting but don't want to dive into reading Darwin's works (as the author seems to imply we should) I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". I haven't read "On the Origin of Species" but I'd bet "The Selfish Gene" will probably be a more efficacious read for most people

trhway 6y ago

>Mice, argues Darwin, are among the principal enemies of bumblebees. They eat their larvae and destroy their nests. On the other hand, as everyone knows, mice are the favorite prey of cats. One consequence of this is that, in proximity to those villages with the most cats, one finds fewer mice and more bumblebees. the same with birds - rats are able to eat eggs, so having a bunch of cats on a farm/village naturally results in having a booming bird population.

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

>"The ecological relationships that Darwin brings to our attention tell us of a world of bonds much more complex and ungraspable than had ever previously been supposed. Relationships so complex as to connect everything to everything in a single network of the living."

mastrsushi 6y ago

"and other beautiful relationships" Can this site just grow a pair?