4 ms·

Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy)

Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy) might be able to contribute if we brought them back, no?

LatteLazy 5y ago
Deliciousness seems like one answer.
- Normille 5y ago
  Tongue in cheek maybe. But I've thought before how being 'useful' to the dominant species on the planet [whether that means tasting nice or just being a cute furry companion] could be perceived as a legitimate and highly efficient evolutionary strategy, without all the hard work of actually 'evolving'. I think it's inevitable that, when the human race does start colonising other worlds [however far off in the distant future] we'll take our cats and dogs etc. with us. Those creatures will effectively have secured the benefits of all our centuries of technological advances and [with us] escaped this "all eggs in one fragile planetary basket" trap, without even having had to go so far as experimentally banging a few rocks together to see how things might develop from there. [Mind you, with the advent of lab grown meat, it might turn out that the dogs, cats, etc played a better hand than the chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, etc did. Being cute is more likely to get you a lift off-planet in the distant future, than being delicious]
awb 5y ago
There’s a lot of luck in life too. The timing of a natural disaster or biological disease or being around when humans evolved contributes a fair amount. It’s not just genetics that determines survival.
timClicks 5y ago
Actually, it's sort of the opposite. The few dozen animal species that have been farmed and domesticated are quite prolific. Regardless, blaming a species for habitat loss due to forest clearing, for example, feels slightly misdirected to me.

4 ms·

Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy)

by motohagiography 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago
Deliciousness seems like one answer.
- Normille 5y ago
  Tongue in cheek maybe. But I've thought before how being 'useful' to the dominant species on the planet [whether that means tasting nice or just being a cute furry companion] could be perceived as a legitimate and highly efficient evolutionary strategy, without all the hard work of actually 'evolving'. I think it's inevitable that, when the human race does start colonising other worlds [however far off in the distant future] we'll take our cats and dogs etc. with us. Those creatures will effectively have secured the benefits of all our centuries of technological advances and [with us] escaped this "all eggs in one fragile planetary basket" trap, without even having had to go so far as experimentally banging a few rocks together to see how things might develop from there. [Mind you, with the advent of lab grown meat, it might turn out that the dogs, cats, etc played a better hand than the chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, etc did. Being cute is more likely to get you a lift off-planet in the distant future, than being delicious]
awb 5y ago
There’s a lot of luck in life too. The timing of a natural disaster or biological disease or being around when humans evolved contributes a fair amount. It’s not just genetics that determines survival.
timClicks 5y ago
Actually, it's sort of the opposite. The few dozen animal species that have been farmed and domesticated are quite prolific. Regardless, blaming a species for habitat loss due to forest clearing, for example, feels slightly misdirected to me.