3 ms·

> The fig tree is pollinated only by the insect Blastophaga grossorun. The larva of the insect lives in the ovary of the fig tree, and there it gets its food. T

> The fig tree is pollinated only by the insect Blastophaga grossorun. The larva of the insect lives in the ovary of the fig tree, and there it gets its food. The tree and the insect are thus heavily interdependent: the tree cannot reproduce without the insect; the insect cannot eat without the tree; together, they constitute not only a viable but a productive and thriving partnership. This cooperative "living together in intimate association, or even close union, of two dissimilar organisms" is called symbiosis [27]. I believe the meaning of symbiosis has evolved since 1960. Symbiosis is now an umbrella term that only implies a close association between two organisms. It doesn't necessarily imply mutual benefit anymore. A mutually beneficial association is called mutualism. An association where one benefits at the expense of the other is parasitism. Commensalism is when one benefits and the other is neither harmed nor benefited. There is also amensalism, where one is harmed and the other is neither harmed nor benefited. Symbiosis is the superset of parasitism, commensalism, amensalism, and mutualism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis It's amusing to me when people use "symbiosis" in the old sense and then I start pondering whether the thing they're describing is actually {mutual,amensal,parasit,commensal}ism

binary132 2y ago
FWIW, I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial. I’m not able to cite this but I believe the prefix sym- may imply this.
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  Look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the topic > Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις, symbíōsis, "living with, companionship, camaraderie", from σύν, sýn, "together", and βίωσις, bíōsis, "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two biological organisms of different species, termed symbionts, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.[3] In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms". The term is sometimes used in the more restricted sense of a mutually beneficial interaction in which both symbionts contribute to each other's support.[3] It acknowledges the popular use of the term while implying that the technical meaning is broader > I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial This is exactly why it's so funny to me. Some snake oil salesman says "we have a symbiotic relationship with XYZ" and in my head I'm thinking "yes, a parasitic symbiotic relationship..."
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
    i've never heard of a parasitic relationship being described as symbiotic...
    - kaycebasques 2y ago
      > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
      - prewett 2y ago
        It's all fun and games by Lewis Carroll, but given the amount of doublespeak in American cities these days (especially by the Left but also by the Right), I think we need to insist that words have a meaning and you can't twist them to mean the opposite.
        kaycebasques 2y ago
        I am literally sourcing my definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis I totally get it. People usually mean "mutually beneficial" when they talk about symbiosis. But the deeper we go into this Hacker News thread, the more amusing it gets to me that multiple commenters are really struggling to acknowledge the broader meaning of the term. And what's even funnier is that the broader meaning probably originates from biologists and ecologists; people who are very invested in precise language in this space.
        binary132 2y ago
        You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, everyone knows this.
        kaycebasques 2y ago
carlosneves 2y ago
I actually prefer to think in terms of the broader sense of symbiosis (including all the types of symbiosis you mentioned). Sure we want the way we relate to technology to be mutualistic, but in reality we observe many instances of the other kinds of relationships.
nanna 2y ago
I think you're confusing a technical definition used among certain academic milieus with an everyday meaning of the rest of a language's speakers whose meaning has not changed since the 1960s. If someone uses the word symbiosis without referring to the distinctions you mention, you can just assume they're referring to what you call mutualism. We do this all the time in language. If someone says they're going to check the internet for something, I don't say well actually what you mean is you're launching your browser and only accessing a subset of the internet called the web... Of course not.
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  I get it. The everyday meaning is mutualism. I'm not confusing anything; please don't write off my perspective as mere "confusion". We are on HN, a place founded on gratifying curiosity. I was fascinated to learn the broader meaning of the term and figured that HN community would also enjoy discussing the rich technical meaning of the term. But instead I got some amusing interactions with the Semantics Police. And it's not like I'm standing on shaky ground with my definition; as I've mentioned before I am sourcing it from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis. But yes, re-reading my original comment, I can see why you all might say "no, YOU're trying to be the Semantics Police!" Not my intention. I can easily hold both meanings of the term in my mind at the same time. The thing I really wanted to focus on was the fascinating richer meaning of "symbiosis" that makes space for benefit/benefit, harm/benefit, benefit/neutral, harm/neutral interactions. The only thing I take back is the phrasing about it "evolving" since the 1960s. I looked up the biological terms; mutualism goes back to the 1840s at least. I guess Proudhon coined it. Amensalism goes back to the 1870s. Etc. It's still plausible to me that biologists or ecologists really pinned down how these terms relate to each other in the 1960s or later (since ecology as a field of study really ramped up in the 60s) but that would be difficult to prove. Also, please remember that the topic came up because Licklider, an academic computer scientist and psychologist, used a biological term loosely in the title of an academic article published to an official computer science journal.
  - nanna 2y ago
    Much of what you write is interesting, and I appreciate your reflection. I'd just like to qualify something about Licklider. At the time of the Man-Computer Symbiosis in 1960 computer science didn't exist as a discipline, so he wasn't writing as a computer scientist. In fact, Licklider was instrumental in the establishment of computer science as a discipline through directing funds to establish the first departments for it in the US later in the '60s. (I have 1963 in my head but could be wrong.) A more apt descriptor for him would be cybernetician. He was an acolyte of Norbert Wiener and his man-computer symbiosis can and should be read as his attempt to resolve the conflict in Wiener's writings between humans and machines. Instead of being antagonists, they could mutually benefit from one another as partners in a symbiosis.

binary132 2y ago

FWIW, I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial. I’m not able to cite this but I believe the prefix sym- may imply this.

kaycebasques 2y ago
Look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the topic > Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις, symbíōsis, "living with, companionship, camaraderie", from σύν, sýn, "together", and βίωσις, bíōsis, "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two biological organisms of different species, termed symbionts, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.[3] In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms". The term is sometimes used in the more restricted sense of a mutually beneficial interaction in which both symbionts contribute to each other's support.[3] It acknowledges the popular use of the term while implying that the technical meaning is broader > I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial This is exactly why it's so funny to me. Some snake oil salesman says "we have a symbiotic relationship with XYZ" and in my head I'm thinking "yes, a parasitic symbiotic relationship..."
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
  i've never heard of a parasitic relationship being described as symbiotic...
  - kaycebasques 2y ago
    > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
    - prewett 2y ago
      It's all fun and games by Lewis Carroll, but given the amount of doublespeak in American cities these days (especially by the Left but also by the Right), I think we need to insist that words have a meaning and you can't twist them to mean the opposite.
      - kaycebasques 2y ago
        I am literally sourcing my definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis I totally get it. People usually mean "mutually beneficial" when they talk about symbiosis. But the deeper we go into this Hacker News thread, the more amusing it gets to me that multiple commenters are really struggling to acknowledge the broader meaning of the term. And what's even funnier is that the broader meaning probably originates from biologists and ecologists; people who are very invested in precise language in this space.
        binary132 2y ago
        You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, everyone knows this.
        kaycebasques 2y ago

carlosneves 2y ago

I actually prefer to think in terms of the broader sense of symbiosis (including all the types of symbiosis you mentioned). Sure we want the way we relate to technology to be mutualistic, but in reality we observe many instances of the other kinds of relationships.

nanna 2y ago

I think you're confusing a technical definition used among certain academic milieus with an everyday meaning of the rest of a language's speakers whose meaning has not changed since the 1960s. If someone uses the word symbiosis without referring to the distinctions you mention, you can just assume they're referring to what you call mutualism. We do this all the time in language. If someone says they're going to check the internet for something, I don't say well actually what you mean is you're launching your browser and only accessing a subset of the internet called the web... Of course not.

kaycebasques 2y ago
I get it. The everyday meaning is mutualism. I'm not confusing anything; please don't write off my perspective as mere "confusion". We are on HN, a place founded on gratifying curiosity. I was fascinated to learn the broader meaning of the term and figured that HN community would also enjoy discussing the rich technical meaning of the term. But instead I got some amusing interactions with the Semantics Police. And it's not like I'm standing on shaky ground with my definition; as I've mentioned before I am sourcing it from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis. But yes, re-reading my original comment, I can see why you all might say "no, YOU're trying to be the Semantics Police!" Not my intention. I can easily hold both meanings of the term in my mind at the same time. The thing I really wanted to focus on was the fascinating richer meaning of "symbiosis" that makes space for benefit/benefit, harm/benefit, benefit/neutral, harm/neutral interactions. The only thing I take back is the phrasing about it "evolving" since the 1960s. I looked up the biological terms; mutualism goes back to the 1840s at least. I guess Proudhon coined it. Amensalism goes back to the 1870s. Etc. It's still plausible to me that biologists or ecologists really pinned down how these terms relate to each other in the 1960s or later (since ecology as a field of study really ramped up in the 60s) but that would be difficult to prove. Also, please remember that the topic came up because Licklider, an academic computer scientist and psychologist, used a biological term loosely in the title of an academic article published to an official computer science journal.
- nanna 2y ago
  Much of what you write is interesting, and I appreciate your reflection. I'd just like to qualify something about Licklider. At the time of the Man-Computer Symbiosis in 1960 computer science didn't exist as a discipline, so he wasn't writing as a computer scientist. In fact, Licklider was instrumental in the establishment of computer science as a discipline through directing funds to establish the first departments for it in the US later in the '60s. (I have 1963 in my head but could be wrong.) A more apt descriptor for him would be cybernetician. He was an acolyte of Norbert Wiener and his man-computer symbiosis can and should be read as his attempt to resolve the conflict in Wiener's writings between humans and machines. Instead of being antagonists, they could mutually benefit from one another as partners in a symbiosis.