Science Memes

11586 readers

1320 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1097

Spearmint (mander.xyz)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In fact, humans started cultivating mint and chili, hence it worked

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

There are billions of cows, chickens, etc. in the world. Purely by numbers, those species are incredibly successful. Yet, If not for humans finding them tasty and easy to manage, we would not have bred them to this degree and they wouldn't have reached this degree of success. Somehow, against all odds, being tasty/something we want to eat has somehow become an incredibly valuable and successful adaptation.

Evolution is absolutely wild, and this really drives home the fact that evolution isn't about the individual's likelihood of survival, but their likelihood of reproduction.

[–] Nacktmull 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Depends on how you define success. If you look purely at population numbers, yes. However, if you look at how they live in industrial animal mass production facilities, no.

[–] TORFdot0 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Evolution only cares about population numbers so evolutionary successful and quality of life successful are two very different concepts.

[–] Nacktmull 5 points 10 months ago

Yes, that is what I tried to say.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Evolution doesn't really care about quality of life, so long as an organism still reproduces. If every organism in a species is in horrendous, absolutely unconscionable pain and suffering for their entire existence but always manages to successfully pass on their genes, then the species can absolutely be deemed "successful". In a way, we have a symbiotic relationship with e.g. cows: even if we cause them mass suffering as individuals, as a species our relationship is mutually beneficial and that's all evolution really cares about at the end of the day.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Well, now it has. But uhhh, rest in pieces to all those species that were tasty ,but too much of a hassle

[–] Agent641 3 points 10 months ago

Didnt work so well for the mammoth and Aurochs. I guess you have to be a manageable size.