Are Plants Farming Us?(inleo.io)
inleo.io
Are Plants Farming Us?
https://inleo.io/@gentleshaid/are-plants-farming-us-a-thoughtful-look-at-natures-silent-masters-jx9
59 comments
I don't remember the details of their arguments, but Graeber and Wengrow think this is a misleading image. IIRC one of their main thrusts was that over long periods of history, groups of humans have adopted and abandoned stationary agriculture at will, as conditions indicate.
I suppose that makes us as domesticated as e.g. lions or chimpanzees, which have been known to e.g. share food with humans ("work for them") in the wild but it's not their reason for existence.
I suppose that makes us as domesticated as e.g. lions or chimpanzees, which have been known to e.g. share food with humans ("work for them") in the wild but it's not their reason for existence.
I lent out my copy of the Dawn of Everything so I can't get exact quotes or pages but this reminded me of a point in the book (which I highly recommend) which I'll attempt to summarize:
Domestication of plants was "easy" when tested in a controlled setting selecting seeds carefully at a university. Estimated that wheat in the agricultural "revolution" (a much scoffed about term in the book) could have been domesticated in 200 years if purposeful. Instead agriculture took something like 3000 years to become dominant versus mixed food sources (mostly gathering, fishing and hunting, with some low-effort planting on riverbanks).
And yes to your point, the idea that there is some sort of progression in human societies is contradicted by the recent decades of evidence in archeology -- every arrangement you can imagine seems to have been tried (stationary+hunter/gather, nomadic farmer, alternating back and forth, shifts toward farming for hundreds of years and then back to fishing for thousands). Humans time on the earth has been much longer than our recorded history, with more variety and less boring than we usually assume.
Anyway I hope that inspires someone to pick up the book, it really is a good read.
Domestication of plants was "easy" when tested in a controlled setting selecting seeds carefully at a university. Estimated that wheat in the agricultural "revolution" (a much scoffed about term in the book) could have been domesticated in 200 years if purposeful. Instead agriculture took something like 3000 years to become dominant versus mixed food sources (mostly gathering, fishing and hunting, with some low-effort planting on riverbanks).
And yes to your point, the idea that there is some sort of progression in human societies is contradicted by the recent decades of evidence in archeology -- every arrangement you can imagine seems to have been tried (stationary+hunter/gather, nomadic farmer, alternating back and forth, shifts toward farming for hundreds of years and then back to fishing for thousands). Humans time on the earth has been much longer than our recorded history, with more variety and less boring than we usually assume.
Anyway I hope that inspires someone to pick up the book, it really is a good read.
thanks for sharing, I will check out that book for sure!
>IIRC one of their main thrusts was that over long periods of history, groups of humans have adopted and abandoned stationary agriculture at will, as conditions indicate.
In general they still totally depend on it.
So this would be like saying dogs aren't domesticated, because some left their owners or bit them, or there are groups of stray dogs here and there.
In general they still totally depend on it.
So this would be like saying dogs aren't domesticated, because some left their owners or bit them, or there are groups of stray dogs here and there.
What makes you say they still totally depended on it? I can easily imagine groups of humans having a period of settled agriculture for convenience rather than necessity.
If you are claiming that a hot buttered dinner roll made from wheat can actually domesticate ME…
… then you’re damn right.
… then you’re damn right.
>The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens.
Etymology never made for very compelling arguments.
Etymology never made for very compelling arguments.
"Free" derives from an Indo-European word that means "one of the loved ones".
Something about this free-wheeling non sequitur, if you even can call it that, is incredibly hilarious to me!
My theory is that multicellular life itself was developed because viruses wanted a more effective way to travel. Humans are the pinnacle of virus transportation technology, and they've developed very successful behavioral override countermeasures against our pesky use of vaccines.
Not only that, but they ( or some parts of it) have been incorporated in the other species, human included, DNA as well!
The code just wants to survive.
The code just wants to survive.
"all things strive"
[deleted]
[deleted]
He also talked about this "reverse chain of command" in the recent talk at Peking university:
Human evolves from worm. Human brain is originally a bunch of neurons centered around the worm's mouth to search for food. It is natural to think human is still controlled by stomach to this day (or spinal cord for that matter).
Human evolves from worm. Human brain is originally a bunch of neurons centered around the worm's mouth to search for food. It is natural to think human is still controlled by stomach to this day (or spinal cord for that matter).
It's not up to wheat. Humans invented Latin and get to define domestication.
Whoever gets to Latin first defines it!
Also Edgar Anderson's "Plants, Man, and Life" on a similar theme.
Love this book and immediately thought of the same section!
What's the point of the ugly genAI interstitial images? The blogging equivalent of wearing a dunce-cap.
Yea as a gardener I enjoyed the themes but the images really threw me off. They don’t add anything. I always thought that stock images in blogs seemed unnecessary but at least they didn’t have glaring errors in them.
Post-truth has reached clip-art, too. Don't know if to cry or laugh. :)
Because it works, probably. Blogs (and blog making tutorials) get selected by reach, not content, and images add to that, like arrows and stupid face close ups do on youtube. What you see is a cost-driven transformation of the concept.
Its a symbiotic relationship, we don't survive without them and they don't survive without animals that spread their seeds and provide the CO2. Life is interlinked in this way in a huge number of things we can't separate ourselves from nature both the impact we have had in changing the biodiversity and in the necessity of that biodiversity providing this diverse range of plants and animals. Its why its so heartbreaking we are wiping out species at a rate never seen before and causing a mass extinction event which might include us if we keep up at this increasing rate of damage.
For a wonderful scifi novel on this very theme, check out Sue Burke’s excellent Semiosis:
https://bookshop.org/p/books/semiosis-sue-burke/7103931
https://bookshop.org/p/books/semiosis-sue-burke/7103931
I was going to recommend this as well. As a sidebar: my wife and I planted a raspberry bush when we bought our house years ago, and every year it grows more and more out of control. I started calling it Steveland a couple years ago — not only is it gigantic at this point, but it's definitely farming the two of us, our dogs, and all of the squirrels and birds in our neighborhood.
Have mostly heard this kind of talk before about the cannabis plant - by all indication it has existed alongside mankind for much of mankind’s history, seems uniquely suited to many of man’s needs, even practical ones like rope - grows easily alongside anywhere humans will typically habitate. It’s toxic to lots of other animals humans domesticate with, which is why it seems uniquely “targeting” humans as an evolutionary adaptation.
This idea is a tale for people who are stuck in stubborness.
It is to make one think that systems (of any kind) can be seen from more than one perspective. It's an attempt to foster empathy through an absurd (yet possible) idea.
There are many of those kinds of tales. Sometimes it does not work, the listener can't bring itself to be empathic to other point of view. Always worth a try though.
It is to make one think that systems (of any kind) can be seen from more than one perspective. It's an attempt to foster empathy through an absurd (yet possible) idea.
There are many of those kinds of tales. Sometimes it does not work, the listener can't bring itself to be empathic to other point of view. Always worth a try though.
If I spend too long thinking about plant traits, I get caught up in the difference between traits useful in nature and traits useful for cultivation.
It has to have more instances of failing successfully than any other system. The most coveted plants are the ones that increased their reproduction by evolving deterrents to consumption. They contain irritants to specifically prevent animals from eating them. Those irritants have strong, often bitter flavors and occasionally go so far as to antagonize temperature receptors, yet we eat them specifically because of those irritants. It would be a huge failure if we were eating them in the wild, but because we cultivate them, they are now some of the most widespread and successful plants.
It has to have more instances of failing successfully than any other system. The most coveted plants are the ones that increased their reproduction by evolving deterrents to consumption. They contain irritants to specifically prevent animals from eating them. Those irritants have strong, often bitter flavors and occasionally go so far as to antagonize temperature receptors, yet we eat them specifically because of those irritants. It would be a huge failure if we were eating them in the wild, but because we cultivate them, they are now some of the most widespread and successful plants.
You are actually thinking in plant-animal interactions.
Maybe their goal is just to photosynthetize and grow and the bitter flavors and other products and interactions are not that important (for them).
I don't know. Maybe they're high tech time travelling solar panels and radiator systems sent back to prevent the early drying of the planet.
Can you think of plants outside of the traditional evolutionary paradigm, just for a while? That is the challenge of this idea.
Maybe their goal is just to photosynthetize and grow and the bitter flavors and other products and interactions are not that important (for them).
I don't know. Maybe they're high tech time travelling solar panels and radiator systems sent back to prevent the early drying of the planet.
Can you think of plants outside of the traditional evolutionary paradigm, just for a while? That is the challenge of this idea.
Gould joked the purpose of the human organism is for shit to make more shit.
Well that was a fun thought on a Sunday night. I work in AgTech. The thought that all of the engineering work I’ve put into the last 6 years is really a bunch of trickery that plants have inflicted on me and my coworkers really makes me smile. And that smile, like the author says, is just enough of a dopamine hit to get back up in the morning and keep at it!
Yeah it's especially a bit humbling when you realize that the vast majority of critters are some form or another of carnivore/omnivore and there's only a trace few herbivores and they're all the "pests" like aphids that we are constantly doing battle with... Except when they are things like cows that we ourselves eat.
Plants are naturally a bit protected from animal predators by a simple economics of scale: proteins require nitrogen, we can't get it from the air even though it's abundant there, we need to get it from nitrogen fixing bacteria but those are farmed by plants in their plant roots... But plants are mostly cellulose and don't have much nitrogen by proportion. But then they are also actively protected by being extremely effective poison manufacturers, using their rigid cell walls to put things at high pressures, growing around pests, cutting off resources to leaves and regrowing them after the predator moves on, and attracting predators of their predators like ladybugs.
But the networks of interdependence that we eventually form should perhaps not be put into a traditional exploiter/exploited juxtaposition. “How can I tweak myself so that you find me indispensable?” is a question both the humans and the plants are asking of themselves vis-a-vis each other.
Plants are naturally a bit protected from animal predators by a simple economics of scale: proteins require nitrogen, we can't get it from the air even though it's abundant there, we need to get it from nitrogen fixing bacteria but those are farmed by plants in their plant roots... But plants are mostly cellulose and don't have much nitrogen by proportion. But then they are also actively protected by being extremely effective poison manufacturers, using their rigid cell walls to put things at high pressures, growing around pests, cutting off resources to leaves and regrowing them after the predator moves on, and attracting predators of their predators like ladybugs.
But the networks of interdependence that we eventually form should perhaps not be put into a traditional exploiter/exploited juxtaposition. “How can I tweak myself so that you find me indispensable?” is a question both the humans and the plants are asking of themselves vis-a-vis each other.
A core idea of Richard Dawkins's second book “The extended phenotype” is that genes can also select for anything affecting the environment of the organism - i.e. genes for characteristics/behaviours that are external to the organism itself.
So there could be a gene selecting for getting watered by humans (e.g. via wilting or colour).
This can also create a connection between genes and memes e.g. a new flower characteristic could be genetic but affect popular memetic choice.
The concept is hard to grok & explain, so beware that there's a good chance I've misunderstood and mistranslated the idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype#Summary
So there could be a gene selecting for getting watered by humans (e.g. via wilting or colour).
This can also create a connection between genes and memes e.g. a new flower characteristic could be genetic but affect popular memetic choice.
The concept is hard to grok & explain, so beware that there's a good chance I've misunderstood and mistranslated the idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype#Summary
Why should it be hard to grok? Selection just happens, it doesn't "care" if it's natural or based on human preferences. Even human-free selection doesn't guarantee a long run since genes can paint themselves into a corner (see natural extinctions). Iow, it's what it is.
Pretty sure natural and artificial selection have distinct properties. As do self selection and symbiosis, and even symbiosis/parasitism.
This reminds me of the concept of Vavilovian mimicry, where weed seeds gain resemblance to the crops they grow among over time. Eventually the seeds become so similar to a cereal grain that they begin to be grown for their own sake. Oats and Rye were both originally weeds trying to successfully hide in Wheat fields and survive weeding and winnowing.
“But fruits aren’t just for us. They’re a clever evolutionary strategy. By making themselves tasty and appealing, plants ensure that animals (including humans) will eat them and disperse their seeds.”
I thought fruits are nutritious because they are there to support the seed during its journey.
I thought fruits are nutritious because they are there to support the seed during its journey.
Nope, the fruit is for the humans or whatever pollinators, as a reward, in a similar way that pollen is a reward for bees.
The food for the seed is inside of the seed, which is often not the fruit. Most fruits are different anatomically, but you will find that an apple has little seeds, you open it and you will find endosperm in it, mostly food for the little embryo in the seed.
For stuff like wheat we really do eat the endosperm, but for stuff like apples and watermelons and peaches, we spit out the seeds. (For peaches we often don't even see the seed, which is hidden inside of a woody endocarp, you can crack it open and find the actual seed inside.
So if you thought that the peach meat was the food for the seed you were doubly wrong, you need to go several layers deep in order to find the seed food.
The food for the seed is inside of the seed, which is often not the fruit. Most fruits are different anatomically, but you will find that an apple has little seeds, you open it and you will find endosperm in it, mostly food for the little embryo in the seed.
For stuff like wheat we really do eat the endosperm, but for stuff like apples and watermelons and peaches, we spit out the seeds. (For peaches we often don't even see the seed, which is hidden inside of a woody endocarp, you can crack it open and find the actual seed inside.
So if you thought that the peach meat was the food for the seed you were doubly wrong, you need to go several layers deep in order to find the seed food.
Thank you. This was eye opening.
I don't think it makes sense to redefine symbiotic relationships where one side benefits "more". If both sides benefit, but you throw a tantrum because the other side benefits more, we generally consider that to be childish. What are you going you do, demand that wheat pay its fair share?
Alternatively, there are always many different perspectives and humans naturally default to the human-centric perspective, all else being equal (for obvious reasons).
Alternatively, there are always many different perspectives and humans naturally default to the human-centric perspective, all else being equal (for obvious reasons).
I've heard this said .. admittedly, deep within the bowels of many a coffeeshop .. of marijuana.
Basically, weed rewards us for its continued safe domestication.
Try as I might, I cannot find a way to disprove this theory. The more I test it, the more it seems absolutely correct.
The same of course, is true of coffee and tobacco, albeit the means of domestication differ in magnitude and effect in each case.
The jury is still out on Triffids, however.
Basically, weed rewards us for its continued safe domestication.
Try as I might, I cannot find a way to disprove this theory. The more I test it, the more it seems absolutely correct.
The same of course, is true of coffee and tobacco, albeit the means of domestication differ in magnitude and effect in each case.
The jury is still out on Triffids, however.
I wrote a short story ten years ago making fun of this concept: https://blog.chewxy.com/2014/05/20/the-long-term-plan/
One point missed by the article is the fact that the colour of fruit evolved at the same time as human color vision. This is usually presented as co-evolution, but in the eyes of the article it presents plants co-opting humans to their service.
I feel the same way tending to these goddamn machines. Who's helping whom?
I've come to see plants as actually living underground with what we call the roots. What is above ground, are just air- and sun-roots.
I saw the Grok image and just closed it. So cringe
"The selfish gene".
See also: housecats
> The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens.
[1] https://www.ynharari.com/topic/ecology/