[pugworthy]

Here's a way to view evolutionary theory: a plant that is extremely tasty becomes cultivated, and protected by the species that eats it. As a result, the plant prospers.

This actually has a name - Mutualism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology) for example.

[dehrmann]

I've heard cattle described like this. Cattle struck a bargain with humans where we spread them everywhere, protect them, and give them ample grazing room in exchange for their slaughter.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

If cattle could speak, I wonder if they would appreciate this perspective of the situation. Personally I doubt it, which makes calling it "mutualism" a euphemism.

[afiori]

If treated well I think they would appreciate it until suddenly they would stop appreciating it.

From an evolutionary point of view is definitely a (perverted) mutualism (perverted as in the artificial selection on cows make them quite unfit to human-free life).

On the appreciation side it would be relevant to know more about how cows see humans. I believe many cows in farms are quite happy and many (more) cows are quite miserable.

> Personally I doubt it, which makes calling it "mutualism" a euphemism.

Overall if we assume cows do not have a cultural understanding of "humans are going to kill us" this would look more like a projection of our society on them.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

I don't think them lacking knowledge of that fact changes the situation any, though pedantically I'll admit that it would change their perspective of it.

[afiori]

It changes everything in may opinion, but this is highly subjective as it is a human-to-human moral judgment.

My view on the topic is that there is a predefined innate concept of a good life for all complex life, including cows, and with my current knowledge I see no reason why a cow in a farm would be unable to live a good life. Obviously in too many cases industrial optimization is clearly opposed to this, still I see no reason not to call [0] (assuming the context given as true) a mutually beneficial relationship

[0] https://preview.redd.it/g5l57bwdd4p01.jpg?width=960&crop=sma...

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

In a hypothetical reality where they are not slaughtered so early in their life cycle just because humans want something that tastes more interesting than grain, I could agree with that sentiment. That's not the reality we live in, however.

[pugworthy]

Also, don't get too caught up in the idea of Avocado in the popular way - don't think about Guac and Avocado Toast.

It has a "higher fat content than most other fruit, mostly monounsaturated fat, and as such serves as an important staple in the diet of consumers who have limited access to other fatty foods (high-fat meats and fish, dairy products)." to quote Wikipedia.

[kochikame]

But this falls down a little bit if you apply it to animals.

I mean, chickens are tasty and all, and there are probably billions of them in the world right now... but do you call living in a cage with your beak cut off "prospering"? From a purely genetic propagation point of view they are prospering I guess... but at what cost?

[mijamo]

I don't think evolution cares about anything really. Plenty of species live pretty miserable lives, and evolution can lead them to even more miserable lives.

Evolution is not a conscious being, it is not positive nor negative, it does not try to achieve anything, and particularly not happiness for anybody.

In a similar way, we don't need to protect the environment in the sake of nature. Nature does not care, evolution does not care. Humans are the ones who care. We are the ones worrying about other animals lives, preserving species and landscape, both for romantic and practical reasons.

A super foreign virus could come tomorrow and kill all complex life on earth. Would that be a disaster? For us yes, but in general life would follow its course anyway and evolve again. Nothing has a meaning except the one we are to give.

[DyslexicAtheist]

chicken evolution might simply be biding it's time.

until one day when an avian virus spreads through chicken and wipes out humanity, leaving them to become the ruling species on this planet.

"the one who clucks last, clucks the loudest" (-- old chicken proverb)

[senorjazz]

> but do you call living in a cage with your beak cut off "prospering"?

Take dogs, 6-12 in a litter, can give birth twice a year. Naturally (street dogs) most young will die, those that end up in to adult hood will be half starved and diseased.

Not exactly a pleasant life, but having so many young, they can survive the high death / suffering rate.

I am not sure I would say street dogs prosper, but they are evolutionary successful

[pvaldes]

> but do you call living in a cage with your beak cut off "prospering"?

Better than die at ten days old by any of the dozen predators living in a rainforest, that is the destine of 90% of the wild chicken

[antisemiotic]

Obligatory mention of rye [1] and Vavilovian mimicry [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye#History

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry