Using molecular codes, plants cry for help, ward off bugs (2013)
m.nautil.us
m.nautil.us
What? This question doesn't even really make sense to me in the first place.
Natural selection isn't a computational process. It's the consistent but basically coincidental result of constant subtle mutations and genetic inheritance.
> Now making a big jump from e.g. fish to a bird seems to me impossible in polynomial time (even in billion years)
It obviously isn't impossible, since it happened. If you believe otherwise, your perceptions and/or assumptions are wrong.
Now being well-versed in computational complexity and humanoid robotics, it just doesn't seem to me plausible that a similar "simple" process can help us create totally new types of robots. Analogy would be - changing their SW should produce completely different types of robots where HW change is actually needed, like new types of sensors, leg architecture etc. Just general self-modifying SW for robots is NP-hard (meaning forget about it), now imagine you can also let it develop new HW for itself. We already know many processes in quantum chemistry that are at least NP-hard and some likely outside BQP. Hence the time of Universe might not be sufficient even given we assume Universe runs these processes on quantum computers.
That fish->bird happened doesn't mean the evolution theory as formulated nowadays can be applied here due to complexity argument. Maybe extended version of it is in the works? Or another, better theory? That's what I am basically asking. Current evolution theory seems to be nicely describing local changes (i.e. which organisms survive stressful changes in environment) but it doesn't explain whole new set of functionalities coming out of nowhere; evolution there is basically just "faith" and assumed generalization of this local adaptation we can study without much empiric observations.
It seems that if it is possible to preserve past evolutionary solutions which can get switched on and off, this would increase fitness of a lineage by enabling faster adaption. Instead of waiting for random mutation to do something meaningful and beneficial, allow/encourage mutations to occur in such a way that "uncomments" or "comments" out previously generated code fragments, so to speak.
again, i know little of this field,but i love to speculate.
Even if plants are shown to suffer from pain, if one is inclined to reduce suffering, it still makes sense to eat plants directly than feed them to animals and eat those animals. The conversion inefficiency is of the order of five times or higher - that is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least fives times that amount of plants have to be fed to the animals (this is a very general and inaccurate figure - depending on what one compares, this could be very different and be a lot higher too). In general, eating animals still kills significantly more plants than eating plants directly.
Of course, if plants are irrefutably shown to suffer pain, then there will be more focus over time in finding alternatives to eating them, like synthetic food. Whatever be the approach, it's impossible for anyone to exist without causing harm to others (intentionally or unintentionally). Doing nothing (possibly claiming hopelessness or futility) is not better than doing something.
This is the part I never understood about veganism, maybe you can help. As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself?
Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand?
Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary?
Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat?
These are the questions that keep me up at night and I haven't found a satisfactory answer that wasn't mired with propaganda.
A second argument is environmental: farming takes land (deforestation), water and fertilizer, and it pollutes via runoff and ghg emissions, so the less production needed, the better. Also, livestock produce worse runoff and emissions than vegetable or grain farming.
"Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7 billion people.
And whose fault is this, that there are 7 billion people living in the world?
I would say that this race to the bottom is not sustainable.
What if every family will get sustainable and will not have more than two offspring (on average)?
So lets take India for example. Can India in fact afford to loose its edge in fertility or when it does, does it risk to be overthrown by its historical enemy that has been engaging genocide against its population for many centuries?
From another point, in fact you are telling me that I have to change my behaviour because of the people who do not even consider to change their hostile practises. Yes, I may have to, but do you consider it fair, reasonable?
Lets take for example Egypt, whose population has raised from 20 million in 50s to 80 million today. This population is comparable to Germany, whose population has stagnated.
If we compare arable land of these countries then it is 196,460 km^2 in Germany against only 35,350 km^2 in Egypt.
Are you suggesting that Germans should give up their sausages so that people living in Egypt can again double their population regardless of their actual capacity to feed them?
What I suggest here is that instead of putting blame on sustainable nations, it should be instead agitated for the so far irresponsible nations to constrain their birth rate such that we can have stability in the population growth.
More information for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
Most animals consumed or used by humans in today's world are bred into existence by humans (through artificial insemination, forced and frequent pregnancies, etc.) and are fed 'well designed' feed (to maximize growth), which in turn uses vast resources like land and fresh water to grow plant food to feed the animals (essentially, this plant food is grown in one place and transported to another place to feed animals). Most (or all, depending on the location) of this feed is composed of plants that humans can consume (or the land can be used to grow plants that humans can consume).
> Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat?
As mentioned above, the logistics to deal with five units of plants and processing them so animals can be fed these plants is already in use to produce animal based food and other items. So we don't really need to create new logistics to transport plant food in higher volume to humans. We just have to use what we have differently. I don't have a source or citation for this, but I've read somewhere that if humans use the arable land (currently in use to grow plants for humans and for the animals whom humans consume) for growing plant food to feed humans, we could potentially feed 11 billion people.
Considering the significant negative environmental impact of animal agriculture, humans and other animals on this planet can last longer and benefit a lot by more people consuming more plants instead of consuming animals.
To get an idea of the order of magnitude difference in fresh water used ('water foot print') for growing plants compared to growing animals for meat (including per calorie comparisons), look at this brief comparison on Waterfootprint.org. [1] (Not all plant foods are the same - so you may see some plants consuming more water than animal based foods)
You could also skim through this study (linked on the previous page) and check the tables that have more information. [2] The interactive tools on that website are also interesting to learn from. [3]
You could watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" [4] to get an idea about the overall impact of animal agriculture on the environment and how it's not sustainable or even possible to feed all humans on the planet with dairy and meat that does not come from factory farming operations. Intensive factory farming is a prerequisite if this is a goal. (As with all documentaries, it is a bit biased, but most figures and stats quoted in it are true or close to the truth).
This is tangential, but humans are not 'apex super predators' and are not at the top of the food chain ('trophic level'). On average, globally, and on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being plants and 5 being an apex super predator), humans come at 2.21 (less than half way). [5]
[1]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-f...
[2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-...
[3]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/
[5]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans...
That link [5] is missing the point that humans don't fit into that concept. It also makes a pretty big error saying that humans are about the same level as a pig... while both are omnivorous gluttons, humans have no other animal that routinely eats them, whereas almost all pigs are food for humans.
If there was another animal Foo that was omnivorous, yet routinely farmed and ate level 5 predators (sharks, crocodiles) along with plenty of other animals and plants, and that Foo had no animal that routinely ate it, and that Foo also slaughtered other animals for lots of non-food products, would you really place it at 2 out of 5 and say it wasn't a super-predator? "it's just one step away from plants" would be a nonsensical way to describe this Foo.
I think the more we learn about life, the more we will see that it's a spectrum, and can't really be divided into sentient and non-sentient. I see little difference between a tiny insect fledgling in apparent pain and a leaf releasing a chemical as a response to damage. The mechanical reaction happens because the insect can move and the chemical reaction because the planet cannot.
Sentience would appear to be about the ability to move around, which through evolution causes moving life forms to experience pain in response to damage, because it causes them to move away from and avoid the threat. It appears we expect to be able to judge the internal experience of a life form by looking at it. And if it moves, like us, we call it "sentient".
After all, on the scale of galaxies do our efforts amount to much more than noise? Are we to planets all that different to bacteria on us?
I recall a scientific study that suggested the (perceived) passing of time is relative to the size of an organism.[0] So perhaps we can only notice or appreciate phenomena that occur on a timescale that is relative to our size. It's true that with modern techniques we can now study things but our ability to value or appreciate things diminish as the time scale departs from ours...
For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHe7y8cy-7Y
"to a plant, a day is short"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6DlinOXfZg
(o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Chain_(Adventure_Time)
Dharmic religions have argued this for centuries. The conclusion isn't to eliminate suffering from this world, but to reduce it as much as possible. To have as little of an impact on this world as possible, and to live in harmony with the nature as much as possible.
Jains for example can take it to an extreme where they even filter out microbiologic organism by wearing a mask, and use a broom to sweep the ground in front of them so that they remove living organism from their path.
Admittedly to me that is an outrageous extreme, but it does make a point nonetheless.
It's OK. Willful ignorance is only arrogance, and that never lead to any kind of good result.
Anyway, I'm thinking farmers could run through fields abrading the leaves, to get the plants to make their own insecticide. Could be cheaper/more effective.
When you go through all the fallacies meat-eaters throw at you, the only reason with "weight" is the taste.
With our current technology, enhanced food and other stuff, meat eating is just a luxury in most developed countries. You don't need it (unless you have a specific illness), but you eat it because it gives you 5 minutes of pleasure in your mouth.
In 2016, meat is the new diamond.