Half shower thought, half stoner thought. It may seem obvious, but I was dwelling on the point for a while, deeper and deeper.
We exist in a symbiotic relationship with nature, a sort of balanced trade of breaths. Trees release oxygen which we breathe in to survive, and in return, we release carbon dioxide that fuels their photosynthesis. In this manner, we are locked in a reciprocal, almost parasitic yet mutually beneficial relationship with nature.
We are entwined in an unending dance with the natural world, each sustaining the one other.
✌️💛
“mutually beneficial” and “parasitic” are mutually exclusive realities. “Mutually beneficial” means “you benefit and I benefit”, while “parasitic” means “I benefit, and you lose out”. It is impossible to be both at the same time.
In the complex web of biological and ecological interactions, there’s an intriguing concept known as parasitic mutualism. This term describes relationships that, at first glance, seem parasitic, but upon closer examination, reveal indirect benefits to the host organism, thus incorporating elements of both parasitism and mutualism.
Consider the relationship between humans and trees as an example. At first glance, it could appear parasitic. Humans often exploit trees for their resources, leading to deforestation, habitat destruction, and significant harm to the tree population. We extract wood for construction, burn wood for heat, and use tree-derived products in countless areas of life, all of which can negatively impact trees.
However, there’s another side to this relationship that bears a striking resemblance to mutualism. Trees provide a multitude of benefits to humans: they produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, offer shade and shelter, provide food and raw materials, and even contribute to our mental wellbeing. Conversely, humans can also provide benefits to trees. We plant and cultivate trees, protect them within parks and reserves, and manage forests for sustainable growth. We care for urban trees, providing water, nutrients, and protection against pests and diseases.
Therefore, while the immediate interaction might seem parasitic, the broader context reveals elements of mutual benefit. This relationship between humans and trees illustrates how the seemingly contradictory notions of parasitism and mutualism can coexist within the intricate complexity of our natural ecosystems. The relationship is not purely one or the other but can transition between these states based on the specific circumstances and perspectives considered.
So, basically, what you’re saying is that sometimes, if you do only a cursory glance, you can see relationships that are parasitic; however, if you do a more in-depth analysis, you find that they’re mutually beneficial.
You know what that means? It means that you were completely fucking wrong when you called that relationship “parasitic”. It means that doing your due diligence ruled your earlier evidence incorrect. It means that what you thought was “parasitic” is actually mutually beneficial. It means that “parasitic” and “mutually beneficial” are two completely different fucking things.
So your arguing there’s no situation in which a relationship can be both parasitic and mutually beneficial at the same time?
Have you tried googling it?
Yes. That is precisely what I’m arguing. They are a contradiction of terms. Mutualism is when both organisms prosper from their relationship. Parasitism is when one organism prospers at the expense of the other. There is zero overlap between those two things. If both organisms are prospering at least a little, that is mutualism. If only one organism is prospering, that is parasitism.
Like, am I taking crazy pills here? Or are you just stupid?
Happy to be labelled stupid. But yeh. Dunno what pills you’re taking.
Your grasp of the basic definitions of parasitism and mutualism is great 👍, but it seems you’re refusing to acknowledge the complexities and nuances of biological relationships.
These are not static, black-and-white definitions. Nature isn’t a simple dichotomy of “mutualism here, parasitism there”. It’s a continuum of interactions that evolve and change with conditions.
Consider the cleaner fish as an example. It’s an illustration of facultative mutualism. The fish provides a service by removing parasites from a host fish—a clear case of mutualism. But what happens when the cleaner fish starts taking bites of the host’s flesh, causing harm? Suddenly, this mutualistic interaction turns parasitic.
If the fish continues cleaning parasites, then it is still mutualistic. If the “host” benefits from the relationship overall, then it is mutualistic. If it doesn’t benefit, and is actively harmed by the relationship, then it is parasitic.
The conversation seems to be veering into a game of semantics rather than addressing the biological complexity at hand.
The point isn’t about rigidly sticking to one label or another based on each individual interaction; it’s about acknowledging that the relationship can fluctuate based on various conditions. Therefore, there’s value in having a label that encapsulates this variability, like ‘facultative mutualism’.
‘Facultative mutualism’ doesn’t deny the presence of mutualistic or parasitic interactions but acknowledges that the relationship isn’t strictly one or the other. It can fluctuate between the two extremes based on different circumstances, and there’s utility in having a term that covers this variability.
You know what? That is fair. You’re right - I was engaging in a purely semantics argument, and I’m sorry about that. It was dumb, and also assholish of me to assume that you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about and were just pulling things out of thin air. I see the point that it is useful to define relationships on a spectrum with fully parasitic at one end, and fully mutually beneficial at the other.