Yes, that is one of the possible explanations for trichomes. However, In literature there are several potential reasons for cannabis producing THC listed, some of them are:
-deterring certain insect and other herbivores
-Anti-microbial effects
-UV light protection
Claiming that heat shock defense is the only reason seems like a simplification, considering that scientists are still researching the matter.
It used to also be insect deterrent but since we've bred cannabis to have so much lovely THC that the globules are too large and dry to work. But that's ok because cannabis has domesticated humans enough that we've invented climate controlled hothouses to grow them in.
the masculine active principle in nature that in Chinese cosmology is exhibited in light, heat, or dryness and that combines with yin to produce all that comes to be
It distorts the connotation, but it wouldn't be too far off to use, say, "macho" instead. It just feels weird to apply such words to plants.
Being useful to humans is the single most important factor in evolutionary success rates.
Sure, there's 8 billion of us, but we collectively KILL 30 billion 70. 70 goddamn billion chickens every year, and there's always more of those fuckers. We kill more than double the number of chickens every year than are ever currently even alive. That's how many chickens there are.
If you go to Honolulu you'll see them wandering on the streets. They're all over the place. I think they're seen as a nuisance? I dunno I thought they were charming.
I'm on a strict enough diet already for medical reasons, trying to get that to work without animal products would be a nightmare I don't think I can deal with.
I don't know your condition, so I can't tell you what you can or can't do. Reducing is a good enough step towards lessening animal cruelty in the world, though, so consider that maybe.
Avoiding animal-derived ingredients in medicine or finding medicine that is not animal-tested is a pain and another thing entirely, however. I get it.
Just know your priorities, I guess. If you don't care, that's fine too.
I don't think so. Humans eating chicken is a temporary thing either way, if we get flesh from cell cultures or go extinct, what you think happens with the overbred cows and chicken? Goal of evolution is survival, not spread.
To be clear, I don't think that's going to happen. Like I appreciate what the near meat movement is doing, I'll grant you the conditions these animals live in isn't good and there's a debate to be had about the ethicality of raising livestock at all, let alone the way we currently do it.
We can't even move away from corn syrup which is causing the largest health crisis in history because a small section of the Midwest can't grow much else but corn. You think we're going to let the entire meat industry crumble for some vat grown goo I've got a bridge to sell you.
That said, let's say that yes, meat loses popularity for whatever reason and the industry crumbles. 90 billion cattle and 70 billion chickens become useless what happens to them?
In short, saving a few specimens on small farms, extinction. These animals will die, the cattle will die in childbirth or starve. The chickens simply won't be able to sustain themselves, and will succumb to disease and the fucking awful effects of how horribly inbred these animals are.
When their usefulness to humans ends, their one survival advantage goes with it. And so, you've supported my point. Usefulness to humans is the best survival advantage a species can have. They just only get that advantage while they're useful.
If you can grow corn, you can grow soybeans on the same land. My parents live in Indiana. Corn, soybeans, and pigs. For hundreds of miles of highway, that's all you'll see. Maybe some woods, but there aren't any deep forests left.
It's not the growing conditions that prevent the switch, it's the subsidies and stubbornness to switch crops, because they'll have to buy another part for their combine harvester that isn't even close to paid off
I hear you, I really do. You're not picking up what I'm saying.
It's not about whether or not the switch is possible, the switch isn't fucking happening. If we can't get away from the awful habit that's literally killing us, we're not getting away from the awful habit that's keeping us alive. It doesn't matter if alternatives become available, because they are now and we aren't switching.
Livestock is bred to be slaughtered. No life to be had there since they die in the end regardless and do not have good lives in the slightest (regardless of the conditions they live in), so in terms of animal welfare, it's the best possible outcome for them to not be raised at all. Take in as many of these animals in animal sanctuaries and let them live there as far as possible. But arguing that pigs, chickens etc. must be bred in order to them not getting extinct is a cruel thought. My two cents.
Edit: Plus, the livestock we know today only exists because of breeding. These are not naturally-occurring animals except for maybe chickens. Same thing that happens with dog breeds, cat breeds etc.
Yeah evolutionary advantages don't really factor welfare in to the equation. Like I said, the welfare of these creatures isn't good. That doesn't matter for what we're talking about.
Did the animal successfully reproduce? If yes, then it has succeeded evolutionarily. The best way to ensure an animal reproduces is if humans want it to reproduce. An animal will reproduce more often more successfully when humans intervene.
Being super useful has a few requirements. Elephants, for instance, are incredibly useful. They're large, they carry burdens well, they can be trained and will behave well if they're treated well, they're social and understand commands.
But they have one baby every 22 months and it takes years before they're fertile. So they're not super useful. Rhinos, similarly, do not reproduce fast enough to check off the super box.
We made grains from grass. If you let most grasses get tall enough to seed, they look like green wheat.
Also I'm not certain, but wheat and corn may give grass a run for their money in acreage cover, if you count the wheat and corn as a single species, but count each specific grass separately.
Menthol increases your mouth's sensitivity to coldness. The air you breathe in is generally cooler than your mouth, so the air moving by as you breathe is much more noticeable.
It may be some or other thing with your nose. For instance runny nose after eating spicy food is a known atypical reaction and happens a lot with people with deformed nose wall
I didn't know that a runny nose from spicy food wasn't a typical reaction! Neat! I'm not surprised that my nasal wall is likely deformed like the rest of me hahaha. Thanks for the interesting information!
I hate mint, it's been put into WAY too much damn stuff, and is 98% of toothpaste flavors. It took me way to long to find a toothpaste that was JUST cinnamon not "Cinnamon-mint" or "minty cinnamon" or "Cinnamon with a BLAST of mint" just plain cinnamon.
You just reminded me of this banana flavored toothpaste I had as a kid. I think it came from Tom’s Farms in the US and I remember it having a bird like a Toucan on it.
The other thing their evolution has done is make it so we can't stop it growing lol. Never ever plant that stuff in anything but a container. Maybe not even that. It spreads by wind and magic.
I've got a stubborn patch of mint growing in a big ceramic pot with an endangered dune cactus, and they get left to fend for themselves 24/7-365 outdoors at a beach cottage... in New England!
Both plants have thrived in their pot for nearly two decades now!
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.
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.
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.
Still a good joke as we're mammals, but peppers's spice is so that birds, and not mammals, eat their seeds and poop them out far away as birds aren't bothered by capsaicin.
lending purpose to an evolutionary trait is a mistake. It is possibly that mechanism by which they attained some degree of success, but evolution doesn't 'think' unless youre into predeterminism like that.
Totally. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be, the successful result of the adaptation was that birds spread their seeds instead of mammals. Until us.
No, lending that purpose is not a mistake, it's a tool to aid in understanding. The force of evolution is not conscious, does not think, and is governed by pretty basic rules, but what arises from those simple rules is as close as we can get to intelligent design (not the bogus religious kind) outside of a conscious designer. This similarities are so fundamental, in fact, that the chaotic process of evolution studied and refined into a set of algorithms has actually proven useful in the field of artificial intelligence. Machine learning agents can use Neuroevolution of augmenting topologies to train (essentially learn) because evolution can do the same thing our brains can by reacting to negative and positive stimulus and adjusting a strategy accordingly. The difference of course is that evolution needs a generation to make any adjustments and just tries random bullshit with no clear direction, so our brains are much more efficient and effective.
Note: NEAT works in tandem with normal training procedures and typically replaces the person who would otherwise be attempting to intelligently design the neural network architecture. You can train the weights directly using evolution (I've tried it before), but for the aforementioned reasons, it's slow as hell and doesn't work very well.
And it would have worked flawlessly if it weren't for humans, the single most metal species to have ever graced this planet, that likes to subject itself to mild and moderate suffering for amusement and recreational purposes.
