• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It really is a symbiotic relationship we’ve developed with the things we’ve domesticated (or that domesticated us)

    Especially animals reserved for working instead of eating, because in those situations oftentimes the food being made with the work is shared between the symbiotes.

    • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I would say it’s symbiotic to the continued survival and propegation of their genes, but not to their well-being as individuals.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Depends on the situation, factory farming definitely, but for most natural raised situations I’d argue the animal’s well being is like 99% of the work being done.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s also a double-edged sword. The moment a domesticated species isn’t useful enough for us, its numbers (and therefore genes) will decrease dramatically. Plenty of livestock populations may be reduced to a tiny size if artificial meat production becomes cheap enough, or if it’s decided to be a necessity to fight climate change.

    • hydropticOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, influence is rarely a one way street and things like agriculture or animal husbandry have definitely changed us as well