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.
✌️💛
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.
I have no clue what I’m talking about.