It was only in 1969 (nice) that fungi officially became its own separate kingdom.

  • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I overheard someone talking about veganism and said they only eat plants. I asked them about mushrooms, “of course it’s fine, those are plants”.
    No amount of convincing worked.

    So I’ve seen it once.

    • ShaggyBlarney@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mushrooms are plants in the culinary sense. Like strawberries, blackberries and raspberries are berries in the culinary sense.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If anything is close to having a consciousness and experiencing an array of emotion, including suffering. That’s a mushroom, much more than a plant.

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          so hang on, mushrooms are like uh, well not milk, but as if say a cow regrew its meat every season? or maybe like a lizard that regrows its tail?

          mushrooms are weird, man

          wild idea, would it be possible to hijack mycelium with animal DNA and make it grow mushroom shaped meat??

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Actual animals are far more likely to feel pain that fungi. Do fungi even have a nervous system?

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        First time hearing this but mushroom is a protein source so from diet perspective, I see it as a meet type food. Deff not vegatable

        • teft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So are chickpeas or edamame meat to you? Because they have like 5 times as much protein by weight than mushrooms.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            3 months ago

            I would go with, based totally on feelz, that no because it generally note used like that.

            As you think is all super science here, trust me bro

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          Mushrooms have some protein, but not very much. They aren’t a very good source of protein

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don’t always agree.

    Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they’re not taxonomically “true bugs” (which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits…but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

    And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.

    So…colloquially, “plants” sorta means, “macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing,” but taxonomically it’s something else.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Similarly, “a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.

      BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            And in that same article:

            It has been argued that the definition is problematic because it depends on the location of the body: if a Mars-sized body were discovered in the inner Oort cloud, it would not have enough mass to clear out a neighbourhood that size and meet criterion 3. The requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium (criterion 2) is also universally treated loosely as simply a requirement for roundedness; Mercury is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium, but is explicitly included by the IAU definition as a planet

            • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s not even addressing the issue of rogue planets which were ejected from their star system. Many estimates say they outnumber the stars. Obviously when a planet is ejected it doesn’t just disintegrate but by that poor definition it’s no longer a ““planet””, so it’s clearly a problematic definition.

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.

      From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.

      afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

      I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?

  • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Fuck you op. Mushrooms are plants, Pluto is a planet, and that’s the truth from one edge of this flat Earth to the other.

    ~disclaimer: this is a joke~

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Honestly? Flat earth? It’s not even funny as a joke. That entire movement has been so incredibly detrimental, and dangerous. It has shattered families, and been an instruction manual for other conspiracy theorists. And the worst thing of all is that it makes actual, real facts about how the earth is in, in reality, a hollow shell with a breathable atmosphere in its inferior, come across as just as crazy as flat earth. How are we supposed to spread the truth of hollow earth when flat earthers are out there making us look crazy? Just because hollow earth also points out that the government is lying about the earth doesn’t mean we’re the same! People need to know about hollow earth! Otherwise, we’ll never be able to heal the housing market by building condos inside the earth!

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Honestly? Flat earth? It’s not even funny as a joke. That entire movement has been so incredibly detrimental, and dangerous. It has shattered families, and been an instruction manual for other conspiracy theorists. And the worst thing of all is that it makes actual, real facts about how the earth is in, in reality, a hollow shell with a breathable atmosphere in its inferior, come across as just as crazy as flat earth. How are we supposed to spread the truth of hollow earth when flat earthers are out there making us look crazy? Just because hollow earth also points out that the government is lying about the earth doesn’t mean we’re the same! People need to know about hollow earth! Otherwise, we’ll never be able to heal the housing market by building condos inside the earth!

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Let’s just acknowledge that anything big enough to be round is a planet. That’s the bare minimum criteria.

      Orbit shapes and clear paths don’t matter, the Solar system isn’t a typical stellar system, many aren’t so stable and ordered, especially in binary and triplet star systems. So the pedantry around the shapes of the orbits of the outer kuiper planets is a very silly thing to argue about. After all most orbits in binary and triplet systems aren’t even predictable long term, let alone not circular.

        • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I believe the rule of thumb is binary planets’ barycentre is external to either body. This is the case with Pluto/Charon, I think it’s also the case with Earth/Moon.

            • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, I went and checked after posting.

              My hunch is that if the moon was closer it would ‘drag’ the barycentre closer to the moon.

              Which, given the moon is slowly receeding, means it was probably a binary early on in the formation of the solar system.

              • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Other way around, the further apart the objects are the less likely the barycentre is to be inside one of them, you can picture it as a rubber band with a dot drawn on it, the more you stretch it the further the dot gets from both ends even if it gets further from one end faster.

          • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s a good rule of thumb… but it’s probably not enough; no reasonable definition would call Jupiter a star, or even a brown dwarf, or the Solar System a binary system, yet the Sol - Jupiter barycentre is outside the sun… (the whole system’s barycentre is sometimes inside the sun, but that’s due to Saturn’s, Uranus’, and Neptune’s pulls cancelling Jupiter’s).

            I’d call the barycentre thing a necessary but not sufficient requirement; a proper definition of double planet should probably also take into account other factors like the relative mass and density of the bodies, and their minimum and maximum distance.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Pluto is a planet, though. It’s officially considered a “dwarf” planet, and as “dwarf” is just an adjective, it’s still a planet (just like a short person is still a person). The other 8 new dwarf planets (Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Sedna) are also all planets - so we have 17 planets total.

    Seriously, though. By the same 3 criteria that Pluto isn’t a planet, Mercury isn’t (as it isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium).

  • 0ops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve met people who were certain that bugs weren’t animals

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The definition of planet is completely subjective, whereas the definition of mushroom is based on science and evolution.

    • klisurovi4@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Some people believe the earth is flat, I don’t think whether the definition is scientific or not matters much lmao

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Planet used to mean wandering star, referring to ‘stars’ that didn’t stay in one place but moved around with the days, months, years, or centuries. Obviously not a useful definition these days, I consider a planet a rocky body big enough that it’s gravity makes it almost perfectly round.

  • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    …this would trigger a friend of mine so badly (fungi enthusiast and Pluto stan). I want to send it, but at the same time… I’m not sure I’d hear the end of it.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Send it and report back. I am interested in subscribing to their newsletter. You’ll let them know, right?