Comment on đđđ
Welt@lazysoci.al â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
If it kills the host, itâs not a very successful parasite, or itâs a parasitoid as only one other commenter has picked up. Itâs not in parasitesâ interest to kill their hosts, it usually happens when they infect a non-preferred host and the system responds differently, like the pork tapeworm Taenia solium which doesnât kill pigs but can be lethal in humans.
Agent641@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
A superior parasite would keep the host alive for hundreds of years past itâs normal lifespan, while ensuring that nothing of the host survives.
Image
Bytemeister@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Nope. Evolution doesnât really work like that. A âsuccessfulâ organism simply needs to have offspring capable of producing more offspring. In the case of a parasite, it just needs to keep the host alive long enough to infect another host. Anything more than that and you start running into quality vs quantity issues. A longer living, self limiting parasite isnât going to reproduce as fast (as size longevity goes up, reproductive rates generally go down)
A fast acting, highly transmissible parasite is generally going to outcompete slower parasites.
scratchee@feddit.uk â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Youâre not actually wrong. The Goaâuld were indeed far too slow moving, and it was their ultimate weakness, they werenât able to keep up with the pace of change around them, even despite a lack of competition in their evolutionary niche.
Or possibly because of a lack of competition. Another object lesson in the dangers from having a lack of biodiversity in our ecosystem.