Recent comments in /f/askscience

sconeprincess t1_j9k4syf wrote

This is a highly hypothetical question because of a book I'm trying to write.. If a world was to be populated with animals for farming purposes and left mostly alone for 50 years between harvesting the stock would the planet also need to have predators as well? To be clear the animals need about 50 years to mature enough for the first generation to be grown to full size. If there were no predators and these were all plant/grass feeders, what is the minimum number of"helper" species would you need to introduce ie: pollinators? Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Cathy

1

random_curiosity t1_j9k0x7w wrote

20

Person012345 t1_j9jyslo wrote

As far as why they're a danger to humans, they're mammals. They also tend to be susceptible to disease because they are very social mammals that live in large groups with minimal... social distancing. They and their bodily excretions are in relatively frequent contact with humans. This is why the diseases they do incubate as others have said are more readily spread to humans.

3

danby t1_j9jy3dw wrote

A problem here is how we teach evolution; that traits (and by extension) genes are selected. But the reality is in any given environment only a subset of traits are under active selection pressure. Most genes are free to drift by chance and appear and disappear.

I have somewhere of the order of 20-24k genes. I live in an environment where we estimate that 2000-4000 humans gene show adaptations to settled agriculture and cities. Less than half of human genes are estimated to be house keeping (i.e. required by all cells)

8

vvhynaut t1_j9jy1wz wrote

Any advice for someone who wants to work in wildlife conservation and monitoring? I'm 34 and already had my first career for almost a decade. Now I'm trying to follow my dream but I feel really behind.

13