Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The impossible predicament of the death newts

crookedtimber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 192 posts

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#21

Post by y-curious »

pokpokpok wrote: post #11
arp242 wrote: post #5

> Meanwhile, evolving resistance also comes at a cost. We don’t know that directly, but we can infer it pretty well. If resistance to tetrodotoxin were cheap and easy, everything would evolve it. [..] We don’t know, but we’re pretty sure there must be something. We know that garter snakes outside of the Pacific Northwest are much less resistant to tetrodotoxin. They’ll drop dead from doses that their Oregon cousins s…

Not wrong, but one could frame that as a "cost" that you pay in the space of genealogical problem solving. Having one less constraint makes it easier to adapt to other evolutionary pressures

Agreed, it's just shorthand/abstraction. Just like my for-loop in python doesn't actually mean my computer speaks Python

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#22

Post by crazygringo »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

Not even that much. A couple of cups of mushrooms -- a generous helping as a side dish -- has around 30 calories.

All the significant calories comes from the oil or butter they're cooked in.

I'm not sure it was ever about avoiding starvation, but rather just a different flavor to eat sometimes. When you're always eating the same local ingredients, food can get boring pretty quick. It's the same appeal of spices -- you got a new flavor!

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#23

Post by Vilian »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

You can say that to any mildly dangerous hobby

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#24

Post by chrisweekly »

deadbabe wrote: post #12

Could being a toxic or venemous creature be bad for survivability of a species in the long term if smarter creatures discover you’re lethal and thus become determined to kill your kind on sight?

I'm curious about the broader concept of species intentionally killing other species for reasons other than food.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#25

Post by mock-possum »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

Oh come on - Making cost benefit analysis of foraging and eating wild mushrooms into a matter of calories is wild.

The calorific value of a meal is one of the least important aspects - you might as well complain that the mushrooms don’t come in sufficiently varied colours to make it worthwhile.

It’s not about the calories. It’s about the experience - the taste, the texture, the satisfaction of knowing you did it yourself.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#26

Post by dole »

water-data-dude wrote: post #13

Oooooh! I saw “I’ll have to teal deer it” and thought it must be some strange idiom. Had to go to Urban Dictionary to find out “teal dear = tl;dr”, and now I feel as dim as a garter snake that’s evolved resistance to large amounts of tetrodotoxin.

Thanks to YOU for the teal dear.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#27

Post by twdfhgy4556452 »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

Meh, there are a couple of mushrooms that are super easy to identify with no risk of confusing them with anaything dangerous (at least where I live). Stick to those and you're fine. Also, they are super tasty ;)

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#28

Post by James_K »

deadbabe wrote: post #12

Could being a toxic or venemous creature be bad for survivability of a species in the long term if smarter creatures discover you’re lethal and thus become determined to kill your kind on sight?

What would be the advantage of that? Killing the animal comes with the risk of being poisoned, and no reward. It's best to just ignore them.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#29

Post by AbortedLaunch »

chrisweekly wrote: post #24
deadbabe wrote: post #12

Could being a toxic or venemous creature be bad for survivability of a species in the long term if smarter creatures discover you’re lethal and thus become determined to kill your kind on sight?

I'm curious about the broader concept of species intentionally killing other species for reasons other than food.

Intraguild killing (such as lions killing leopards or cheetahs) has been described in multiple species.

Perhaps interesting; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34816428/ (Still need to read it)

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#30

Post by reverendsteveii »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

do you only eat the food with the highest calories:risk ratio?
Post reply on HN