To be honest, our relationship with all our livestock and crops is parasitic.
I suppose that makes sense.
...which is why I said it was in a broad sense. Of course some things are going to be different (in this case, origins), but nonetheless, these two relationships are strikingly similar. And besides, (again speaking in a broad generalization) over time, natural selection keeps selecting the better genes from the ant relative to the fungus and the fungus relative to the ant. Could not the corn, in a similar way, adapted such that it is cared for 24/7 (even with human engineering, we were bound to make a few mistakes, and the corn had to adapt relative to that)? Another thing is that the ant too has come up with a way to be perpetually fed, analogous (in the literary sense) once again to our use of corn. And referring to your remark on our control over corn, the ant's pure existence with the fungus guides the forces of natural selection (however, our control over corn is mostly volitional rather than natural) Even though we humans do indeed have more control over the corn's adaptations, the laws of nature still apply. Besides, whether or not the corn's adaptations are a result of natural selection or anthropogenic causes makes little difference as, speaking naturalistically, humans are still an element of nature.
I can already see this is a particularly touchy subject, but it is kind of an interesting one. Besides, regardless of the outcome, whatever is true is true and we should believe what is proven to be true, right? There's no shame in that.
The corn did not adapt. Selective breeding is not adaptation to survive, but adaptation because its the only thing that could happen. Corn doesn't need us. In fact, we probably hindered corn's success evolutionarily. Instead of adapting to survive, they are forcefully adapted to have their seeds be eaten. And no, the laws of nature do not apply. We broke those laws a while ago. We don't need to apply to the laws of nature because our survival no longer depends on it. Humans have ousted the need for all the basic "laws of nature." We are not an element of nature. We are organic, and natural, and part of the environment, but not part of nature. We have isolated ourselves from all life on Earth in this way by achieving our current status. We do not need nature any more.
Let me just point out that when I refer to "nature", I don't mean only the biosphere of the planet; I'm referring to entire cosmos. So, naturalistically, the forces of nature are inescapable for anything within the cosmos, unless one were to view humans as not purely physical, but that's a whooole new topic and I'm sure most of us are reluctant to discuss that.
Nonetheless, however ants run their little nations, they're obviously doing something right 
...and we really do need nature. Our feeble, physical bodies wouldn't last a second (metaphorically) without the natural world. Sure, we may have seperated ourselves, but we're not independant of nature at all. I think saying that "we are organic, and natural, and part of the environment, but not part of nature" is kind of self-contradictory and inconsistent. However, I kind of get the feeling that we have two very different understandings of nature, so that statement might not be wrong relative to what you think nature is.
Edited by TheMicroPlanet, December 27 2019 - 12:41 PM.
I'm very new here
