With these things, it often makes sense to ask the opposite question. Would it be possible for one to not affect the other? Legal and illegal markets would have to be completely separated, meaning money used in one couldn’t be used in the other, and entities participating in one couldn’t participate in the other.
That is obviously not true, so yeah, black markets influence the legal economy.
I would argue that every species alive today evidently found a strategy that works, otherwise they wouldn’t be here.
Perhaps some mushrooms actually rely on being eaten somehow. Or perhaps being poisonous comes with downsides, so it isn’t purely an advantage.
deleted by creator
Incredibly difficult to limit it to five, ask me tomorrow and I’ll probably come up with 5 others. Anyway
Not saying this isn’t true, but there is something that I have often wondered with this reasoning.
There have been some quite powerful socialist states. Sure, fledgeling socialist states were sabotaged by the US and it’s allies. But they were also propped up by the USSR and it’s allies.
So, if external sabotage explains the failure of socialist states, why wasn’t support from powerful socialist allies enough to offset it? And why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?
I like helping animals in need. When did we agree that only the most intelligent/fit animals deserve to live?
I don’t intervene however if it is predator vs prey. Helping one would mean harming the other.
Edit: thought about the predator vs prey thing some more. I guess I do tend to help if one seems much more sentient then the other.