Plants evolove much slower than mammals. I’m going to use this premise to stipulate that trees and veggies and fruit evolved the way they are completely independant of human concerns. So a “natural human revulsion” is a moot point. There simply aren’t many things in growing nature that are blue.
I think this is because many animals have poor eyesight compared to humans, and lower life forms are likely to not have well developed eyes. Animals with underdeveloped eyes are less likely to see blue colors, as well as other colors on the high end of the spectrum. The frequency of light simply takes a more refined tool to view it.
After that, I’ll also stipulate that plants evolved the way they are as a tool for survival (as does about everything). One of the primary needs of a plant is a method of passing its seeds to far reaching places, and when you consider the fruit variety this depends on distribution by animals. The symbiotic relationship if you will. In order for fruit to be eaten and therefore distributed it must be seen.
Based on that, there is no reason for plants to develop blue pigmentation to entice animals who can’t see the color. If plants don’t produce blue colors, animals aren’t likely to inherit them via consumption. You are what you eat, and so on.
I think the fact humans don;t find blue food appealing is because we’ve evolved/learned that food just isn’t blue in nature, so its unsettling. I’d say it begins with the concept that food isn’t found in nature for evolutionary reasons, and everything else stems from that.
That certainly sounds plausible. But many birds have bright blue plumage (presumably to attract other birds), and the good ol’ baboon is famous for his bright blue butt (again, designed specifically to attract other baboons) - if it were that much harder to see blue (which I understand to be the case in terms of light frequencies etc) what point is there in a baboon wandering around with such a vivid rear? And if it works for a baboon’s bum it should work for a fruit tree (I would have thought…?).
I guess a baboon might not count as a “lower” species, but there are shed-loads of eg. tropical fish which are blue too.
I s’pose it’s not really of cosmic importance (unless the govt. really are hiding all the blue carrots…
rob s.
but, many insects have eyes that are more sensitive than ours when it comes to seeing light in the blue end of the spectrum; some flowers have patterns in them we can’t see because the colors are ultraviolet - but they have evolved (along with behavior patterns of insects) so that insects use these ultraviolet markings as road maps to where the nectar/pollen is in the flowers. (sorry, I don’t have I cite for this, I just watched a lot of nature shows). I know ultraviolet is not blue… then again, it is higher on the spectrum than blue… then again, I don’t know if this has any bearing at all on what you just posted…
Yes, a red apple shows up better against a green tree because red and green are what’s called “complementary” colors, i.e. they are opposites. Here is a color wheel.
See how the red and green are directly opposite each other? Whereas the blue is right next to the green. Your hominid eyes can spot the contrast between complementary colors much better than between closely related colors. This is why blue and orange, and purple and gold, college logos are so popular.
A blue fruit on a green tree will hardly show up at all, especially at a distance.
I’m not sure if this is true (I read it in the Weekly World News) it said that red, orange and yellow foods stimulate the appetite. Blue, Green and purple foods do not. They said that is why fast food signs are always red. orange and yellow and never blue or green.
I remembered that Alfred Hitchcock, the great director of suspense movies, was an expert in finding things that scared people. He figured out the blue food thing ages ago:
From the Book Re/Search #11 : Pranks
by V. Vale (Editor)
