@garfield what always drives my bio major ass buckwild is that... survival of the fittest also never means what these folks want to make it mean
evolution doesn't do "best overall". it doesn't do "clearly superior above all others". it doesn't do that. it does "most successful at passing on genes in a specific ecological niche", and if you look at animals for, like, two seconds, it becomes obvious that there's a whole lotta GOOD ENOUGH I GUESS going on out there.
@garfield but no, it's being used and defended by people who think that "survival of the fittest" means that there's some pinnacle of superiority that is being worked towards and achieved.
by that logic, an octopus is doing pretty good: extremely intelligent, great eyes and vision, can give themselves camo of different colors and even textures, yada yada.
none of this shit helps the octopus to be the superior animal if you drop it in the middle of an iowa cornfield, lol.
@garfield ofc none of them will sit down and think about this because they're so in love with one superior individual that they don't think about evolution not working like that, nor even humans working like that. humans are social animals (something something we live in a society) and you can't defend eugenics if you realize helping each other and community is what we *do*.
they also love wolves but this is not even what wolves do lmao, alpha wolves Aren't A Thing...
@garfield which is to say, thank you for attending this impromptu bio major rant everyone, and sorry for clogging up your perfectly good post there garf
(also has anyone told you about the GarfieldEATS! thing yet bc i was listening to an old MBMBAM and they discussed it and i thought of you https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/garfield-eats-Toronto-restaurant )
@wigglytuffitout @garfield there's also a whole lot of religion & psychology going on here.
That whole line of thought, the superiority, only makes sense if the hardship that life goes through has purpose and a plan. Then it all has a meaning, then we're being perfected. It's cruel, but it's not pointless.
But mammals are only a big thing because a completely random space rock (or whatever it was) completely changed the environment to something that suited us more than lizards.
That's random. That's chaos. And that is completely unbearable to a lot of people.
Really wish they'd go to church instead of feeding nazism....
@wigglytuffitout @garfield the only way to disprove eugenics would be to 1: implement it fully (yeah, a lot of genocide), and then 2: go extinct.
Which sort of relates to how survival of the fittest is a tautology: "the things that survive do so because they're best at surviving". Yeah, duh.
Eugenics are set up to sound really important, but also be completely Impossible to prove or disprove.
"Survival of the fittest" is that one billionaire prick who went through 3-5 human heart transplants (robbing people who no doubt deserved the chance way more) and then finally died anyway. π
@ItsJenNotGabby @garfield it's the idea that animals choose their mates* not by going "ooer he's a sexy bit of lad, isn't he?" but instead by going "oooer, if i mate with him, our children will be INCREDIBLY SEXY, and our sons will go on to be THE SEXIEST, and my genes will proliferate EVEN MORE!". not "he's hot" but "if i fuck him our babies will be super hot".
*yeah this is all instinct or what have you, but you get the idea
Unironic thanks. I needed this thread so badly today. π
Don't get me wrong the bathroom stuff is always good, too.
Wait, what?
Eugenics is evolutionary pressure from human choice, as opposed to environmental circumstance, no?
Eugenics doesn't require euthanasia or sterilisation, merely the absence of breeding.
We are societally performing Eugenics on Incels, precisely because we are individually allowed to be selective about our breeding, and collectively don't want to breed with Incels.
If this is immoral, who are you volunteering to breed with Incels? How is this more moral?
Clearly you wouldn't, because you have chosen not to. Too hard? Fallacies you claim don't exist?
Choosing not to do something you can do has a moral consequence just like choosing to do something you can not do.
You choose not to explain yourself.