AbhiramMar 14
Luisf
mmhmm mmhmmm
Mar 14 at 12:52amWeb
Show threadTzimisce FleshMar 14
@Loosf The principle of survival of the fittest was never about strength. It is literally just the tautology that those most likely to survive are most likely to survive.
And importantly, it doesn't make things better, it makes things more likely to survive in a given environment. Whether it's by making a lion, a tapeworm, a koala or a raccoon.
Survival of the fittest is an absolute. It always applies.
Which is why social darwinism is an obvious lie. They do not want survival of the fittest, that's just a fact of life. What they want is an environment where their cruelty is rewarded and unpunished.
Much like normal people, they manipulate their environment and others to suit their ends. Except their ends happen to be shitty ends.
Any reasons they offer is mere disengenious charade covering up their malice.
Nature can be cruel, yes. But it can be kind, too. Cruelty is no more natural than kindness.
Show threadAntonio PatriarcaMar 14
@flesh @Loosf Society and cooperation is in fact how we evolved as a species to be the fittest. Cooperation is a common trait in many “animal societies” for the same reason. Every theory trying to motivate being a jerk to others by evolution is nothing else than an excuse to be a terrible human being and protect existing privilege/domination over others.
Show threadJargogglesMar 14

@Loosf
Exactly. The whole "are people fundamentally good or bad" argument that comes up any time people talk about organizing society in a more equitable way completely misses the point. Hell, that framing *guarantees* you'll never come to an agreement. Before you can have a productive discussion, you first need to establish a consensus on the definition of "good" and "evil?" No chance.

Instead, it's pretty easy to point out that we have literally the entire history of human beings as evidence that people fundamentally want to cooperate and build communities. I mean how do you even fucking argue against that?

"Oh yeah? Well, I think people just don't get along with each other."

"Counterpoint: every single collaborative effort that humanity has ever achieved."

It's right up there with the ridiculous notion that people need a profit motive to innovate. I have no idea how that myth persists when you can just point out the fact that "profit motive" was like the trillionth thing that people invented. You might as well say that people would never have invented the concept of writing without computers.

Show thread🌸 VårgubbenMar 14
@jargoggles If anything the ”profit motive” is hindering us from progressing as a society since it filters out and suppresses most genuine inovations. It’s a threshold we’ll have to overcome to ever get out of this mess we’re all in.
Show threadMimiMar 14

@Loosf

Both miss the point:
Neither the survival of the fittest, nor the growth of our collective strength, nor cooperation and community life. For 9,000 years, society has been parasitized by the "500 families" who use others as cattle, mere herds whose labor is exploited, then killed and eaten, and nothing more.
What has changed in this regard over the last 9,000 years? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The situation was slightly different before, during the previous 750,000 years or so, without this social parasitism, because we simply didn't live in societies large enough to allow such parasitic behaviors.

Show threadMichael BaconMar 15

@A_Mimi @Loosf

Nah.

People have been dumping the elites for centuries when they get too full of themselves. It's a glorious human tradition, not something we just thought of.

Show threadMimiMar 15

@MichaelTBacon @Loosf

Yes, there are so much examples: Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Gaddafi, Khamenei, Hiro hito, Bokassa, Saddam Hussein, Maduro, Salvador Allende, plenty, everywhere since the midst of times, elites are always dumped by their own peoples.
Have you other funny theories?

Show threadTiesha the TransgressorMar 14

@Loosf

the society is a beautiful dance between the cooperative communal people and the edgelords who need to calm down

Show threadStarkRGMar 14
@Loosf There are many examples of that strategy in nature and not just within a species, or even kingdoms (or whatever it's called now). Lichen's a great example, a fungus and a plant working together. Even more fundamental are chloroplasts and mitochondria (and potentially other organelles), both of which used to be independent single-celled organisms, but became integrated inside another one which enabled them to become parts of at least two entire kingdoms of life.
Show threadnot ch1cMar 14
@Loosf It’s The Dawn of Everything and Goliath in two posts
Show threadDavid Penfold Mar 14
@Loosf Palaeolithic man was all about community too. And if some edgelord decided he was going to be boss people could just walk away or duff him up. Society made those options less tenable.
Show threadLeaMar 14
@Loosf some more info on the misconceptions people have about this phrase: https://evs.institute/environment-and-society/survival-fittest-debunking-darwin-myths/
Show threadNealMar 14
@Loosf 100000000%%%%
Show threadLeBonkMar 15
@Loosf to be fair, an older version of the build heavily specced into stamina, and the current version still has some bits of that
Show threadJames M.Mar 15

@Loosf exactly. What the social Darwinists ignore is that:

A group whose members act in the best interest of the group will survive better than a group whose members are all self-interested.

Humans are naturally pack animals, not solo. This is reflected in so many ways we've evolved, including with physical attributes like facial expressions, empathy, mirror neurons, etc.