Random Thread

[zompist]

Most animals eat their fill without worrying about getting fat or violating religious taboos. Humans alone worry that eating the wrong animal will damn their eternal soul or eating too much cheesecake will give them love handles and thus we make deliberate decisions to alter our diets contrary to our natural cravings.

We should be wary of statements beginning "Humans alone..."

Humans can worry about such things because we have a robust system for communicating propositions. We don't know much about how and what other animals think, but it seems clear that they can entertain and communicate some propositions.

An example: Konrad Lorenz showed (70 years ago) that jackdaws are able to communicate the idea that a specific human being is a danger. That is, the information about that specific human can be transmitted to other jackdaws, who will act on that information. The human must be present for the communication to occur, but doesn't have to be doing anything threatening.

Now sure, this is not the same as reading about vegetarianism and changing your diet. But it is acting differently in the future based on a purely informational signal.

More to the point, modern human societies deliberately support those who cannot support themselves through social programs funded by those capable of productive work. Natural law decrees that such people are unfit and would happily cull them if modern technology and ethics weren't holding it back.

You don't need to concede ground to fascists by using their language. There is no such "natural law" and it decrees nothing. People who think animals are invariably violent and ruthless know nothing about animals.

[malloc]

Now sure, this is not the same as reading about vegetarianism and changing your diet. But it is acting differently in the future based on a purely informational signal.

Sure, but vegetarianism involves repressing your instinctual taste for meat for the sake of abstract principles that benefit another species rather than your own, let alone yourself as an individual. Jackdaws are following their instinct to avoid getting killed by predators in your example, just using more sophisticated means than fleeing or fighting. I have never heard of any animal sacrificing their own interests for the sake of something that doesn't benefit them in some way, whereas humans routinely do so through charity and social programs.

You don't need to concede ground to fascists by using their language. There is no such "natural law" and it decrees nothing. People who think animals are invariably violent and ruthless know nothing about animals.

Well ok, natural law is a rather florid metaphor for the principles of natural selection in this case. From an evolutionary perspective, those who cannot support themselves have no value and their deaths only improve things for everyone else by freeing up resources. Expending resources to support them is a rather deliberate contradiction of evolutionary principles.

[Travis B.]

It should be noted that reading the Bible literally is really specifically an evangelical (as in the American sense of the term, not as in the German usage of evangelisch) Protestant thing and not a Christian thing in general.

The usual German term for US-style evangelical stuff is "evangelikal". Or at least that's the term people should ideally use; unfortunately, the field of English-to-German translation seems to be full of people who are completely unfamiliar with the concept of False Friends.

Anyway, there are a number of US-style Evangelicals these days, but not that many, and they usually don't get noticed much.

Here in the US you will see Lutheran churches which describe themselves as evangelical, and this usage seems to be taken directly from the usage of German evangelisch, since Lutheranism was brought to the US by Germans (and Scandinavians), rather than the typical American usage of the term.

[linguistcat]

You don't need to concede ground to fascists by using their language. There is no such "natural law" and it decrees nothing. People who think animals are invariably violent and ruthless know nothing about animals.

Well ok, natural law is a rather florid metaphor for the principles of natural selection in this case. From an evolutionary perspective, those who cannot support themselves have no value and their deaths only improve things for everyone else by freeing up resources. Expending resources to support them is a rather deliberate contradiction of evolutionary principles.

Not all selection is individual. There is group based selection, especially for social animals like humans. IE the group that is fittest survives best and passes on their genes best, even if some members of the group wouldn't survive on their own. Second, as already stated, even early humans cared for members of their group (not always closely related to them, just part of their social group) even if that person would never be able to support themselves or the group. And this isn't just Homo Sapien Sapiens proper, but also Neanderthals, Denisovans and other relatives. But not only that, non human group animals including cave lions and some dinosaurs have shown evidence of caring for others who would otherwise not survive, through healed injuries that would not have allowed them to get food for weeks or MONTHS. Without some"one" to provide care, they would have died before they could heal. And these are creatures that likely had no concept of a future where the injured member would be able to return the favor; they were running on instinct.

Group selection can easily select for a group that is willing to care for members just based on the fact they are part of the group. And when you are intelligent enough, like I would hope humans are, "the group" can be any member of your same species. Does empathy always extend this far? No. Can it? Absolutely. And because of group selection, nothing about this is outside "survival of the fittest." If you think it is, then you have a basic misunderstanding of the concept. But don't worry, most people misunderstand it, especially those who try to argue humans should be unsympathetic and cutthroat.

[zompist]

From an evolutionary perspective, those who cannot support themselves have no value and their deaths only improve things for everyone else by freeing up resources. Expending resources to support them is a rather deliberate contradiction of evolutionary principles.

First, evolution is not a teacher, it has no morality and no principles. Again, if some non-straw-man person actually believes that animals are ruthless individualists, they know nothing about animals.

Second, did you learn about animals from a book from the 1920s or something? Animal behavior is full of altruism. A good and fun place to start is Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring.

[malloc]

Second, did you learn about animals from a book from the 1920s or something? Animal behavior is full of altruism. A good and fun place to start is Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring.

Pretty much everything I have read over the years suggests that most animals are either fiercely territorial, refusing to interact except for mating, or intensely hierarchical and combative with other members of their social group. Your example of jackdaws are an excellent case of the latter with the weakest members of the group getting the worst living conditions. I have never read about any cases of animals helping weaker ones apart from mothers feeding young.

[zompist]

Second, did you learn about animals from a book from the 1920s or something? Animal behavior is full of altruism. A good and fun place to start is Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring.

Pretty much everything I have read over the years suggests that most animals are either fiercely territorial, refusing to interact except for mating, or intensely hierarchical and combative with other members of their social group. Your example of jackdaws are an excellent case of the latter with the weakest members of the group getting the worst living conditions. I have never read about any cases of animals helping weaker ones apart from mothers feeding young.

I already gave you an example of jackdaws passing on information about predators-- this benefits the entire colony. Jackdaw hierarchies work differently from chickens-- high-ranking members will intervene on behalf of the lowest-ranked ones, to ensure they are not bothered in their nests. Predators can form friendships and alliances, and if an animal is not hungry it can interact with other species with curiosity or even play.

[keenir]

I'm not sure I understand your use of "randos"...at least not when referring to orangs. (though i'd wager that it was a larger orang taking food from a smaller one)

It's usually long-tailed macaques stealing from the much larger orangutans.

Ah.
That doesn't prove nature is ruthless - macaques steal from anyone and anything: each other, temples, strollers, film crews, etc.

Similarly, orangutans thieves are usually the sneakier ones. A class usually consists of one age group.

This is my problem with your arguments. They're based on assumptions with minimal reference to ground truths,

Given that you're citing a tv show which I assume involves either captive orangs being prepped for living in the wild, or orphan orangs being prepped to live without humans as a food source, the "ground truths" probably should include the fact that both of those categories of orangs perform behaviors which have not been observed in wild orangs.


also, please explain "randos"...does the definition now include macaques? (asking seriously, and saying so, so you don't think i'm mocking or insulting you)

so the discussion proceeds along lines of endless clarification.

(Edit: Behavior in adult hierarchies is much closer to what you're describing though.)

Also not sure how thievery among the essentially solitary orangs, proves something about a "natural order" among humans. I mean, yes, they're primates, but only gibbons are further from us in the Great Apes clade.

Orangutans are arguably the gentlest of the great apes.

by and large, particularly with humans certainly. though naturalists studying them have noted that orangs rape each other more than any other nonhuman primate.

I've heard bioogists argue that human behavior is undecided among chimpanzee and bobobo styles,

undecided?

and you don't want to copy chimpanzee behavior. The line of thought that emphasizes tribal unity unintentionally leads to fascism, with nations as ersatz tribes.

That increasing the number of farms, decreases the amount of forests and wildlife? Aside from the fact that the Mayans did it for centuries (as one tv presenter put it, "At the heights of the Maya[n periods], you could stand at the top of a temple, look out to the horizon, and not see a single tree.")

Aside from that, we're seeing it in action most times that expanding human settlements compete for space with wilderness.

Let me try that again: Do you have evidence that the earth can support our current population trajectory without mass production?

You aren't saying what we'd stop mass producing. Farms that stretch for acres and kilometers are producing produce en masse, so do you count them?

Then I don't see how citing "Maoist ones" is anything but a strawman in your own statement. Unless I'm missing something.

Even if you say you don't have a government, some people will fill that power vacuum. What if those people divert resources to make useless products?

Define 'useless'. Things can bring joy to children and everyone, yet not neccessarily fulfil any strictly utilitarian function.

Those products could be anything: low quality iron for Maoists, party dresses for all their friends if they're fashionistas, and so on.

Wouldn't Maoists want good quality iron?

And how dare anyone have party dresses! *gasp*theatrical shock*

[keenir]

Then I don't see how citing "Maoist ones" is anything but a strawman in your own statement. Unless I'm missing something.

As for Maoists and their like, they would say that their scheme of social organization is limited to putting workers and peasants in a position of power. This doesn't count as a scheme of social organization in the sense I intended.

so, if a worker is in charge, its not a social organization? hm, Reagan was an actor, Obama was in local government, and there were probably other instances where a US President used to have have a wage job.

How about language? The English language has no physical existence; it certainly exists and it's certainly a natural phenomenon.

In my usage, languages are conventions. Natural laws, unlike conventions, are immutable.

but there are places where the natural laws don't apply. heck, I've heard rumblings that the Hubble Constant (the expansion speed of our universe) isn't a constant.

Honestly, I don't even see humans as natural phenomena.

so...humans aren't made of particles and atoms and whatnot?

[malloc]

In any case, whenever I read about zoology or natural history, it just reminds me of my incredible lack of fitness and my burden on society. My family wiped out their savings getting me treated for autism and I didn't enter the work force until nearly 30 years old. Only the extraordinary productivity and ethical standards of modern society have kept me alive this long. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, the case against me seems insurmountable.

[keenir]

Second, did you learn about animals from a book from the 1920s or something? Animal behavior is full of altruism. A good and fun place to start is Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring.

I have never read about any cases of animals helping weaker ones apart from mothers feeding young.

Then, as the old saying goes, you don't get out much, do you? There are entire Dewey Decimal double-digits in multiple sections (mammals, birds, animal behaviors, evolution, etc) about exactly that.

More to the point, modern human societies deliberately support those who cannot support themselves through social programs funded by those capable of productive work. Natural law decrees that such people are unfit and would happily cull them if modern technology and ethics weren't holding it back.

If that were true, humans wouldn't have evolved to have menopause (also found in pilot whales)...those "such people" are useful for taking care of their grandkids, cooking and sounding alarms, and other behaviors.

Now sure, this is not the same as reading about vegetarianism and changing your diet. But it is acting differently in the future based on a purely informational signal.

Sure, but vegetarianism involves repressing your instinctual taste for meat for the sake of abstract principles that benefit another species rather than your own, let alone yourself as an individual. Jackdaws are following their instinct to avoid getting killed by predators in your example, just using more sophisticated means than fleeing or fighting. I have never heard of any animal sacrificing their own interests for the sake of something that doesn't benefit them in some way, whereas humans routinely do so through charity and social programs.

except charity and social programs do benefit humans, so it does benefit them "in some way".

You don't need to concede ground to fascists by using their language. There is no such "natural law" and it decrees nothing. People who think animals are invariably violent and ruthless know nothing about animals.

Well ok, natural law is a rather florid metaphor for the principles of natural selection in this case. From an evolutionary perspective, those who cannot support themselves have no value and their deaths only improve things for everyone else by freeing up resources. Expending resources to support them is a rather deliberate contradiction of evolutionary principles.

then you seriously need to do some reading about evolution, as nothing has "no value" to evolution.

[keenir]

In any case, whenever I read about zoology or natural history, it just reminds me of my incredible lack of fitness and my burden on society. My family wiped out their savings getting me treated for autism and I didn't enter the work force until nearly 30 years old. Only the extraordinary productivity and ethical standards of modern society have kept me alive this long.

most people would've just said "thanks to my family" but okay.
(sorry)

From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, the case against me seems insurmountable.

can you babysit? can you memorize things? given your ability to read and write and discuss here, you have things you can do, talents to perform.

so no, there is no "case against you"...except where you are inventing one so as to self-guilt yourself.

[malloc]

so no, there is no "case against you"...except where you are inventing one so as to self-guilt yourself.

There are numerous philosophers and political movements that apply the principles of evolution to society to a greater or lesser extent. It would not be hard to find people, especially in the seedier corners of the internet, who argue for eliminating support for the disabled or stratifying society according to biological fitness. Such thinkers and movements have fallen into disrepute given their culmination in the Nazi regime, of course. Yet it occurs to me that I have never actually read a philosophical refutation of social Darwinism or defense of universal human rights. All the arguments I've seen hinge on the historical atrocities associated with social Darwinism rather than any philosophical problems associated with it. How do contemporary philosophers argue that humans should be exempt from natural selection?

[keenir]

so no, there is no "case against you"...except where you are inventing one so as to self-guilt yourself.

Yet it occurs to me that I have never actually read a philosophical refutation of social Darwinism or defense of universal human rights. All the arguments I've seen hinge on the historical atrocities associated with social Darwinism rather than any philosophical problems associated with it. How do contemporary philosophers argue that humans should be exempt from natural selection?

disclaimer: I not philosopher.

the greatest argument against any social darwinism (as a noun phrase, the cap goes to the S, right?), is that either its advocates don't know what "darwinism" actually is, or they deliberately misunderstand so they can go kill people.

another argument is that species adapt to their enviroment. for most of humankind these days, their enviroment is in the cities and communities of humans.
(even the Piraha, rule-breakers par excellence, abide by that - they don't abandon people like a Spartan parent, they take care of each other...even to the point that Everett asked basically "why are you being nice to that old rude person?")

[zompist]

There are numerous philosophers and political movements that apply the principles of evolution to society to a greater or lesser extent.

Name two such philosophers.

Then, name one biologist past 1920 who supports "social Darwinism."

[alice]

Pretty much everything I have read over the years suggests that most animals are either fiercely territorial, refusing to interact except for mating, or intensely hierarchical and combative with other members of their social group.

OTOH, actual observation of actual animals in real life would strongly suggest otherwise.

[Jonlang]

I've had an idea for a conlang forum game but I'm not sure how close it is to being a conlang relay. I'll outline my idea below and you just let me know what you think.

So, someone posts a sentence in their conlang. They give some info on what some of it means, e.g. articles, particles, suffixes, etc. They can be as helpful (or unhelpful) as they like. Everybody else then tries to decipher the sentence and translate it into English. Obviously, the OP isn't allowed to lie about anything that is guessed / figured out correctly. The more questions asked/guesses made the easier it becomes until someone cracks it, then someone else posts a sentence and we go again. It could become messy but it could also be fun and allows people to share short sentences in their conlangs.

[bradrn]

So, someone posts a sentence in their conlang. They give some info on what some of it means, e.g. articles, particles, suffixes, etc. They can be as helpful (or unhelpful) as they like. Everybody else then tries to decipher the sentence and translate it into English. Obviously, the OP isn't allowed to lie about anything that is guessed / figured out correctly. The more questions asked/guesses made the easier it becomes until someone cracks it, then someone else posts a sentence and we go again. It could become messy but it could also be fun and allows people to share short sentences in their conlangs.

This sounds fun! I was even thinking about doing something very much like this with a recent sentence of mine, but never got around to it.

[hwhatting]

Great idea. First sentence is here.

[malloc]

There are numerous philosophers and political movements that apply the principles of evolution to society to a greater or lesser extent.

Name two such philosophers.

Just to name some obvious examples (not all philosophers per se): Friedrich Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, Ernst Haeckel, Adolf Hitler, and Anton LaVey. Beyond that, there are numerous thinkers who cite evolution here and there to justify their positions. Jordan Peterson famously defended social stratification in human societies by citing the strict hierarchy of lobsters.

Then, name one biologist past 1920 who supports "social Darwinism."

Not sure about biologists who specifically endorse Social Darwinism as such, but the field of evolutionary psychology generally upholds social stratification through appeals to evolutionary history. More generally, I am constantly reading about controversies where one biologist or another throws their intellectual weight behind right wing talking points, people like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins for instance. Based on everything I have seen, the field of biology comes across as distinctly right wing quite honestly.