I’m suggesting that in ones own personal life, and, in dispassionate philosophical interactions, one should be aware of the nuances amongst ‘those who survive’ and act/think accordingly to their objective observations. You might not understand, it is a bit different what you tend to do, namely rationalize your emotions and project your demons onto others.
Or maybe I’m saying kill all the darkies and become an ubermensch. Sterilize the ugly and the stupid and the Brazilian and march towards a future of bleak industrialized fascism
But why ask? You’re too dumb to even see the difference between those two scenarios aren’t you?
Interesting. Tell me more. Especially the bit in bold.
Humans, being the only organism capable of transcending what we could call the ‘determinism’ observed in other species can begin to introduce their own stress-factors if they so choose, though the vast majority seem to be heading in the opposite directions towards animalisms and creature comforts. And also here I am sure you are confusing ‘fit’ with ‘specialized’ or ‘over-specialized’, given that a less ‘fit’ version of an ‘over-specialized’ organism will be highly unlikely to fare better than a more fit version of that same species but a less specialized species might the have the necessary capacity to adapt.
You have stated, whether you realize it or not, that you do not value one set of genes over another so long as they both reproduce. So why did you select a healthy human to reproduce when there are so many unhealthy humans to pick from and you can’t bring yourself to identify the difference?
is it because you are a hypocrite or because you are an idiot? There is still time for you to bang a fucktard and have his fucked up kid.
It is not as though any average human being is not able to learn to calculate, and by exercising frequently retain that skill. I find it unlikely that we have undergone any organic adaptations which makes us as a population less fit for mathematics.
To consider cultural changes which happend in the course of a couple thousand years can be misleading when it comes to discussing evolution.
I have not made in this thread personal statements about what I value. Not even once.
I have said that what I value is irrelevant to the subject.
I have said that nature is indifferent to what we value. I have said that natural selection is by definition merely survival as in perpetuation.
You come into the thread with a puffed up chest like what you are saying is something edgy or insightful, when what you are really doing is describing the mating behavior of every fucking creature on the planet. There isn’t a single species which reproduces through sex who does so indiscriminately. This is a strawman, and you are a dishonest prick.
So after you lied about who brought race into the debate and tried numerous times to make it seem as though I had, you call me dishonest. Keep digging P, every scoop is a new low.
I’ll try one last time, just so noone can say it wasn’t clear.
7 fold population increase in past 250 years
massive increases in diseases such as cancer
You claim fitness is ascertained by any and all reproduced organisms and refuse to acknowledge degrees/nuance
I say that is a cop out because some organisms objectively are less fit by observable standards
You contend repeatedly that value judgements should not enter into a discussion on natural selection, even in the context of unprecedented population explosions
I remind you that the forum is one dedicated (err…loosely) to philosophy, the discipline of valuations
You refuse to agree that sickness, dwarfishness, stupidity, ugliness, blindness, deafness and madness are signs of less fit organisms
WHAT CONCLUSION SHOULD I REACH GIVEN THE ABOVE YOU FUCKING DULLARD
Whatever. Remain coy and mysterious when it suits you. Pretend you weren’t implying what you were implying. Or just lie about my intentions and project your own insecurities ad naseum, who gives a shit? It’s just philosophy right?
How many times are you going to edit and add to your posts? Your illusion of aloofness is slipping, dear.
If ‘all I am doing is describing mating via sex which every sexual species does’ then there must be objective referents involved from which any sane person can draw reasonable and rationale values right? So how come you have repeatedly refused to do this and maintained that it can’t be done, you stupid cow? Is it because your politics and your politico-racial projections are preventing you from having a rational discussion on these issue? You mean what you said of me actually applies exclusively to you??
Boom.
Told you that you are a dumb fucking hypocrite. Thanks for playing.
So what? What is the point you are trying to make with these facts?
Yes that is obvious. I am not acknowledging degrees because I do not want to generalize. I want to keep the conversation abstract, because it is about a theory.
They are objectivelt less fit by human standards. Humans tend to not be attracted to individuals with mutations which severely impact life, and therefore their chances of reproduction are small.
What my point was in replying to arminius is that our objective standard for fitness is not the same as fitness from an evolutionary standpoint. The evolutionary process is not interested in creating the tallest smartest most handsome humans. It does not have a mind. It is only explaining that those who are perpetuating themselves are the most fit at any given time.
The longest a species is able to remain in existence and in the most varied ecosystems is the evolutionary standard for fitnessx because that is litteraly what survival of the fittest means. You have survived, you are the fittest.
Again, what does populational explosion change? If anything, it will reach a point in which resources will become scarce and that might create an stress that will measure our fitness in terms of acquiring resources to stay alive. Perhaps the chance might be so steep that we will die out in the process, proving the whole human survival strategy a failure, in which case our objective standards for fitness meant jack shit.
But you are in the science subsection, where science is discussed, in a thread about survival of the fittest, in which the theoretic definition of the term is being discussed.
Other threads in this subforum are about logic, for example. Would you discuss value judgments in a thread about logic because this is a philosophy forum? In logic either something is, or it isn’t and there is no fucking valuations.
I agree if it makes you happy. I am saying over and over that it is that what I consider fit is not the same as actual fit per the theory of evolution. Evolution considers only survival.
That you are pretty dense and can’t read for shit.
[/quote]
Sounds about right.
Fit does not mean best by human standards. Fit means survived.
No I think I am done with you now. Too stupid and dishonest to be worth any more time. Anyone who can read and comes upon this thread will know what a deceptive turd you are and how little substance actually resides within your contributions.
Here, from that arcane and inaccessible source known as wikipedia:
Now apply this, with particular reference to the bit in bold (try considering it in reverse you dummy - are sickly genes that luckily survived really fit or can we be more discerning and rational about it?) to a human population which is experiencing abnormal and unprecedented growth. But to expose the ‘quality’ of your mind and the it’s typical dishonesty, shall we see if my posts have been relevant to the OP? Let’s find Arminius’ first post:
Whether you agree with the way he put it or not, I am entirely vindicated and everything I wrote was provably on topic. You are a desperate fool, projecting your own politics into philosophy (or even worse science as you say) and avoiding all of the real thinking lest you accidentally transgress your politico-moral threshold and enter into a real philosophical discussion. You are the epitome of the modern liberal circle-jerk mentality where Sentimentalism is aggressively, arrogantly, rudely shoved down the throats of those few people who can actually think for themselves and see things as they are.
Not only are you multiple types of wrong, you are rude, graceless and unapologetic about it.
Philosophy isn’t for people like you, dear, get a new hobby and fuck off eh? You are so very boring.
I said in one of my first posts to you that no because evolution is a process that takes place over the course of milenia. So if you think that when say survival as perpetuation I mean a single individual, I reiterate my assesment that you are to dumb to read.
Actually it’s all relative, hum, relative, to where one begins to think about it. Political economy dictates that the point on the matrix, where it can definitely be said that it can identify (point to) a reasonable assessment of which is more determinative, whence compensations set in. On the lesser, or on a more significant level of a faith based (psychological) economy, politics, or a directed economy may prevail. just hunches.
But Darwin was said to accuse a antagonistic biologist on the issue of evolutionary-ly changing traits, by accusing him of messing with his lab data, whereby the unfortunate Viennese born biologist likewise found out that his data was equally messed with.
But situated in an unprecedented population explosion which is entirely foreign to any species but human beings and this point just becomes utterly stupid. What you are doing is erecting any and every barrier you can to avoid saying that there is an overproduction of unfit mutations in modern human social systems, and, when I point out to you that observation of nature, not just human nature, allows us to make value judgements which are highly objective as to who is more or less fit as a human being, you cop-out and say that that value judgements have no place on a philosophy forum, in a post which began with 4 options and deliberately begged debate… this just make you look like a dim-witted coward.
Again if you are so stupid that you can’t understand how what I am saying is entirely valid and relevant whereas what you are doing is provably obfuscating and deciding that philosophy must cease when you verge on saying something which is not all-inclusive and devoid of all value judgements, the very essence of philosophy, then you are too much of a dumb coward to even approach these issues. If your definition of fitness includes every diseased and deformed mutation that the removal of all culling and the introduction of advanced medicine has produced then you are a clueless spineless idiot and are without the required intelligence to concern yourself with such discussions.
I have a different impression from this latest exchange. This has been a thread where I participated amicably up to the point where you barged in with irrelevant comments and a beligerent attitude. You are the one constantly making it personal and writing long paragraphs with nothing but insults and little to no content, and the little content in them is irrelevant.
At least you went and read something on the subject I suppose, even if it shows you are wrong. Why don’t you go discuss some ~real philosophy~ back at kts and leave science discussions to people with a minimum of a science education?
Just search yourself dude. You are butt hurt because I cut you off from your very first post, so now you need to save face by playing tough. Sorry but I don’t have patience for this level of insecurity. You are eager to make me out the personification of everything abouy the world that rejected you, but I am sorry to say it is not so. Have some grace for once and leave the thread so we can resume a conversation that will actually go somewhere other than the toilet.
