Skip Navigation
Growth as an end
  • I'd say exploitative (and dominant) behavior can be either biologically based instinct or learned trait.

    Learned behavior could potentially become a trait if it spreads, is beneficial to the species reproductive success, and genetic mutations occur.

    • A nice person can learn that to survive requires them to act in an exploitative manner, I'd not call this an instinct, this is a animal of an adaptable species adapting to a cruel environment.

    • A person that is not nice because they are less adaptable and see exploitation as the default way of operating in life and would act this way even in a nice environment could be called an instinct. This could be the biological start of what could evolve into a stable instinct in a species should this person's genes become dominant in the population (I believe this is happening now).

    The reason I talk the way I do on this topic, is my belief that early humans did not have a desire to dominate others on a large scale, we were more like other animals. Not that everything was peaceful or tribes didn't have leaders and inter-tribal battles, just that any individuals with a tendency to dominate and hoard were mostly taken care of by cultural mechanisms and didn't get very far, i.e. they got their ass beat when then screwed over their brother and the community said "good, they deserved it". Or a tribal leader that was dominant and coercive rather than a respected leader could get killed and there's no state to stop this or punish those who did it. The tribe decided their leader was bad for them and took care of the issue.

    But at some point, these cultural mechanisms were not enough to contain these individuals with a dominant instinct and they took over and colluded, and this eventually evolved into the concept of the state.

    The thing that might've tipped the scales is money. Money provides a means to hoard wealth, something that is difficult without money as things rot or or too large, etc. By hoarding money that represents resources, they are simultaneously creating artificial scarcity and those willing to violently back up the dominant hoarder can have more than others setting up a class structure. This is a bit different than for example how Marx says classes came about.

    tl;dr I think our society was stable for 200K years until a dominator instinct took over that was previously kept in check culturally, facilitated by the invention of money. This situation exploded when we found our fossil energy inheritance that we're currently wasting on the equivalent on hookers and blow. And now society is built around the dominators, designed for easy exploitation and prevention of self-defense, it's called "statehood".

  • Meme Manager needed...
  • I'm voting for Biden because I'm not dumb enough to think forfeiting my vote will help end the genocide, but if goldfish man wins and we become fascist, I will blame Joe Biden for throwing away our democracy in support of Israel.

  • Who could have seen this coming except for people warning about it for decades
  • It's not possible to produce the amount of meat needed to feed our massive population while treating animals humanely.

    There are really two options to deal with this:

    1. Most humans in the world become vegan -- sounds great but it's not gonna happen

    2. Reduce our population to sustainable numbers (by eliminating the driver of the population explosion, i.e. fossil energy) -- maybe also not gonna happen

    Edit: What (do I think) will happen? We'll continue as we are now as hundreds of billions of animals are tortured until our civilization collapses. This will happen because we were all brought up under a state and told that defending ourselves, our communities, our animals, is wrong and illegal.

  • Who could have seen this coming except for people warning about it for decades
  • These problems are not all the fault of either the producers or consumers, we're both part of a fucked up cycle within an exploitative economic system and influence each other.

    It doesn't make any more sense for the consumer to wash their hands of all blame and consume without concern and push all the blame on the producer than it does to say it's all about our "carbon footprint".

  • Growth as an end
  • Surely the benefit of a learning and growing brain is that it can respond and adapt to situations faster than germ-line genetics ever could.

    Absolutely, but it's our genome that programs this adaptability.

    Consider humans vs giant pandas for example. Our genes programmed our (brains and) bodies to be highly adaptable, some can be vegans, others carnivores, some can live in the snow, others in the tropics, we can learn new languages throughout life, and build novel tools and learn to use them. A giant panda might die if eats anything other than bamboo and will do poorly in any environment different than what it's evolved for. This is because we evolved for adaptability while giant pandas evolved to be fit in a mostly unchanging environment.

    Giant pandas probably don't have the genetic adaptability built in for a dominator instinct to arise in them, while in humans, the dominator instinct can arise within our mental adaptability. It might start as meme (in the Dawkins sense) and then the brain can evolve to facilitate the behavior (to be honest, I think this is what is happening in our species currently, generations living under exploitative economic systems might be driving our brains to be less sympathetic to others rather than viewing others as part of our environment).

    Why would there be a genetic limiter

    It's not that say giant pandas have evolved a genetic limiter really, it's that humans have evolved to be able to survive in various and changing environments and a brain that can learn is a key part of this ability. Giant pandas have not had the selective pressure to evolve a genome tolerant of change able to produce a brain that can adapt on the fly to new environments.

  • rule
  • Without ambition and drive people would still be living in caves.

    And we'd have a planet to live on indefinitely rather than letting a few thousand rich people destroy our world causing massive suffering. But really, there's a world between living in caves with zero progress and letting capitalists destroy our world while we praise them, I'm not suggesting we live in caves, I'm suggesting we don't let ambitious assholes kill us all while blaming us for the problems they create.

    I don’t need some jabbering moron with an agenda to tell me how I should feel about things I can observe with my own eyes.

    And you don't have an agenda of driving civilization in the direction you want? Are you that blind to your own behavior? You're engaging in a conversation about it and pushing a point, that's an agenda.

    It’s always a situation where the few are carrying the many

    That's very likely due to different people having different tolerance for exploitation. Just because you don't mind being exploited try to be a good boot licker doesn't mean others are bad because they don't want to be exploited. Maybe in a different situation you'd be viewed as the lazy one. It's not selfish to not work harder for another's gain.

  • That's all it is.
  • I think that would cause a different confusion. I don't know that this is a concept that can be expressed in a single existing word. Sometimes concepts take time before the right word arises. No sense blaming people for using the language available to them to express a novel idea.

  • That's all it is.
  • Anti-work is anti-exploitation.

    It's not about people wanting to be lazy yet still have all the niceties, it's about not being coerced into a lifetime of labor to enrich the ones coercing you. A person's labor should enrich themselves and those they choose.

  • rule
  • I say ambition, drive, greed, etc are personality issues that cause harm to others and the environment.

    While I'm sure there are a few individuals that would rather sit and die than go get some food, this is not something to actually be concerned with. You watch too much right wing TV telling you there's a whole class of people that just want to take from you, but what's actually happening is that this group is being stolen from and what you see as laziness is often just an unwillingness to facilitate being stolen from.

  • Growth as an end
  • Sorry for the late reply, I've been away.

    Animal behavior is the product of both genetics and environment (including the environment affecting the genes, epigenetics), and feedback loops are real but any neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow and what level of change is genetically possible over a given number of generations.

    Since people’s behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.

    This is what will cause genetic changes over time and turn learned behavior into innate behavior. Like the non-bonobo chimps probably started out that way (or maybe vice-versa) and over millennia or even millions of years, no longer have the capacity to behave like the other regardless of environment. If we took a non-bonobo family and put them with regular chimps I don't believe the non-bonobo children would behave like bonobos because they are around bonobos.

    Even if the "dominator instinct" is purely behavioral and not based in biology at all, it doesn't change my point. My point is really a game theory point, that our species chose cooperation as a general strategy because it works out best for everyone in our situation at the time. But because we vary (whether genetically or a person's learned behavior) an occasional individual comes along that tries out a different strategy.

    Here's a game that demonstrates my point.

    https://ncase.me/trust/

    Imagine a form of this game is played in early humans that have a cooperative culture. The cheater is likely to be ostracized or beaten up/killed allowing the cooperative culture to continue. But then you throw money into the game (ability to hoard resources, and create artificial scarcity by taking things from others and allowing selective "paying" of individuals that back you up. Now when a cheater comes along, they have tools (money and artificial scarcity) that allow them to break out of the normal game rules and dominate others -- a dominator instinct was born.

  • What's your most unpopular opinion about music ?
  • I hear you on Busdriver, I tend to not listen to the words and just hear it as a sort of instrument so it doesn't matter what he's saying. But for those that do, I could see it being too much, same with Kool Keith.

    I'll check out Brother Ali, I've heard of him but not his music.

  • interestingasfuck @lemm.ee mojo_raisin @lemmy.world
    Radiant Sky Cooling Is Cool AF

    This guy figured out how to turn the results of scientific experiments showing how it's possible to cool the temperature of a material below ambient temperatures by radiating heat into space using exotic or uncommon substances into something you can do yourself with easy to acquire and safe materials.

    4
    InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MO
    mojo_raisin @lemmy.world
    Posts 1
    Comments 463