Posts
Comments
Right now, Facebook does very little to identify content, only provide it.
They certainly do identify content, and indeed alter the way that certain messages are promoted.
They faced criticism for allowing fake news to spread on the site
Who decides what is and is not fake news?
I am unconvinced that this fact tells us much about what our future either will or should be like.
My digression above could have caused a misunderstanding of my point. I do not mean to say that we are/should return to violence in the Western world, but rather that the desire is still present within us and large-scale violence happens much more often than in our semi-homogeneous middle class bubbles.
I don't imagine the conversation is headed to any conclusion/meeting point, but I wanted to clarify what I was saying to highlight the misunderstanding.
I would be interested to know why the argument doesn't apply equally to unicellularity.
I apologize for a misunderstanding. My argument was not that one should "expect [their] successors to return to skullcrushing." It is that, as skull-crushing was an essential part of our evolution, it makes sense that we still have that latent impulse. Think sex.
I ... have never crushed anyone's skull for power and wealth ... and I'm not sure I know anyone who has
The people who actively "skull-crush" for power and wealth are largely tribes of people in the third world. This is occurring in many parts of Africa and some parts of the Middle East. This is where they do not enjoy the same quality of a first-world life as you or I do. Sure, you may not do any skull-crushing. You live a life which is pleasant enough, and the propagation of your lineage is guaranteed enough (and if you do not wish to bear fruit, so to speak, this is another indicator of the pleasantries of the first world). This is missing the point.
So at least within my nice liberal middle-class bubble -- which is, y'know, actually a pretty big bubble, encompassing a substantial fraction of the population -- the "joy of crushing one's enemies" seems not to be much of a thing any more.
First, it's not a large bubble given total human population. It is in fact quite a small bubble standing on the shoulders of violent giants. Maybe we should leave this bubble from time to time.
Second, the joy of crushing you enemies is still innate, as you state yourself ("if you allow for metaphorical crushing ... then there's more of it about"). Just as sexual reproduction leads to competitively viable organisms, leading to our innate desire for sex (even without the explicit desire to reproduce - another wonder of our first world) , violent competition led us to the point we are now. Can you say that you do not enjoy your doses of "metaphorical crushings"? Would you say that, in a doomsday-scenario, the use of violence would be a competitive advantage? If so, then surely some are utilizing it. They would have the advantage. They would reproduce (whether consensual or not - yet again a modern world invention). And we return to our forebears, and the latent spirit of violence lying beneath the surface of our civilized lives...
I digress. I'm not implying that all acts of our ancestors are needed today. I am stating that, no matter one's personal experience with violence, their existence has benefited from previous acts of violence. To state that these impulses have left us is false.
Thanks for the information! May I get a link to that research paper? My google-fu is apparently weak.
But I, for one, have never crushed anyone's skull for power and wealth (mine or anyone else's), and I'm not sure I know anyone who has, and the net quantity of skullcrushing per person seems to be decreasing over time despite the extremely nasty skullcrushing bonanzas of the early-to-mid 20th century.
I'm not sure if the user you are replying to meant it like this, but it would make sense that your ancestors did plenty of the "skull-crushing" for you (in a sense), and that is why you are here today. The colonialism and use of violence in the past is why you enjoy the life you do today.
Agreed. Absolutely partisan and largely unrelated to the point of this board.
Speaking of immigration, immigration is not absolutely productive. There are a myriad of factors at play here. If one wishes to inject a population with a group in order to increase the population's overall productivity, they must ensure that the injected group is as-productive or more productive than the original population.
I would wager that the majority of gender inequalities in the Western world are reinforced by biology.
I concur. The Olympians have been cheating since the inception of the modern Olympics, and will continue to do so. There is little doubt in my mind that nearly every successful Olympic Athlete has used these drugs (a kind of race to the bottom is at work here). Hell, the Olympics could be regarded as a contest on secretive steroid use... A Drug-Olympics could be a showcase of the newest biotechnological advancements. The data gained from the plethora of individuals experimenting with these substances would be great; the physiological effects of these 'drugs' could be examined with regard to the nationalities and genetic make-up of these individuals. It could lead to some very interesting results/advancements.
Very good point. On a similar note: we often don't consider whether we have empirically tested what we, ourselves, believe to be true. Most often, we have not. I'd wager that we are all 'useful idiots' of a sort.
Hello all,
South Carolinian uni student. Been lurking here for some time. Once my desire to give an input came to a boil, I decided to go ahead and make an account. Mathematics, CompSci, and various forms of Biology are my intensive studies.
Less intense hobbies include music theory, politics, game theory, and cultural studies. I'm more of a 'genetics is the seed, culture is the flower' kind of guy.
The art of manipulation is fascinating to me; sometimes, when one knows their audience, one must make non-rational appeals to their audience to persuade them. This is why I rarely consider any political movement to be ignorant when they make certain non-rational claims; it is the sweet art of manipulation blossoming. Whether or not a certain political movement is using these tactics for a beneficial end-game is up for debate, but I nevertheless stray from calling the heads of political philosophies 'stupid'. (Note: the followers may be useful idiots)
Very nice forum. I appreciate the culture here, and these dialogues rank with Plato.