The dark side of evolution and society

[Bogan Laker]

Needs better OP

[Petrolheadia]

The very existence of both evolution and society tends to select for irrational traits.

For example evolution does not select for organisms that treat themselves the best. Instead it tends to select for whatever traits that tend to be passed down to future generations regardless of whether such traits are beneficial to those having it. For example the genes of male praying mantises that preserve their lives instead of voluntarily submitting to brutal cannibalism are gradually removed, causing almost all male praying mantises to be essentially suicidal.

Similarly due to group-level selection societies tend to cause individuals to be selectively stupid, namely they want individuals to be knowledgeable enough to serve a society and not sufficiently knowledgeable that they rebel against it. Anti-intellectualism is often a result of people trying to make each other selectively stupid in order to take advantage of them.

Am I the only guy getting "I am smarter than all of you, society morons" vibes?

[Petrolheadia]

Needs better OP

Yeah.

Any sort of question to spark the debate, OP? Because that's necessary not to get the thread locked.

[Petrolheadia]

Am I the only guy getting "I am smarter than all of you, society morons" vibes?

Nope. The main problem with societies is not that they are full of morons. Instead the main problem is that people tend to deliberately make each other morons.

Examples?

[Bogan Laker]

I still think the OP can use some work, but this is my first time really doing this so IDK. but I don't think People in power are pushing dumb people to have more kids. I think dumb people have more kids since they are dumb, and not willing (or able) to raise them correctly.

[Bogan Laker]

also i feel a flame war is evident

[The New California Republic]

The very existence of both evolution and society tends to select for irrational traits.

For example evolution does not select for organisms that treat themselves the best. Instead it tends to select for whatever traits that tend to be passed down to future generations regardless of whether such traits are beneficial to those having it. For example the genes of male praying mantises that preserve their lives instead of voluntarily submitting to brutal cannibalism are gradually removed, causing almost all male praying mantises to be essentially suicidal.

Similarly due to group-level selection societies tend to cause individuals to be selectively stupid, namely they want individuals to be knowledgeable enough to serve a society but not sufficiently knowledgeable that they rebel against it. Anti-intellectualism is often a result of people trying to make each other selectively stupid in order to take advantage of them.

So? There are "glitches" in evolution. It happens. Any system, including naturally-occurring ones, has the possibility of being "glitchy". Sickle-cell anaemia is the most often cited one. The resistance to malaria imparted by having sickle-cell anaemia has meant that a "glitch" that should have been detrimental to the organism actually led to them coming out on top in terms of natural selection.

The presence of testosterone in humans has been linked to an inhibition of the immune system, another "glitch" of evolution.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I skimmed this, but it sounds like it’s saying
“Society and evolution big bad.”

[Bogan Laker]

But wouldn't other nations have the prisoners dilemma as well? I also am pretty sure that a more educated populace would help rival nations compete economically and in warfare. So wouldn't nations want smarter people?

[The New California Republic]

That's not really the main problem. Evolution inherently selects for those who don't believe in it. The universe inherently selects for those who do not want to understand it. Societies inherently rely on stupidity to be able to maintain unity, keep their population high and fight against enemies.

You're right. We need transhumanism to fix them.

W...what...? You are responding to yourself...? What the actual fuck...?

I'm scared.

[Heloin]

That's not really the main problem. Evolution inherently selects for those who don't believe in it. The universe inherently selects for those who do not want to understand it. Societies inherently rely on stupidity to be able to maintain unity, keep their population high and fight against enemies.

You're right. We need transhumanism to fix them.

Firstly your understanding of how evolution works is faulty at best. Secondly are you agreeing with yourself?

[Bogan Laker]

Here comes the flame war.

[The New California Republic]

That's not really the main problem. Evolution inherently selects for those who don't believe in it. The universe inherently selects for those who do not want to understand it. Societies inherently rely on stupidity to be able to maintain unity, keep their population high and fight against enemies.

You're right. We need transhumanism to fix them.

Firstly your understanding of how evolution works is faulty at best. Secondly are you agreeing with yourself?

Creepy as fuck, isn't it?

[Alvecia]

TL;DR OP thinks Idiocracy is a documentary.

[Petrolheadia]

But wouldn't other nations have the prisoners dilemma as well? I also am pretty sure that a more educated populace would help rival nations compete economically and in warfare. So wouldn't nations want smarter people?

It's more like a balanced selection. Intelligence and knowledge strengthen the net ability of any tribe while reducing its social unity. When people are too dumb and too ignorant they tend to get conquered due to lack of ability. When people are too smart and too knowledgeable they tend to get conquered due to lack of unity.

I hope that scientific development will perpetually keep the high-unity low-knowledge mobs in check.

That is a broad assertion. Any source for it?

Also, unity is necessary for safeguarding any larger project.

[Petrolheadia]

That is a broad assertion. Any source for it?

Also, unity is necessary for safeguarding any larger project.

The fall of numerous civilizations to "barbarians".

I don't think a civilization without a decent plan of securing itself is that smart.

[Rhodevus]

It's a nice sentiment to think humans are trending towards stupidity. But, in reality it is the exact opposite.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 150402883/

IQ scores have increased substantially over time. If we trended towards stupidity, then this would not be the case.

Also, your claim that intelligent societies are less united, I'd like to say that modern societies are much more united than older ones. It's a false misconception that medieval kingdoms for instance were similar to the modern nation-state in cohesion. With the industrial revolution, expanding access to knowledge, societies actually become more and more united.

Yes, the Western Roman Empire was invaded and 'conquered' by barbarians, but that was less of a "people are getting smarter and less united" rather "people inside are corrupt and infighting for power and people outside are being forced to move into Roman territory for safety from other barbarians"

[Page]

Evolution is what it is, and it's far from perfect. The fact that we eat and breathe through the same hole which causes some people to choke to death is a great example of how flawed life is. But what can you do about it? We can create technology to improve our lives, but even with CRISPR I think we're still a long way off from editing our genes in a meaningful way. We exist in a universe that is fundamentally hostile to life, the Earth is a tiny speck that's the only place we can live on. You just gotta accept it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I think the analysis is faulty. Your objection seems to be that discourse is of low quality and bad decisions made because society does not develop the individual sufficiently, thereby trapping them in a state of poor intellectual development. My disagreement is this - people have inherently different levels of intellectual ability. You cannot make everyone intelligent, and society and evolution are not at fault for failing to do the impossible.

It's very confusing to follow your precise argument because you jump between the process of biological evolution and societal evolution as if they are directly analogous. Genes and social structures aren't the same things.

You are right though when it comes to the evolution of norms heading in directions against its own interests. The thorough permeation of democratic norms means that everyone thinks that they have something to contribute to the debate and a right to participate in it. Naturally, those seeking the approval of others will tend to lower their intellectual level and tone to the level where it is accessible to the less intelligent. The evolution of technology such as social media both reflects and intensifies these developments.

Dumbed-down populism is the natural progression of the logic of democracy. The fact that this threatens the stability of the system is neither here nor there. Ideas that may once have been healthy in moderation can be dysfunctional when fully embedded, but then very difficult for any individual or group to change. The path of least resistance and easiest success is for politicians to go along with the dumbing down of discourse.

Every system has contradictions and contains the seeds for its own potential downfall. Nothing is perfect.

[Alvecia]

TL;DR OP thinks Idiocracy is a documentary.

Nope. You don't understand my point at all.

The problem is not about what a particular society does. Instead the problem is about nature itself.

This isn’t a problem for nature. And arguably not a problem for us anymore. We’re somewhat isolated from evolutionary processes given our ability to work around any traits that might otherwise hinder reproduction and survival.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

How does OP propose ending evolution?

[Bogan Laker]

isn't that due to corruption and infighting over resources?. I mean I guess you could say that the leaders in charge are stupid, but it seems more like human greed and emotions that caused the collapse of Rome and other civilizations.


*Edit* why do I take so long to make simple statements.

[The Slightly Madlands]

Needs a better OP, ask a question of us please.

[The New California Republic]

assuming that there will still be any demand for human-human sex after we get sexbots which is unlikely

I don't see why you incorrectly assume that everyone is robosexual.

And "marital aids" didn't lead to a dearth of human-human sexuality, so I don't see why you think that robots will...

[Alvecia]

I don't see why you incorrectly assume that everyone is robosexual.

And "marital aids" didn't lead to a dearth of human-human sexuality, so I don't see why you think that robots will...

Why would anyone want to have sex with humans at all if robots can provide whatever humans can provide plus much more? That's a superstimulus.

Some like the human element.