this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
1019 points (97.9% liked)

196

5164 readers
832 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 48 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The ironic thing about social darwinist types that want to cut any support for the poor on the grounds of poverty being some kind of proof of not being fit to survive, is that the same types will likely also object to things like labor unions or other means of large groups of poorer people banding together to collectively force better conditions from the wealthy, despite social cooperation being a common and successful enough evolutionary strategy.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Prick a Libertarian and a neoliberal bleeds.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Humans: Literally only exist because they banded together in larger communities than other contemporary hominids. One of the earliest indicators of civilization is caring for the injured and sick. The key characteristic of successful societies is how well they keep each other alive.

Some fuckhead who thinks he understands evolution: "We should let the financially weak die"

[–] frezik@midwest.social 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Survival of the fittest" is itself a naive view of evolution. "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", by Peter Kropotkin, was a direct response to that shit over 100 years ago. It was a precursor to Kin Selection Theory developed in the 1960s. It gave the idea a firm mathematical foundation and is largely accepted by biologists today.

[–] crt0o@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (14 children)

The idea itself isn't wrong, the fittest individuals (those who have the most offspring) are always those whose genetic material will be best represented in the next generations. Kin Selection Theory just includes the fact that even selfish and thus fitter individuals which are helped by altruistic ones usually carry some altruistic genes which they propagate.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago

except that this fails to explain why animals like ants and bees have specifically ended up with most of the individuals being unable to procreate at all, clearly for them it's more beneficial to enable your mom to have more siblings than it is to have their own offspring.

[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

even selfish and thus fitter individuals which are helped by altruistic ones usually carry some altruistic genes which they propagate.

It's more useful to model the genes as selfish, not the individuals. A queen bee/ant won't survive long enough to produce fertile offspring if her infertile offspring, each a genetic dead end, doesn't provide for the hive/colony. That genetic programming isn't altruistic because it doesn't help rival colonies/hives, only their own.

So no, the individuals aren't free riding on others' altruism. It's more that genetic coding for social groups is advantageous to the gene, even if localized applications of those rules might seem disadvantageous to the individual in certain instances.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Also, Darwin wrote a lot more about cooperation than competition. Competition is kinda the simplest aspect of evolution, but if you wanna understand (literally) the birds and the bees, you gotta talk about the development of mutually-beneficial systems.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

A lot of the big evolutionary milestones are cooperative. An impossibly long time ago, a big cell swallowed a little cell and (for whatever reason) did not digest it. Together they accomplish more than either cell could on their own. That symbiosis is the ancestor to practically every multicellular organism you can find. Being multicellular is itself another huge development in cooperative evolution. Predation and competition may make a hide tougher or a tooth longer, but cooperation is what really pushes the boundaries of what is biologically possible.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 days ago

I'd take it even further than that and say that life fundamentally strives for cooperation as much as is possible, for example look at how animals have ways of communicating with each other to avoid violence unless actually necessary for survival.

[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago

We've learned pretty recently that almost all nutrition of plants and animals relies on symbiotic relationships with microbes with their own distinct genetic material and reproduction. The microbiome in animal guts or in the soil where plant roots live turned out to be really important for whether the actual cells in the larger multicellular organism are getting what they need to thrive.

[–] superfes@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, I guess it'll be funny when all the lower classes die off and the rich have to eat eachother to survive.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think groups of lower classes will likely murder the rich and take their shit long before the rich have to think about eating each other.

[–] superfes@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe we can convince them to go hide in their bunkers sooner rather than later, then we just concrete them in and forget about them

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s the plot of HG Wells’ The Time Machine. The rich evolve into beautiful but helpless and mindless little doll-people. The poor evolve into ugly, cunning, mechanically-inclined troglodyte people who hunt and feast on the doll-people.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's been a while since I've read the Time Machine but I'm pretty sure the Morlocks didn't hunt the Eloi so much as trained them to head underground for slaughter when they heard air raid sirens. Maybe I'm remembering the old timey movie more than the book.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It is quite odd how many people say evolution is a liberal hoax yet are full throated social darwinists.

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's because capitalism was created by God to ~~reward the faithful~~ punish the wicked. /s

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

To be fair, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, who definitely did use it to describe dying from poverty.

His actual opinion was a little more nuanced than that, but Social Darwinism was kind of his whole thing, and that's where the phrase "survival of the fittest" comes from. Darwin himself took it from Spencer and added it to later editions of On the Origin of Species.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Poverty is caused by a lack of money, and money isn’t real. Well, not really real.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Money is a type of private property. Private property is an arrangement of power relationships, and those are real. It's real that you'll get evicted if you don't find a way to pay rent/mortgage.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

They’re only as real as anything inside a mind. Which is to say not very real.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

The fittest psychological profile for the late-capitalist environment is a psychopath who is very good at imitating empathy. Change the environment XP

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

"natural resource shortage you fascist" is really difficult to say : D

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hi, appliance repair man here who just fixes appliances in people's home for a living. "Survival of the fittest" was a term coined by Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin's Origin of species. And even I know that biologists and people who study evolution don't like this term because it is vague and misleading. In this case the fittest refers to organisms that have the best reproductive success.

This term has been heavily misused to misrepresent evolution and the people who studied.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is this an actual thing those researchers say? I've never heard a person with higher education saying shit like this.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In the same way that climate deniers think they know what they're talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of the weather, flat earthers think they know what they're talking about because they have an elementary school-level level understanding of physics, and antivaxxers think they know what they're talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of medicine, social darwinists think they know what they're talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of evolution. They heard "survival of the fittest" and were convinced that's all the nuance there was to have about the topic.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well, exactly, that sort of social Darwinism is just so antiscientific and also generally antisocial I don't think a person with any self-awareness in a remotely serious academic context could put it to paper. I've seen it online, yes, but that's not what OP tweet is addressing...

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Darwin and Wallace both hated that shit.

load more comments
view more: next ›