/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22291669]

Is it actually possible to actually do this shit on a mass scale?

[Anonymous No.22291679]

>>22291669
>We should thank our benefactors for giving us respite from this overpowering force

[Anonymous No.22291680]

>>22291669
Yes you can, through mindless terror violence and deathcamps for the enemies and traitors

[Anonymous No.22291690]

>>22291679
the naive faux mysticism in so much atheist lit legitimately fucking intrigues me

[Anonymous No.22291729]

Why would you ever want to dismantle your innate selfishness? This is cuck shit. You need ambition, desire and certain amount of greed to build up the motivation to get what you want out of live and influence others by doing so.

[Anonymous No.22291847]

>>22291729

[Anonymous No.22291852]

>>22291680
*for the niggers and Jews who never evolved Aryan communitarianism in response to the harsh hyperborean winters

[Anonymous No.22291870]

>>22291669
Is this mystical selfish gene (I wonder how come gene has such a quality) in the room with us? Is it in all of us, omnipotent and omnipresent?

[Anonymous No.22291877]

>>22291690
Atheist cant help but keep their christian upbringing and it reflects in their whole world view. All of their myths (AGI, roko's basilisk, the matrix) are sci fi versions of theist myths.
They believe that just by rejecting the notion of God you can rid yourself from the cultural influence, they will just hold up their christian morality not as something biblical, but as something rational or as common sense. It makes them more blind to their christianity than a self aware christian would be

[Anonymous No.22291890]

>>22291870
What exactly is hard to understand about genes being selfish?

[Anonymous No.22291909]

>>22291890
Hmm, something called anthropomorphisation? Ascribing human qualities to a gene. Do you for example have a wise hair, or thoughtful pudendal nerve, or jovial collar bone?

[Anonymous No.22291920]

>>22291669
>let us try to teach that because we are born selfish and flawed we must strive toward a higher purpose of altruism and generosity
If I hadn't seen the Kafka tweet I would assume he is trying to be funny.
That's not a real quote is it? It's too ironic.

[Anonymous No.22292023]

Wasn't "The Selfish Gene" not even really about a gene that makes you selfish and midwits kept misunderstanding the book because of the title or some shit

[Anonymous No.22292032]

>>22291669
some people tried

[Anonymous No.22293116]

>>22291909
It might be a bit of an abstraction but that’s not very relevant, as it helps to talk about what is actually happening

[Anonymous No.22293166]

>>22291669
anglos are such soulless cretins

[Anonymous No.22294204]

>>22292032
Ironic, coming from e1b1b Schicklgruber.

[Anonymous No.22294419]

>>22291669
>because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs
>designs
What did monkey man mean by this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

>>22291877
The Bible is true. Your atheist creation myths and fairy tales are scientifically impossible, but your religion is tax-funded and indoctrinated into kids in government schools and most of them never critically analyze it or even consider criticism because they're so foolish and proud, they think they know-it-all and never grew out of that phase and learned any humility. Atheists will proclaim "there is no God" yet they can't prove it, they'd have to be god to know there is no God, to know everything there is to know in the entire universe and beyond the physical universe but they don't even know 1/10th of everything there is to know on earth. It's just foolish pride and scifi fantasies passed off as science because it's all ideologically motivated. The atheist creation myth timeline has been debunked countless times over as well, but their lies are still in school textbooks because atheists make good slaves of the state and of every progressive trend pushed by mass media.

>>22292032
>a papist Jesuit hated 1930-1940's Protestant America
Shocker.

Reminder: a papist's idea of "judaizing" is obeying God's commandments instead of the popish commandments.

[Anonymous No.22294564]

>>22291669
Why is it good not to be selfish? Why should we upset our genes' designs? He needs to prove his case first.

[Anonymous No.22294575]

>>22291669
But why bother arguing with the genes? Why

[Anonymous No.22294588]

>>22291669
Richard Dawkins can gargle my nuts.

[Anonymous No.22294589]

>>22291690
It's legitimately funny when an evolutionary biologist tries to study penguin fossils or something and then write theology like he's a modern foe of Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22294730]

>>22291669
This is what happens when a sciencecel tries to do an ethical prescription but can't think outside of the parameters of his pre-constructed secularized christian moral universe, whose existence and validity he has never examined. But our genetic instincts know better, and they revolt against all the forces that conspire to extinguish our being.

[Anonymous No.22294775]

>>22294419
>>a papist Jesuit hated 1930-1940's Protestant America
meanwhile jews robed people with a stock crush and confiscated gold
sure you do care about christians not about big nosed bankers
+ caths are the ones who pushed for decency code inn hollywood

[Anonymous No.22294782]

>>22294730
>what if original sin...but science?
Its honestly pretty funny.

[Anonymous No.22294797]

>>22294419
The Bible is true. but it is not literal, science is not a religion. it is only treated like that by redditors and nu age atheists, and the people who do that are not at all progressive. for example picrel is quite conservative. they don't need a creation myth, they propose theories that get challanged, disproven, and then changed. that's just how science works, it makes not claims about reality, it makes models to pragmatically understand it, that's why you can be a christian and a scientist. also you can't say religion is not ideological, it is.

[Anonymous No.22294828]

>>22291669
No it's not possible, "sleflessness" now becomes your new selfish. Like people who feel good about not missing a day of work and derive a lot of self worth from what they perceive as contributing to society. People do things for the "common good" because it makes them feel good about themselves which is selfish. We operate based on performance and award, it's simply how our brains are wired there's no escape, everything you do is inherently selfish.
Anyway TND for the common good

[Anonymous No.22294830]

Thank god we were born at the beginning of the end of the reign of STEMidwit scientism, this retarded secularism shit is already dead and fossilized and ready to be planted on the mountaintops by God

[Anonymous No.22295172]

>>22291669
No. Not on humans, at least.

[Anonymous No.22295176]

>>22294828
Lmao did he actually say this

[Anonymous No.22295179]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Anonymous No.22295517]

>>22293116
It's not abstraction. It's anthropomorphisation. I prefer to get our terminology right unlike Dawkins.
Also, if you want to speak on philosophical matters and biology, you better be accurate. Else it'll look like a marketing gimmick.

>>22294589
Yeah, I'd even guess it's some unlucky form of psychological transference which shows itself in this bizarre way.

>>22294828
This is what it looks like when you have some strange sense of urgency to say that people are selfish and then play with words long enough that the opposite of selfish becomes selfish.

[Anonymous No.22296514]

>>22291669
Yes. It certainly is.
We know how to do this already, and we know why we currently aren’t like that now. The reason we don’t fix the problem is that the most powerful are the most greedy and sociopathic. Anyone answering no are just mind-broken followers.

[Anonymous No.22296523]

>>22291669
Let us try to make the selfish altruistic. Oops, I just invented religion haha

[Anonymous No.22296565]

>>22291669
This quote is exactly why atheists are fucking stupid. Imagine waving such a paradoxical aphorism at the lesser facets of human nature and thinking you actually did something.

[Anonymous No.22296592]

>>22296565
>atheist is dumb. They keep talkin’bout stuff. Bein’ all wordy an shit! But dey don’t!

>>22296523
What?
You know, the origins of religion are simple faiths, some getting off the ground as full blown cult movements. And it’s only at the state level that they’re institutionalized for maximum population control. Even the most peace loving movements will be turned into a war cult with powerful clerics who will eventually take advantage of their positions in various ways. Altruism switches off pretty quickly and early on in that cycle.

[Anonymous No.22296596]

No. Societies function via mutually-beneficial egoism with pleasure being the main motivator, i.e. emotional driver. Altruism is the antithesis of this: it's apathetic. Which begs the question: what's the motivator? I don't know.

Of course, altruism exists or else it'd be tautological, but people just aren't willing to admit they're selfish.

[Anonymous No.22296638]

>>22296592
How clever of you.

[Anonymous No.22296641]

>>22296596
>mutually-beneficial egoism
HA HAHAHAHA HAHA HAHA HAHA
Stupid liberal cuck.

>altruism is apathetic
No, you fuck. It takes concentration and strategy most the time. Did you read Stirner and not understand too? I see that all the time.

[Anonymous No.22296740]

>>22296592
Nothing you said refutes what I said. Little atheist boy is trying to reconcile
>we're all just egoistical chimps who would kill each other at any moment if we had the chance bro
and
>uh well if we just have enough gay butt sex everyone is gonna be nice to each other

[Anonymous No.22296807]

>>22296740
>who would kill each other at any moment if we had the chance bro
No. That’s a psychopath. Normal healthy minds need some reason to give deadly strike. Who the fuck is the quote for?
Your mind is truly muddled with some serious spite

[Anonymous No.22296826]

You do it with carrot/stick conditioning, like they’re attempting in China with social credit scores. And it’s more effective, because the rewards are actually real.

[Anonymous No.22297235]

>>22296826
Kek

[Anonymous No.22297297]

>>22294564

[Anonymous No.22297337]

>>22296523
If you want to control society with myth, you're gonna have to explain how to do that without mass censorship where anyone can just login to any video site or algerian possum racing forum and be dissecting and dismantling that myth 200 different ways

[Anonymous No.22297483]

>>22297337
Which is why atheism is the god that failed.

[Anonymous No.22297488]

>>22297297
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.22297522]

>>22296641
>posts a book making anon's point for him
Uh...ok.

[Anonymous No.22297544]

>>22291669
yes through religion
he is describing original sin
without an appeal to the transcendental, its difficult to narrow down precise examples of what selfishness means

[Anonymous No.22298175]

>>22291909
>>22292023
>>22294419
>>22296523
>>22296596
Dawkins addresses this in the book. The publisher like "Selfish Gene" because it would trigger morons, and Dawkins laments that it isn't the "Selfish Allele" (because said morons don't know what alleles are).

DNA is a string of code. At various points in the DNA, there are START, STOP, and INSTRUCTION portions. The START and STOP portions (Codons) just tell a replicator to start processing the INSTRUCTION portions. The INSTRUCTIONs code for for some protein. These proteins are produced by the replicator, and the go on to make organelles, enzymes, etc. Each START, INSTRUCTION, STOP, in a strand of DNA is a gene. A gene is a site in the DNA strand. The specific data in the INSTRUCTION portion is an "allele". A "gene" is, properly, a population of alleles.

Genes do not compete, because genes are just populations of alleles. Alleles do not compete across genes: the alleles that code for green eyes are not in competition with the alleles that code for blonde hair, but the alleles that code for red hair ARE in competition with the alleles that code for blond hair, because the hair-color alleles occupy the same slots in the DNA.

Alleles, not genes, are selfish because they do not think of things other than themselves. An allele "wants" to maximize its replication (technically, alleles want nothing, it's just that the alleles that are most likely to be replicated are replicated). Everything that an allele does is about maximizing replication.

[Anonymous No.22298195]

>>22298175
Fundamentally, The Selfish Gene is a discussion of what the unit of evolution is. Dawkins argues (and this book is essentially what convinced the rest of the world of biology of the truth of this point) that it is not the species, but rather the allele. An organism doesn't give a shit about genes, alleles, DNA, replication, it's just motivated by thoughts, feelings, urges, and desires. It feels good to have sex, so it has sex: there's no calculation about reproductive fitness or whatever. An organism is the product of the combination of gene products, and genes make gene products, and the alleles determine which specific gene products. The allele is thus the basic unit of evolution as alleles are what are in competition.

Alleles can do all sorts of things, and everything that they do is "selfish" by virtue of it only being concerned with replication. The allele that keeps a mother from immediately eating her infant isn't concerned with "the survival of the species", it's just that this allele is more likely to result in the mass of gene-products reproducing and thus replicating the "don't eat your babies you dumb bitch" allele, ergo this allele is more common.

Most of the book is actually Dawkins talking about examples of altruism and cooperation in biology (a secondary thesis of his is that life is fundamentally cooperative by its very nature and that organisms prefer to cooperate rather than compete) and how it's motivated by genetics. This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that if you assume that the basic unit of evolution is the organism, not the allele, then it makes zero sense for a tigress to not immediately eat her young, or for male turkeys to drive out pretty turkeys so that their females will mate with better fliers. These observable facts only make sense if the basic unit of evolution is the allele, which is totally unconcerned with the survival of the individual animal or the satiation of its desires.

[Anonymous No.22298208]

>>22291669
The degree of selfishness or unselfishness is learned from your parents/caregivers.
This is what directs it. Nurture greatly overrides any sort of natural tendency. And all children are nurtured.

[Anonymous No.22299025]

>>22298175
No, genes are not selfish, alleles are not selfish, bones are not selfish.
>alelles that are most likely to be replicated get replicated
...
>>22298195
R-reductionism

[Anonymous No.22299186]

>>22291669
>how can kafka make sense if God didn't create people to evolve into bugs?

[Anonymous No.22299287]

>>22297544
>yes through religion
Yeah but maybe this time HE could be the high priest.

[Anonymous No.22299340]

>>22292032
That sounds forced and contrived. It’s weird that so many of here thought that going to war with him was bad news bears, but he’s not exactly making a case for himself here.

[Anonymous No.22299679]

>>22299025
See >>22298175 and >>22298195. This was already explained.

[Anonymous No.22299696]

>>22291669
God is not great or is he/she

[Anonymous No.22299702]

>this book is written for the layman
>mfw still not really understanding it

[Anonymous No.22299745]

>>22299186
That's a good one, well-suited for /lit/, but I prefer the tweet where he spergs about seeing a dog eat pussy and points out that fruitflies do as well.

[Anonymous No.22299759]

>>22299679
NTA but it's fair to point out Dawkins's argument is teleological (a fundemental problem when it comes to explicating evolution) and represents an oversimplification that serves to reduce things to a superficially preferred level of analysis.

[Anonymous No.22299790]

>>22291669
>Is it actually possible to actually do this shit on a mass scale?
Not really. Although you can thwart selfishness with meta-selfishness. Birth control, for one example.

Universal altruism is unsustainable because it will always produce a hostile population that will exploit the altruists to extinction. You need a stable symbiosis and a willingness to defend the status quo of the internally-altruistic system against external threats.