/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4558220]

I find it weird that some people treat evolution as if it were their ersatz religion.

You can hear it when they talk about it, people constantly say things like "the next step of evolution", as if it were a ladder made of telos that you're supposed to climb.

Or people treating children as an end because "they carry on your genes into the future" as if that were somehow an intrinsically good things. Do these people believe the perfect universe is a universe in which all matter is arranged in tiny flasks filled with exact copies of their own DNA? I think it's laughable.

The sad part is how much suffering in justified on these bizarre beliefs. We have to have children and eventually colonize the universe no matter how much suffering it will cause, because evolution. Why evolution? Because evolution. People don't even realize there's no meaning there.

tl;dr: There is no god, evolution isn't your ersatz god.

[Anonymous No.4558263]

We have no purpose but to fulfill our desires, which are bent tautologically and are interpersonally connected in a hivemind. We strive to do well and not hutr others because of empathy which gave from hunter-gatherer tribes where we needed all pieces of the puzzle working together. Now we use the same mechanism to achieve a desired collective prospective goal.

Given, we exist:
Given, we do not exist, but experience exist:
Given, existing or not existing is or is not illusionairy and irrelevant, because we experience sensation:

Sensation can be: Good, bad, or neutral
Death/Stagnancy: Neutral
'Bad Things': Bad
Goal Achieving and Collective Interaction, as irrelevant as anything is: Good.

Therefore, we choose good > nothing in terms of selfishness, love ( we love that person so they make our lives a lot better having them there, so we protect them) etc.

[Anonymous No.4558288]

>Sensation can be: Good, bad, or neutral
>Death/Stagnancy: Neutral
>'Bad Things': Bad
>Goal Achieving and Collective Interaction, as irrelevant as anything is: Good.
You're correct that death/stagnancy is neutral. But the evolution worshippers don't understand that evolution is the cause for all the bad things. That death and extinction aren't bad, they're neutral - it is the continued evolution itself that causes the bad to exist at all. How can one worship a cycle of misery and confuse it with meaning?

[Anonymous No.4558297]

The drive from "simplicity" to "complexity" is a natural process created by the universe itself.

Humans are just a part of this process. It's unsurprising that we have a tendency to make the Universe more and more complex as we go along. "Complexity" is our very essence, and "evolution" is just a biological term used to describe the drive from "simple" to "complex".

Your thoughts and views go against nature. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just telling you that's how it is.

[Anonymous No.4558366]

>>4558220

[Anonymous No.4558380]

>>4558297
except there is no reason why evolution can't go the other way, to a certain extent, if simpler things are more adapted.

it's more a random walk, which over time will produce complexity

[Anonymous No.4558400]

It is an intrinsically good thing for yourself to have offspring. People who understand they want to only pass on their genes are a step closer to understanding what we really are than people who try to lie to themselves by thinking that "children are special" or some other useless emotional illusion.

There is no great meaning to it, but that doesn't matter. We exist so we can continue existing.

/thread

[Anonymous No.4558413]

When it comes to evolution, there are basically three types of people:

1. True scientists. These individuals fully understand evolution and its implications. They recognize it simply as a scientific explanation for natural phenomena.
2. Creationists. Well, you know all about these. No point in re-hashing, really.
3. Semi-educated laymen. These people understand naïve Darwainism, but fail to recognize its limitations. The fundamental defining attribute of these individuals is a tendency toward the conclusion that evolution, or, more specifically, Darwainism, implies or embodies some or any type of “should.”

[Anonymous No.4558421]

>>4558400
>It is an intrinsically good thing for yourself to have offspring.
Wat. Having children is costly and annoying. Why do you think contraceptives sell in the billions?

[Anonymous No.4558429]

Same goes with political development.
I tried to understand why direct democracy would be a bad thing.
As in, letting the people reevaluate all laws and regulations that make up a state every generation.
If a majority of people were to choose to reevaluate one law, then the representatives would start examining it.

A reply I get is "But most laws are inherently good". Natural right bullshit.
I'm just asking why something should necessarily be good because it's old, as if there was a big building ground of "Progress" that should remain untouched.
A good example is the American Constitution.

With such a system, the laws and regulations would always be more adapted to the current society, whether that's a good thing or a bad isn't mine to decide.

[Anonymous No.4558435]

>>4558400

And here we have a perfect example of someone who fails to understand the difference between natural driving factors and “purpose.”

[Anonymous No.4558439]

>>4558413
Yes. It is stunning how wide-spread 3 is, including in popular culture. Think Star Trek or Mass Effect. Evolution worship is treated as axiomatic, which I find bizarre. I'm not sure it's a simple misunderstanding. I can relate to the impulse to search for meaning, but it is still stunning considering it's so clearly false from a scientific POV.

[Anonymous No.4558445]

>>4558429

>I tried to understand why direct democracy would be a bad thing

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
― Isaac Asimov

[Anonymous No.4558450]

>>4558445

This.

[Anonymous No.4558453]

>>4558429
Yes. Treating constitutions as holy texts is another example of misattributed meaning. However, the taboo of breaking them may have a game-theoretic function in terms of reliable social commitments that enable lawful cooperation. And of course, democracy is not an intrinsic good either; if you have a majority who votes irrationally, you're not necessarily better at accomplishing certain tasks than through elected representatives or expertise driven responsibility.

[Anonymous No.4558455]

>>4558445

>implying that the people as a whole (scientists, engineers, technicians, and the rest) is dumber than the current ruling class (career politicians)

[Anonymous No.4558460]

>>4558220
meaning is manufactured and not inherent in the world.

doesnt that suggest that spawning meaning manufacturers (humans, or close) is a net good?

>why is meaning good?
it isnt inherently good, its perceived to be good
>why is that good?
enjoy your infinite regress, friend. ima play with a puppy.

[Anonymous No.4558472]

>>4558455

>the people as a whole (scientists, engineers, technicians, and the rest)

Found your problem.

[Anonymous No.4558478]

>>4558453

>And of course, democracy is not an intrinsic good either; if you have a majority who votes irrationally, you're not necessarily better at accomplishing certain tasks than through elected representatives or expertise driven responsibility.

I agree. Democracy isn't intrinsically good, but that was just the question I was debating.
My problem was simply that democracy as we have it now is flawed, since it's the reign of those who have done their time over the livings and young.

That whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" concept only works for science, since we can actually do the way back from the bottom, with experiment-reproducibility, etc.

Just wanted to show another example of teleological of thought...

[Anonymous No.4558486]

>>4558478
*teleological thought

[Anonymous No.4558504]

>>4558453
>Treating constitutions as holy texts
its a stab at creating identity.
there isnt 1000s of years of history to draw on.
its all we got.

>democracy is not an intrinsic good either
but it provides a historical mapping between commonly
held positions and there outcomes.

>dictator says we do x (slavery, communism, statereligion)
>we do x
>x sucks
>people say x is ok, "they" did it wrong

you see this in the way communists refuse the accept the
failings of their system and rationalize it as
"they were never TRUE communists, just goons"

the democracy angle works becuase it forces people
to internalize choices and their consequences.

you got something better than democracy, imallears?

[Anonymous No.4558516]

>>4558478

>That whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" concept only works for science

I think I see where you’re going with this, and I mostly agree. You claim that modern human politics do not enjoy the same principle of irrevocable foundation as does science, but that’s because modern politics is not based upon a scientific construction of human interaction. If it were (and there is no guarantee that such a thing is even possible), then the firm foundation model would stand.

[Anonymous No.4558557]

>>4558516
I'm European and it sort of baffles me how conservatives the leftists of the past got.
Of course the social system was good for our society as long as it existed, but it doesn't mean that it should remain like that.
The social democracies seem to be asleep. No change can come because everyone is more or less content with the system, while the politics of the 20th century weren't afraid of change or even revolutions...

>you got something better than democracy, imallears?

I agree with that. I don't really want to make this a political thread, but I don't think direct democracy would necessarily hurt minorities, or whatever else one could claim about it.
The people who defend that system say that a ruling class of intellectuals has always done more "evil" than the "little people".
Godwin example: there were pogroms in the past, but they were nothing against the state-instituted persecutions in nazi-occupied Europe...

[Anonymous No.4558583]

>>4558504

>you see this in the way communists refuse the accept the failings of their system and rationalize it as "they were never TRUE communists, just goons"
>the democracy angle works becuase it forces people to internalize choices and their consequences.

Not him, but I have a bone to pick with you. First of all, you’re conflating two non-trivial spectra of political practice; communism is an economic school of thought, while democracy deals with the mechanism of government.

Second, you seem to wholly misunderstand communism itself (hence my first point). The Soviets et al. have flown the flag of communism over their respective causes, but that does not make their implementations indicative of the field as a whole. Their problem was mainly in the mechanism by which the system was to be brought into place (and this is a problem that I can’t say with any certainty will ever be overcome). But to use the phrase, “communists refuse the accept the failings of their system and rationalize it as ‘they were never TRUE communists, just goons’” belies your ignorance of what communism actually is.

Lastly, the problem with your second argument is that it makes assumptions that simply aren’t true. For one thing, democracy is largely voluntary. It does not force any decision upon any person so long as this is the case, as it is in America specifically. Additionally, you (to use the vernacular) misunderestimate the capacity of man to let others think for him, as you see with America’s parties and media. *That* is the issue with democracy: that it allows one to participate in governing the lives of others without the qualification that that person be both capable of acting and willing to act not only in his own best interest, but in that of his fellow citizen.

[Anonymous No.4558628]

>>4558583
Damn sorry for turning this into a discussion of politics.

>*That* is the issue with democracy: that it allows one to participate in governing the lives of others without the qualification that that person be both capable of acting and willing to act not only in his own best interest, but in that of his fellow citizen.

I think that one of the asset of democracy (or at least the modern conception of it) is that everyone will try their best to defend their own interest, and that this will somehow converge into a common interest, using feedback mechanisms to improve the system as time goes.

One of the axiom being that the weak will always outnumber the powerful, and that their number only will balance the interests.

The issue is with that "history" of the system, since the system changes all the time.
The people that make it keep changing.
The balance changes a little over time, but the actual people that make classes come and go.
So they submit themselves to rules they never had the choice to approve, turning the system into something as seemingly monolithic as the physical universe, on an individual's timescale.

[Anonymous No.4558637]

>>4558628

>everyone will try their best to defend their own interest

Everyone will try their best to defend *what they think* is their own interest. In a society where the ignorant constitute the majority, that subtle distinction makes all the difference in the world.

[Anonymous No.4558646]

lol @ ladder made of telos

srsly

[Anonymous No.4558699]

>>4558637
Yeah. Lack or control of information is one of the issue.

I'm not sure that makes a lot of difference, in the long run.
One of the issue of the current western political system is the lack of transparency of the political discourse: hiding the real issues from the people, saying "specialists will handle that" and using jargon to make it harder for individuals to intellectually handle the issues that affect them directly.

But I'm sure that if you ran brain scans on the people and asked them basic questions, 90% of the people would reply the same thing. After all, we all need to eat, find shelter, heat ourselves, be safe, etc.

It's because the intellectual/ruling class underestimates the people that there is such a shift.
I'm not saying everyone can understand science, technologies, economic systems, etc, but what I'm saying is that the political problems are purposefully made too complex in order to keep them away from the power of the people, making them believe that their apathy is a conscious choice.

Take communication on climate change for example. How hard is it to show to everyone how climate change will affect them personally?
Energy, food, immigration, international security...