Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Why does modern society go against evolution?

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 5:56:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Wat?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:10:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Because even if most of this were true, which I'm not even going to bother addressing, we aren't beholden to evolution or nature.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:10:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Because even if most of this were true, which I'm not even going to bother addressing, we aren't beholden to evolution or nature.

I'm not saying we should be thankful for it, but rather, why have humans become capable to do things that are against the furthering of our species on a basic level? Why would evolution create something that can act against itself?

Plus, how isn't this true, if not at least mostly?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:56:58 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Wat?

What are you confused about?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:35:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:56:58 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Wat?

What are you confused about?

What are you actually asking? Why people don't live, huddled together in caves, murder homosexuals on principle and beat their wives with clubs anymore?

Is this a troll thread?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 6:44:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:37:33 PM, anomalous wrote:

What are you actually asking? Why people don't live, huddled together in caves, murder homosexuals on principle and beat their wives with clubs anymore?

Is this a troll thread?

No, where are you getting that from?

Look into evolutionary psychology, and human ethology. You will find that there is evolutionary purpose to being afraid of the dark and of being alone, homosexuality makes little sense on a survival/reproduction level, women do in fact invest much time in their children, and some people do hate kids, which again, is against the concept of survival/reproduction.

So why is this? Why has modern man/society seem to go against that which the basic idea of life (survival and reproduction) is founded on?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:04:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 6:44:02 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:37:33 PM, anomalous wrote:

What are you actually asking? Why people don't live, huddled together in caves, murder homosexuals on principle and beat their wives with clubs anymore?

Is this a troll thread?

No, where are you getting that from?

Look into evolutionary psychology, and human ethology. You will find that there is evolutionary purpose to being afraid of the dark and of being alone, homosexuality makes little sense on a survival/reproduction level, women do in fact invest much time in their children, and some people do hate kids, which again, is against the concept of survival/reproduction.

So why is this? Why has modern man/society seem to go against that which the basic idea of life (survival and reproduction) is founded on?

Once upon a time, a bunch of humans discovered that if they stayed in one place, breeding livestock and growing seasonal grains and other vegetation they would have a certain source of food outside the largely random hunting and gathering we had thus far been relying on and thus farming was born. Farming was hard work, so we needed to increase our numbers. Since men are generally more physically suited to manual labour (with the testosterone) and woman to raising children (with the boobs), everyone acted out their roles. Trading flourished as people who were better at breeding sheep swapped with people who were better at growing bananas.
Eventually, settlements grew to tens of thousands of people and certain people rose above others as leaders were needed to organise things. Unfortunately, people suck and these leaders were often brutal and corrupt. And so on and so forth, civilisations rose and fell. The concept of money was created by some genius/jerk and became the corner stone of trade. As numbers grew and technology advanced, the roles people played in society became more and more specific.
Now, thanks to the way history played out a large majority of the world lives in a system where they don't need to worry about where their food is coming from, only where they will get the money to buy it from a supermarket.
This system was so efficient that woman no longer need to focus on popping out children to work on the farm; there are a superfluous number of people on the Earth already. This is why some woman are able to choose not to have children. This system also led to the formation of cities, with little boxes for everyone to live in. While it broke the communal nature of civilizations of the past, it allowed people to feel safer, protected as they were from nature and other people by locks and alarms. This is why we can leave children asleep in dark rooms alone; we don't have to worry about a lion dragging them off in the night. As for homosexuality, well, the system has allowed great minds to reflect on the nature of human equality. Most people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon whereby people are attracted to the same sex.

TL;DR: Things dun changed.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:04:40 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:44:02 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:37:33 PM, anomalous wrote:

What are you actually asking? Why people don't live, huddled together in caves, murder homosexuals on principle and beat their wives with clubs anymore?

Is this a troll thread?

No, where are you getting that from?

Look into evolutionary psychology, and human ethology. You will find that there is evolutionary purpose to being afraid of the dark and of being alone, homosexuality makes little sense on a survival/reproduction level, women do in fact invest much time in their children, and some people do hate kids, which again, is against the concept of survival/reproduction.

So why is this? Why has modern man/society seem to go against that which the basic idea of life (survival and reproduction) is founded on?

Once upon a time, a bunch of humans discovered that if they stayed in one place, breeding livestock and growing seasonal grains and other vegetation they would have a certain source of food outside the largely random hunting and gathering we had thus far been relying on and thus farming was born. Farming was hard work, so we needed to increase our numbers. Since men are generally more physically suited to manual labour (with the testosterone) and woman to raising children (with the boobs), everyone acted out their roles. Trading flourished as people who were better at breeding sheep swapped with people who were better at growing bananas.
Eventually, settlements grew to tens of thousands of people and certain people rose above others as leaders were needed to organise things. Unfortunately, people suck and these leaders were often brutal and corrupt. And so on and so forth, civilisations rose and fell. The concept of money was created by some genius/jerk and became the corner stone of trade. As numbers grew and technology advanced, the roles people played in society became more and more specific.
Now, thanks to the way history played out a large majority of the world lives in a system where they don't need to worry about where their food is coming from, only where they will get the money to buy it from a supermarket.
This system was so efficient that woman no longer need to focus on popping out children to work on the farm; there are a superfluous number of people on the Earth already. This is why some woman are able to choose not to have children. This system also led to the formation of cities, with little boxes for everyone to live in. While it broke the communal nature of civilizations of the past, it allowed people to feel safer, protected as they were from nature and other people by locks and alarms. This is why we can leave children asleep in dark rooms alone; we don't have to worry about a lion dragging them off in the night. As for homosexuality, well, the system has allowed great minds to reflect on the nature of human equality. Most people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon whereby people are attracted to the same sex.

TL;DR: Things dun changed.

True, true, that does make sense.

Still, it doesn't explain why some people hate kids, and why we leave our children alone, and in the dark, knowing that children don't like either.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:11:14 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:04:40 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:44:02 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/15/2013 6:37:33 PM, anomalous wrote:

What are you actually asking? Why people don't live, huddled together in caves, murder homosexuals on principle and beat their wives with clubs anymore?

Is this a troll thread?

No, where are you getting that from?

Look into evolutionary psychology, and human ethology. You will find that there is evolutionary purpose to being afraid of the dark and of being alone, homosexuality makes little sense on a survival/reproduction level, women do in fact invest much time in their children, and some people do hate kids, which again, is against the concept of survival/reproduction.

So why is this? Why has modern man/society seem to go against that which the basic idea of life (survival and reproduction) is founded on?

Once upon a time, a bunch of humans discovered that if they stayed in one place, breeding livestock and growing seasonal grains and other vegetation they would have a certain source of food outside the largely random hunting and gathering we had thus far been relying on and thus farming was born. Farming was hard work, so we needed to increase our numbers. Since men are generally more physically suited to manual labour (with the testosterone) and woman to raising children (with the boobs), everyone acted out their roles. Trading flourished as people who were better at breeding sheep swapped with people who were better at growing bananas.
Eventually, settlements grew to tens of thousands of people and certain people rose above others as leaders were needed to organise things. Unfortunately, people suck and these leaders were often brutal and corrupt. And so on and so forth, civilisations rose and fell. The concept of money was created by some genius/jerk and became the corner stone of trade. As numbers grew and technology advanced, the roles people played in society became more and more specific.
Now, thanks to the way history played out a large majority of the world lives in a system where they don't need to worry about where their food is coming from, only where they will get the money to buy it from a supermarket.
This system was so efficient that woman no longer need to focus on popping out children to work on the farm; there are a superfluous number of people on the Earth already. This is why some woman are able to choose not to have children. This system also led to the formation of cities, with little boxes for everyone to live in. While it broke the communal nature of civilizations of the past, it allowed people to feel safer, protected as they were from nature and other people by locks and alarms. This is why we can leave children asleep in dark rooms alone; we don't have to worry about a lion dragging them off in the night. As for homosexuality, well, the system has allowed great minds to reflect on the nature of human equality. Most people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon whereby people are attracted to the same sex.

TL;DR: Things dun changed.

True, true, that does make sense.

Still, it doesn't explain why some people hate kids, and why we leave our children alone, and in the dark, knowing that children don't like either.

Fear of the dark in an absence of an abundance of natural predators is irrational and, as such, no longer has the benefit it once had (hence, "things dun changed"). I'm sure "hating kids" is by no means a recent phenomenon--further, if we're talking about just the "not having kids", that isn't a preference that is new, either, it's simply one which can actually be reasonably achieved these days while still having sex, as opposed to before the advent of birth control methods.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 8:06:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:11:14 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Still, it doesn't explain why some people hate kids, and why we leave our children alone, and in the dark, knowing that children don't like either.

As far as why some people..., that's like asking why some people are retarded; some people doesn't require an explanation, as even a species facing selective pressures can handle an infrequently occurring trait. As for frequently occurring traits like making children sleep alone in the dark, sure it's probably bad, but bad enough to kill or sterilize the child? No, so what difference does it make to evolution? Call it memetic drift.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 9:24:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Evolutionary accounts do not carry normative weight. The error of interpreting these descriptive accounts as containing prescriptive protocols is what produces non sequitur ideologies like social Darwinism.

Neither is it sensible to interpret these accounts as teleological statements (e.g. on intended evolutionary "purpose"). Nominally maladaptive behaviors do not run contrary to any "purpose" of evolution. This would then seem to answer the question of how people are able to, say, hate children: because the evolutionary process isn't "trying" to make people love children. "Children-haters" (or whatever) aren't like manufacturer's defects that somehow made it past quality control inspection; they're more like blocks of Antarctic ice that won't re-enter the water cycle.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Once upon a time, a bunch of humans discovered that if they stayed in one place, breeding livestock and growing seasonal grains and other vegetation they would have a certain source of food outside the largely random hunting and gathering we had thus far been relying on and thus farming was born. Farming was hard work, so we needed to increase our numbers. Since men are generally more physically suited to manual labour (with the testosterone) and woman to raising children (with the boobs), everyone acted out their roles. Trading flourished as people who were better at breeding sheep swapped with people who were better at growing bananas.
Eventually, settlements grew to tens of thousands of people and certain people rose above others as leaders were needed to organise things. Unfortunately, people suck and these leaders were often brutal and corrupt. And so on and so forth, civilisations rose and fell. The concept of money was created by some genius/jerk and became the corner stone of trade. As numbers grew and technology advanced, the roles people played in society became more and more specific.
Now, thanks to the way history played out a large majority of the world lives in a system where they don't need to worry about where their food is coming from, only where they will get the money to buy it from a supermarket.
This system was so efficient that woman no longer need to focus on popping out children to work on the farm; there are a superfluous number of people on the Earth already. This is why some woman are able to choose not to have children. This system also led to the formation of cities, with little boxes for everyone to live in. While it broke the communal nature of civilizations of the past, it allowed people to feel safer, protected as they were from nature and other people by locks and alarms. This is why we can leave children asleep in dark rooms alone; we don't have to worry about a lion dragging them off in the night. As for homosexuality, well, the system has allowed great minds to reflect on the nature of human equality. Most people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon whereby people are attracted to the same sex.

TL;DR: Things dun changed.

I cannot believe I wasted an entire year in world history. You covered it all in less than a thousand words.
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 10:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 10:34:44 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I cannot believe I wasted an entire year in world history. You covered it all in less than a thousand words.

Even if you're being sarcastic, thanks. :)
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 5:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
The better term is "natural instinct", but that wouldn't fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- We are naturally afraid of the dark and of being alone, because our ancient predators were nocturnal, but we leave our children in a dark room alone at night.

I've never understood this one either. I can't sleep unless my baby is snuggled up with me. Most parents, however, want alone time so they can have sex, etc, and so make their kid sleep in a separate room.

- Homosexuality does nothing to further reproduction (unless they decide to mate), but society is generally considering them okay.

Homosexual relations have always been a thing, even among other primates. So have oral and anal sex. None of these lead to reproduction, they're just fun for those who engage in them. Homosexuals have previously conformed to societal requirements to marry and have children, but those rules don't exist anymore.

- Women have long been the lower gender, due to their inability to protect themselves, but they are to be looked upon as equals today.

They have seldom been the "lower gender", but usually the "weaker gender". Physical differences aside, there is no real inequality in either gender's abilities, so modern society doesn't discriminate.

- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

Nuclear families have been the norm since the Stone Age. People who consider them sexist are typically morons looking for trouble.

- The main purpose of life (biologically speaking) is reproduction, however some people abhor children.

It's a continuum. You have some people who really love children, some who hate them, and most fall in the middle somewhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is all of this the way it is? (I'm sure I could think of more given enough time)

Changing social norms, mostly.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 7:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 5:25:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

Nuclear families have been the norm since the Stone Age. People who consider them sexist are typically morons looking for trouble.

Be careful not to repeat the OP's conflation of a single, female primary caregiver with the nuclear family. The mother being the primary caregiver has been the norm since long before the stone age, since the evolution of lactation in fact. But the nuclear family, which is to say the secondary caregiver being the (presumptive) father (as opposed to maternal aunts or uncles or grandparents or communities), didn't develop until very recently.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It does and it doesn't. "Novelty" is a characteristic of human nature, evolutionary in roots, yet counter-instinctual. Human nature, itself, is a sort of "short-circuit" in instinct. Instinct--emotional impulse--is adapted as a way of dealing with evolutionarily predictable situations in an effective way. However, even over billions of years of evolution, not everything is predictable. Novelty, the ability to defy instinct--a trait highly defined in homo-sapiens-- is developed as a way of accounting for this and developing creative solutions without the need for instinct, sometimes even defying it.

The progression of human culture can be recognized as a progression of this trait in human-nature. We are continually becoming more creative, less instinctual, more novel, more strange. This is due, not only in the still-continuing fallout of the singularity caused by the invention of language, but also advancement in health, which also results in the advancement in intelligence, and thus novelty. We will see more Atheists, more vegetarians, more feminists, more abstract art, more social liberalism, more transnationalism, transculturalism, transgenderism, transeverythingism. All things peculiar to our traditions and our impulses.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:20:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 7:21:52 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 10/16/2013 5:25:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 5:11:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
- Women generally invest more and more time with their children as time passes, however the concept of a "nuclear family" is considered sexist.

Nuclear families have been the norm since the Stone Age. People who consider them sexist are typically morons looking for trouble.

Be careful not to repeat the OP's conflation of a single, female primary caregiver with the nuclear family. The mother being the primary caregiver has been the norm since long before the stone age, since the evolution of lactation in fact. But the nuclear family, which is to say the secondary caregiver being the (presumptive) father (as opposed to maternal aunts or uncles or grandparents or communities), didn't develop until very recently.

Actually, that's a misconception. Nuclear families (mom, dad, and 2.5 kids) have been the norm for hundreds of thousands of years. The difference nowadays is that the nuclear sub-units within extended families are no longer dependent on each other for survival, allowing the extended family to spread out. This makes the nuclear families more prominent.