Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[Senethro]

What is genetic about ideology?

Probably not a great deal. I mean, I'm sure there could be some weak correlation between putatively genetic influenced traits such as aggression/empathy and ideology. Whats your full question?

 

[Sommerswerd]

What is genetic about ideology?

To echo Senethro above, I'm not sure I understand your question. Either there is more to your question than what you said, or you misinterpreted my post.

EDIT: Thinking more about it and thus assuming the latter... I will add that by "superiority" I meant for example, that LeBron James is a superior basketball player, Michael Phelps is a superior swimmer... and so on... I wasn't making a veiled reference to white supremacist ideology.

 

[Ryika]

But I don't think evolution is solely dependent on "biological fitness" and unless you are arguing that it is, trying to limit the discussion of fitness to "biological fitness" seems to be missing the mark.

No, certainly not, but the discussion... evolved... from what was surely meant to be a remark about biological fitness, into something that is not. That's fine of course, but somewhere in-between there was clearly a misunderstanding of the word, as happens rather frequently in such discussions, so I thought it would be useful to point that out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Gotcha

 

[timtofly]

I was just pointing out, that the concept of fittest, seems to have evolved past the point it was originally intended, because human ingenuity has seemed to make the point mute. If it has not outright killed it, not withstanding the over emphasis of fitness.

 

[Ryika]

I was just pointing out, that the concept of fittest, seems to have evolved past the point it was originally intended, because human ingenuity has seemed to make the point mute. If it has not outright killed it, not withstanding the over emphasis of fitness.

But that's exactly the point, biological fitness still works exactly the same way it always worked. It's just that due to an abundance of resources, competition (for survival) is lower than ever before, and the main requirement to breed successful is being willing to be a baby machine.

That's still biological fitness, if this goes on, and people who are willing to reproduce in large numbers, then genetically we will become more disposed to breeding. Whether that actually turns into a great societal shift towards high amounts of baby-making is of course questionable, because in the end, societal norms and expectations have huge influence, too, but the genes of people who are more willing to breed will still spread, because independent from what society thinks or does not think about breeding, the natural urge to do so will make the individuals who have it more likely to breed above the average rate, assuming all groups underlie the same societal expectations (which they do, as society is not separated "by genes".

So yeah, the process works the same way it always has, it's just that it's weird to us that "mindlessly making babies" is being "rewarded" in the competition of which genes dominate our species. But that is again based on the flawed expectation that evolution "cares" about what values we as humans hold dear.

 

[Hygro]

I was just pointing out, that the concept of fittest, seems to have evolved past the point it was originally intended, because human ingenuity has seemed to make the point mute. If it has not outright killed it, not withstanding the over emphasis of fitness.

Fitness is in context of an environment. We changed the environment, so what is biological fitness changes with that.

 

[timtofly]

Fitness is in context of an environment. We changed the environment, so what is biological fitness changes with that.

Seeing as those who think they are the most fit, genocide offspring. On the otherhand, those who are indifferent to the whole concept, breed like rabbits. That is not a blanket statement, I am sure the lines are blurred in practice.

@Ryika
What do you mean willing to breed? There is hardly a choice in the biological aspect. Most people either cannot, or willfully choose not to have offspring one way or the other.

 

[Senethro]

Seeing as those who think they are the most fit, genocide offspring. On the otherhand, those who are indifferent to the whole concept, breed like rabbits. That is not a blanket statement, I am sure the lines are blurred in practice.

This statement is difficult to follow. Could you please state it very explicitly? Please especially be clear on who is conducting genocide on who as it is a sensitive subject.

 

[timtofly]

This statement is difficult to follow. Could you please state it very explicitly? Please especially be clear on who is conducting genocide on who as it is a sensitive subject.

There is nothing explicit to mention. It is a simple fact that the less population there is, the more affluent and manageable society will become. Those who do not think overpopulation is an issue will tend to go about the natural order of life.