Oh man but there's so much to unpack here with how much it doesn't apply. We used to have second-order desires not just individually, but as a species...
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
1014 points (97.9% liked)
196
5134 readers
349 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
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
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.
Right. Humanity is still evolving. But "fitness", in the long term, will likely just mean "doesn't like to wear a condom and is really convincing about it"
could mean rape, top sperm doner, or polygamist. it has nothing to do with democracy or capitalism for that matter.
"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.
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.
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.
Well said
load more comments
(12 replies)
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.
The fittest psychological profile for the late-capitalist environment is a psychopath who is very good at imitating empathy. Change the environment XP
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.
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"
Prick a Libertarian and a neoliberal bleeds.
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.
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.
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.
It is quite odd how many people say evolution is a liberal hoax yet are full throated social darwinists.
That's because capitalism was created by God to ~~reward the faithful~~ punish the wicked. /s
Well, I guess it'll be funny when all the lower classes die off and the rich have to eat eachother to survive.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Poverty is caused by a lack of money, and money isn’t real. Well, not really real.
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.
They’re only as real as anything inside a mind. Which is to say not very real.
There's people who say this? That's dumb, there are many 'fit' people who were born in a poor family, and there are 'unfit' people ahem Elon born wealthy. I've heard of the "Darwin award" for people who die by doing dumb shit but this is new to me.
[Family Guy skin color chart meme]
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›