I think I might be getting stalked

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:56 am

Because not too long ago humanity suffered a near-extinction event which wiped out what probably was something like 90% of all humans on this planet. We weren't very diverse then, we were very not diverse afterwards. All humans are descended from the surviving population. We're not as bad as cheetahs, but we're not exactly that far off either.

Even ignoring that, there is no reason to not attempt to assist any given human you meet because the likelihood of any given person having resistance to the next Black Death is essentially random, and the likelihood of them sharing your genetics or your relatives sharing their genetics (perhaps in the future) is high. While European genetics seem to be making off pretty well, due to having already undergone a program to attempt to kill off their weaker members through animal-human-jumping plagues, leaving most of the remainder fairly hardy, the next plague may have a different kind of criterion, and even in America you can seriously not differentiate someone's heritage based on their skin tone or facial features because everyone fucks everyone and there are black people who have a stronger white heritage than a KKK rally. And this post itself is already making a huge fuss over an exceedingly tiny quantity of genetic information, relative to the amount which say, makes you human, or even smart.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:13 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Just by participating in society you are propagating your genes. Your genes are interchangeable with everyone else's genes, it seriously doesn't fucking matter. Gay people contribute no less to the successful creation and preservation of subsequent generations than do straight people. Division of labor and all that.

Right, now I understand what you're banging on about. I thought you specifically meant to reproduce, and that everyone has this in-built goal.

In the long run, the only goals that actually matter are the goals that apply in the long run.

Tautology statement is logically taut.

The only biological imperative is to keep the species alive after you die

And my biology is fighting a losing war here, because I honestly don't give a toss what happens to the species after I die. I'd be happiest if someone would hurl a meteor into the planet and everyone could die simultaneously and more or less instantly, as there wouldn't even be any mourners afterwards.

Now you later mention that people have their own arbitrary goals that make no sense to other people or in the big picture, so I guess it's linked to that, but you really do underestimate the capacity of humans to say "Fuck survival of the species!"

Pursuit of pleasure leads logically to curling up in a senseless opium cloud

Finally someone says something I have no complaints or arguing with!

Perpetuating and improving society is "rational" because in the long run it is the only thing that makes any difference.

Even then it doesn't make a difference in the very long run. I put it to you that when the sun feels like collapsing or detonating, humanity will either die, or be long dead by that point. So nothing that anyone has ever done will matter. And we know it's going to happen eventually. So isn't that just another personal goal as arbitrary and pointless as the others?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:57 am

Why does kin selection work at all? What's so special about your brother or sister that makes them better than, say, the humans living on the other side of the coast? Is it a percentage where it kicks in?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Why does kin selection work at all? What's so special about your brother or sister that makes them better than, say, the humans living on the other side of the coast? Is it a percentage where it kicks in?

Kin selection doesn't just mean your brothers and sisters, it means helping creatures with your genes reproduce as a means of getting your own genes represented in the next generation. It's an enormously successful strategy that dates back roughly to the invention of "males." Some species, such as insects and humans, are more extreme about it than others, but it's a pretty common trope all around because it is so very successful.

As to your specific siblings, I leave you with the following sobering concept: go find a squirrel nest and grab two of the baby squirrels. Holding two sister squirrels in your hand, you have more genetic variation than between you and a random person of the opposite sex in Ghana.

-Username17

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:08 am

FrankTrollman wrote:As to your specific siblings, I leave you with the following sobering concept: go find a squirrel nest and grab two of the baby squirrels. Holding two sister squirrels in your hand, you have more genetic variation than between you and a random person of the opposite sex in Ghana.

-Username17

Thanks. That's an explanation I can understand.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:21 am

I can't remember where I read that before, maybe I heard it in Bio class, but it's crazy how similar all humans are. (Sidenote: which makes racism even more retarded, but let's face it: we all know that)

For completely broken genetic diversity, check out apples. Seriously, plant an apple seed and the growing tree might have nothing in common with the parent, instead sprouting purple apples (they exist) or ones that taste of sherbet (they also exist).

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:22 am

Frank wrote: Kin selection doesn't just mean your brothers and sisters, it means helping creatures with your genes reproduce as a means of getting your own genes represented in the next generation. It's an enormously successful strategy that dates back roughly to the invention of "males." Some species, such as insects and humans, are more extreme about it than others, but it's a pretty common trope all around because it is so very successful.

But where's the lower limit for when kin selections stop kicking in?

Also, wouldn't it be 'better' to ensure the survival of someone with %99.999 percent of your genetic information than 99.995%? Even if it's a small difference, it's still a difference.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:31 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
But where's the lower limit for when kin selections stop kicking in?

Also, wouldn't it be 'better' to ensure the survival of someone with %99.999 percent of your genetic information than 99.995%? Even if it's a small difference, it's still a difference.

It would be better still to ensure the survival of two people who had 51% of your genetics. And you can actually do that kind of math until you ensure the survival of substantially more of your genes than you would be capable of giving birth to.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:55 am

How many people do you need to have before people can have a stable, reproducing generation though? Obviously if there are only about 10 people left odds look slim, but as far as having a stable human population goes 4 billion isn't that much better than 3 billion.

Once you figure that out you could just eliminate people who have too much of a gene difference from you; as your population grows in the future yo then wheedle off people from your society who differ too much from the continually-adjusting floating point.

Of course this approach would involve a lot of incest. You know, to minimize gene flow. Pity your smug eugenic bastard offspring, but those little nazis probably deserve it.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:52 pm

I just read Lago's signature.

And Frank makes some good points, but I still feel comfortable in my assertion that I don't want to be with someone that demands my time constantly but won't give me any of hers. I've spent my entire life not getting any, it doesn't bother me one bit.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:42 pm

I know I'll regret asking this, Lago, but what is your sig quoting/referencing/whatever?

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:32 pm

Koumei wrote:I know I'll regret asking this, Lago, but what is your sig quoting/referencing/whatever?

It looks like Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment record.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:There is no good for the bee that is bad for the hive.

Selfishness is a fucking joke.

-Username17

Sugar Water. Insect Traps.

-Crissa

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:06 pm

IGTN wrote:
Koumei wrote:I know I'll regret asking this, Lago, but what is your sig quoting/referencing/whatever?
It looks like Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment record.

Yes. For some reason Bill O'Reilly has trouble telling the difference between a loofah and falafel.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:02 am

Crissa wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:There is no good for the bee that is bad for the hive.

Selfishness is a fucking joke.

-Username17
Sugar Water. Insect Traps.

-Crissa

I realize that poking holes in aphorisms like the one Frank pulled out is fun, but if your attempt was to point out something that was "good" for the bee but "bad" for the hive, this is like claiming that crack cocaine and drano-laced ecstacy are good for you. You're going to have to bring out sturdier weapons than "people sometimes make stupid long-term decisions" in order to defeat Utilitarianism.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:06 am

TavishArtair wrote:I realize that poking holes in aphorisms like the one Frank pulled out is fun, but if your attempt was to point out something that was "good" for the bee but "bad" for the hive, this is like claiming that crack cocaine and drano-laced ecstacy are good for you. You're going to have to bring out sturdier weapons than "people sometimes make stupid long-term decisions" in order to defeat Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is different from what Frank said. Utilitarianism says X is good and Y is bad based on overall pleasure.

Frank said "It is impossible for there to be an action ever that is good for one person, but bad for the collective."

The reason he said this is because he thinks that everyone single human being measures what is good for them based on what is good for the collective, making it basically a tautology, and a wrong one, but yeah. That's not even close to utilitarianism.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:55 am

Utilitarianism does not define the greatest good in terms of pleasure. Utilitarianism does not define "the good" at all. Individual Utilitarian constructs have a definition of "good" but the primary strength of Utilitarianism is that it is a tautology. Things being "more good" (however you go about defining that) is "more good."

And yeah, lots of people want things that are bad for them because they at least on some level do not understand what is good for them.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:02 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:And yeah, lots of people want things that are bad for them because they at least on some level do not understand what is good for them.

Oh Frank.

People are goal driven. They advance their goals to the limit of their abilities to the limit of their understanding at any given moment. Goals may or may not include pleasure, comfort, or even survival. Some do, some don't. Ranting about how people are crazy for not following their self interest (presumably as defined by you) is really just sour grapes over not understanding the goals of other people. The flaw is with you, not with them.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:28 pm

Kaelik wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:And yeah, lots of people want things that are bad for them because they at least on some level do not understand what is good for them.
Oh Frank.

People are goal driven. They advance their goals to the limit of their abilities to the limit of their understanding at any given moment. Goals may or may not include pleasure, comfort, or even survival. Some do, some don't. Ranting about how people are crazy for not following their self interest (presumably as defined by you) is really just sour grapes over not understanding the goals of other people. The flaw is with you, not with them.

Bolding mine.
I fail to see how those statements are inconsistent with each other.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:33 pm

Quantumboost wrote:Bolding mine.
I fail to see how those statements are inconsistent with each other.

The part where he decides what's good for people, and so gets to make decisions about who wants bad things.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:02 am

Actually, a lot of people make poor decisions in terms of supporting their long-term goals, indeed some people, in attempting to advance their goals, actually work against them. These people arguably do not understand what is good for them if they are working to disrupt their own goals.

If you think these people don't exist, I've got a bridge to sell you.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:04 am

FrankTrollman wrote: In the long run, the only goals that actually matter are the goals that apply in the long run. The only biological imperative is to keep the species alive after you die, and that is a goal which by definition can be accomplished without your personal survival. That's the only goal that can be considered "rational." Pursuit of pleasure leads logically to curling up in a senseless opium cloud, pursuit of wealth is entirely artificial and arbitrary, and so on. Perpetuating and improving society is "rational" because in the long run it is the only thing that makes any difference.

Why?

Any goal is ultimately arbitrary because you're going to die, and after that everything is irrelevant. I figure you might as well devote yourself to something that you enjoy. Species survival is as arbitrary as gaining wealth. Because in the end, it doesn't matter if humanity survives. I mean seriously... when I'm dead, I'm dead. Reality might as well end when that happens.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:13 pm

I reject any philosophy that would render my life irrelevant. Mostly because regardless of what any philosophy says, my life is highly relevant to myself.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:02 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:when I'm dead, I'm dead. Reality might as well end when that happens.

Yet still people find things worth dying for. So that philosophy certainly doesn't apply all over the place.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:02 pm

clikml wrote:
RandomCasualty2 wrote:when I'm dead, I'm dead. Reality might as well end when that happens.
Yet still people find things worth dying for. So that philosophy certainly doesn't apply all over the place.

Except he's objecting to Franks categorical statement that future progeny is the only rational goal.

There is nothing about caring for other people who are not you being alive in a million years that is more rational than caring about making the best ice cream sundae.