Thread for geological time

[redbreegull]

scientists have known that life has no meaning since the 50s

[buzzard]

I always thought that was their way of taking a stab at pop art.

[vixnix]

Descartes was seriously considering the proposition in around 1637

The authors of Ecclesiastes was fairly certain in 450-180 BCE, according to Wikipedia.

It isn't really a new idea. Scientists haven't gathered anywhere near the amount of data they would need, to verify a claim like that. But it remains, in the face of all new evidence being gathered, the most easily supported working hypothesis

as far as I'm aware, anyway.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

scientists have known that life has no meaning since the 50s

wait. now I feel like this is a reference to something that I missed.

my sincere apologies

[FoolofaTook]

"ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat"

[teh b0lly!!1]

life's a fart, it stinks and then it's gone

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

In this situation, we might find that rationally speaking, the best thing for the species would be a eugenics program, basically. Does our evolutionary programming prompt us to embrace eugenics, though?

I need to digest your post and I understand what you were trying to say a lot better now. On this specific point, though -

If you accept the claim that individual human behavior is an attempt to maximize one's inclusive fitness (the proliferation of one's genes through genetic relatives), there are a lot of questions that arise as to how things like birth control and family planning - which definitely result in fewer babies - can do that. However, there are two ways to ensure proliferation of one's genes through having children: having a superfecundity of children (having more children than could possibly survive) and only needing a percentage of them to survive, or having fewer children but investing in them very heavily. Infant mortality through most of human existence has been extremely high, 50% or more certainly until the advent of agriculture and probably way later than that. So having a ton of children was the way to go, because you couldn't possibly expect all or most of your children to survive to have their own babies. That has changed, obviously, especially in first world countries.

So my point is that yes it might allow us to embrace eugenics at some level, because more children isn't necessarily better for one's inclusive fitness or species survival. But since this is extremely new to us as a species, it feels very taboo, because we've advanced so quickly with regards to mortality rates and age at death that we are facing these questions with brains that are still used to hunter-gatherer times where this wasn't an issue.

This is off topic to the original discussion but something I find interesting

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by reprise85

we are facing these questions with brains that are still used to hunter-gatherer times where this wasn't an issue.

Yes; exactly this.

[vixnix]

I don't reckon it's completely unrelated to the concept of Deep Time to consider that the brains we currently have are equipped for situations that we no longer live in, as a species, and we seem to be on many levels, flying blind...

[LaBelle]

Life may be meaningless but it's still better to have a meaningless good time than a meaningless bad time.

[teh b0lly!!1]

i haven't had time to properly read all your guys' discussion, only quickly went through it, so apologies in advance if this was already discussed more intelligently, but

i don't really see much point in philosophizing about the objective lack of meaning of life, because it is admittedly something we cannot truly fathom, and ultimately i think submerging yourself into that dark, nihilistic analysis too much has no real benefits (because there IS no explanation or answer), and all it does is deconstruct you, piece by piece.

this is why i completely agree with reprise's school of thought, of looking at it as a way to relieve pressure from yourself and not having to always strive for ruthless perfection as if any of this bullshit is too important. finding meaning means just trying to be content with the little you have, and i think as an attitude it is much more constructive and healthy towards oneself to bask in that instead of smashing your head against the metaphorical wall of having no answer to anything but knowing with almost complete certainty that you don't mean shit.

that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed ofc, or that vixnix doesn't make good points, because she does.

on another note, everybody having lots of babies is something i personally find offputting and disgusting, to be perfectly honest. yes i know it probably labels me some sort of a sociopath, but i honestly think if humanity was intelligent enough to severely limit birthrate it would absolutely benefit everything and everyone, and would be in most everybody's best interest: the human race, most animals species worldwide, the planet, natural resources, all that other stuff, you know. not that this is a hot take or anything, but yeah. it's something that bothers me quite a bit and the whole subject of how we're destroying the world is triggering to me, but whaddayagonnado.

re: this -

So my point is that yes it might allow us to embrace eugenics at some level, because more children isn't necessarily better for one's inclusive fitness or species survival. But since this is extremely new to us as a species, it feels very taboo, because we've advanced so quickly with regards to mortality rates and age at death that we are facing these questions with brains that are still used to hunter-gatherer times where this wasn't an issue.

it's not only that having more children (you know, the 2.5 kids and white fence thing) "isn't necessarily better", it's much worse, and many claim it causes severe degradation of the collective gene pool, because we are just too sympathetic to let anyone or anything die, thus almost completely eliminating any sort of natural selection, whether via artificial insemination, not letting old people die via various complex medical procedures, the list goes on forever.

[vixnix]

It leaves us in a strange place though, where the altruism that we're programmed with - designed to make us selfless in a small-group setting, to increase/facilitate trust, cooperation etc. (essential for survival)

is now the thing that holds us back from the eugenics program that could ensure the survival of the species.

Luckily, many psycho moms of Brock Turner (henceforth abbreviated to MOBT) are all too ready to snatch any kind of advantage for their own genetic offspring and let everyone else die.

So the species will live on. Just not with people like netphorians in it. Which is probably for the best eh because most nephorians are men and

MEN ARE TRASH!!!!!

[LaBelle]

Ridding the world of netphorians doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.

Take that to mean what you want.

[vixnix]

I take it to mean that you enjoy skinning otters and attaching their paws to the front of your shoes

[LaBelle]

I thought I made that perfectly clear with my posting history.

[vixnix]

Very bad person, here.

No soup for you. One year!

[LaBelle]

YES!! I hate soup

[MarquisInSpades]

wtf? who hates soup?

[LaBelle]

ME, a horrible human being

[vixnix]

she wears otter paws on her shoes and you didn't see that coming?

come on

this person is clearly a monster

[vixnix]

a monster of the very worst kind

[vixnix]

[LaBelle]

[LaBelle]

oh dang, the Hulk Hogan monster truck would also be quite at home in the men are trash!!! thread

[vixnix]

you blew it again, Labelle

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I don't reckon it's completely unrelated to the concept of Deep Time to consider that the brains we currently have are equipped for situations that we no longer live in, as a species, and we seem to be on many levels, flying blind...

this is one of the main pillars of evolutionary psychology, which isn't exactly mainstream yet but is getting there

the other being that evolution applies not just to our bodies and brain structures but the actual functional cognitive modules we have. so our cognitive abilities are here because they helped us solve specific problems the species had to deal with, either from predators or from each other. this would apply to everything - from cooperation to deception to morality to religion to intelligence to mental illness and on and on. all exist because they benefit the species in some way. of course you cannot prove any of this to be true but it is compelling and a lot of "big questions" in psychology can be answered when you come up with hypotheses of what problems certain cognitive functions solved.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

it's not only that having more children (you know, the 2.5 kids and white fence thing) "isn't necessarily better", it's much worse, and many claim it causes severe degradation of the collective gene pool, because we are just too sympathetic to let anyone or anything die, thus almost completely eliminating any sort of natural selection, whether via artificial insemination, not letting old people die via various complex medical procedures, the list goes on forever.

The reason Darwin (I guess) answers this problem is that natural selection does not happen on a species-level but on a very specific level of the survival of one's specific genes. So it might be better for the species in the long run to let certain people die, but we don't want our personal genes to die which leads us to fight for our own kin which leads to the societal view that every life is sacred and must be extended to be as long as possible.

[teh b0lly!!1]

give me the red button i will press it

many people would die

[FoolofaTook]

Those trucks are fuckin AWESOME.

I wish I had forearms like that. Instead I have these legs-of-the-gazelle things.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by reprise85

this is one of the main pillars of evolutionary psychology, which isn't exactly mainstream yet but is getting there

the other being that evolution applies not just to our bodies and brain structures but the actual functional cognitive modules we have. so our cognitive abilities are here because they helped us solve specific problems the species had to deal with, either from predators or from each other. this would apply to everything - from cooperation to deception to morality to religion to intelligence to mental illness and on and on. all exist because they benefit the species in some way. of course you cannot prove any of this to be true but it is compelling and a lot of "big questions" in psychology can be answered when you come up with hypotheses of what problems certain cognitive functions solved.

Yep. One of my former professors of philosophy wrote this book, which I didn't finish. But obviously a lot of the ideas from it ended up in our class that year. 2006, it would have been.



I remember writing an essay in an exam, heavily pregnant with my first son, that discussed Scott Atran's ideas with regard to human religion, too. I enjoyed his book



Both books seemed highly speculative to me, which is a criticism I hear gets levelled at evolutionary psychology quite a bit. So I read work like this with a grain of salt, but like anything, it's useful to have a working hypothesis and as far as that goes, these sorts of books raise interesting food for thought, eh.

I think the first book like this I read, was given to me by my then boyfriend as a birthday present in....it would have been 2003.



That was sort of depressing because it rendered art basically to be part of a mating strategy, or at least a sort of by-product of it.