Why is something like a king “natural”?
It’s called the animal kingdom not the animal commune! Checkmate anarchists!
You sound like someone who doesn’t believe in divine right.
Because the king had the resources to pay to have those who said otherwise killed.
True conservatives will embrace the Amish lifestyle and get the fuck off the internet.
“True conservatives” aren’t people who don’t want change; that’s just a lie they tell to make their ideology seem less unhinged. True conservatives are, and always have been, people who crave hierarchy and autocratic rule.
In other words, “true conservatives” have absolutely no problems with change or new technology, as long as it’s used to enforce their privilege rather than elevate the people below them.
This. Its about preserving power structures and that’s it, they deserve power and others don’t, that’s what they believe. So many times you see people try to gotcha conservatives by pointing out how their ideology is inconsistent when in reality its very consistent just not in the way they advertise it as.
True conservatives would never be caught with the modern clothes and tools of the Amish. The real kool kids klub lives Buck naked in caves and huts made of broken sticks.
See also: single-family zoning. “Everybody wants” to live in detached houses, yet they need the law to prohibit property owners from building multifamily…
nimbys: nobody wants multifamily homes
home developers: i got a bunch of people who would pay me $ to build cheap multi family ho-
nimbys: I SAID n̶̨̊o̵͍͑b̴͚̾ǫ̸̍ḓ̷͌y̷͇͊ ̸͇͛w̸͖̓a̵͇̋n̸̘͠t̸͍͗s̸͚̒ ̸̠̕m̷̼͊ü̵̟l̴̜͛t̶̯͊i̷̭͠f̶͎͗ä̵̭́m̸̨̕i̵̫͊l̷͛ͅẙ̷̩ ̷͈̎h̷̘͂ơ̴̗m̴̱̊ȅ̵̙s̴̥̕I want to build multi family homes is very different than I want to live in multi families homes.
not really, wanting to build something means there’s a demand yknow?
I think it’s less about the demand FOR multifamily, and more just housing in general, and multifamily generally being lower cost then individual.
There is a demand for affordable housing
Yeah I mean it’s not that I contributed to demand for a Honda Civic, but I did contribute to the demand for an affordable car, which is why I didn’t buy a Lambo. Don’t you think it’s splitting hairs to say that there isn’t demand for Civics, but for cars cheaper than Lambos? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
what is lemmy but downvoting to heck every comment that doesn’t split the hair all the way to the root? 😖
Touché lol
yeah that’s… what im saying
But you’re kinda missing the point the other poster is making.
sigh
im not missing any point but i’ll edit my comment to clarify yalls misunderstanding.
Not entirely. Some people like the idea of things but when it comes to the crunch, they say “no, multifamily homes are not for me”.
Source: observing my wifes behaviour for the past 10 years
please 😭 i am speaking in the simple economic sense of supply and demand. i would adore to live in a sprawling european castle, but i don’t participate in demand for that housing situation because i can’t afford it.
plsplspls 🫠 with peace and love get over your need to pick a fight and stop trying to “uhm actually” me; i do in fact know what i am talking about here.
I want to live in multi-family housing.
I get the meme and your response, but you could easily flip this one on its side: “Everybody wants clean air to breathe, yet they need laws to prohibit pollution”
That’s an issue of externalities, which doesn’t really apply to my housing argument.
The NIMBYS would argue “the character of the neighborhood” would suffer. They’re fucking selfish assholes for it, but it’s an argument.
If anything, single-family has worse externalities than high density does. Single-family homes have to be subsidized because they don’t generate enough tax revenue per acre to pay for the amount of infrastructure they require. (Concrete example: if you have a single-family lot with 100’ of street frontage, that one family basically needs to pay enough taxes to maintain 100’ of road. But if you have a 10-plex on the same lot, each household only has to pay enough taxes to maintain 10’ of road.) Single-family is also inherently the least sustainable in terms of both HVAC costs (because every side of the habitable unit is exposed to the environment) and transportation costs (because low density minimizes walkability).
Yeah I think pretty much everyone either forgets or doesn’t know that the suburbs are subsidized by the city for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
Nature doesn’t give 2 shits about us. It’s about rules. The rules that enable them and disable us.
The hubris one must have to believe they alone have interpreted nature and understood it’s will and order.
Then, to enforce it.
I think of the same thing when people talk about “life isn’t fair” or “the world” generally or whatever. Like sure we don’t live in a just universe (whatever the fuck that’d look like) but it’s not life causing a lot of the problems that people respond to with these platitudes, it’s fucking people… And the people responsible are sometimes the same ones dropping the platitudes.
It’ll look kinda like a bunch of species that evolved thriving in cooperation rather than competition or something. I unno, I am no galactic citizen
I just posted a video about these aphorisms in !breadtube https://lemmy.world/post/13440713
Show me the culture that prohibits women from photosynthisizing or men from running faster than light
The “natural order” is limitted to communities of about
100150 individuals. It isn’t suitable to organize whole countries.Also, a groups banding together to collectively overthrow a stronger opponent is natural. There’s a rule of never getting between a mother and her baby with many animals for a reason, even though most of us could probably take that baby.
There’s personal benefit to dealing with those who abuse their powers (physical, social, or technological), even if those powers aren’t being directed at you.
genuinely curious where you find that 100 individuals number? or how that applies if you are willing to share :)
They might be talking about the Monkeysphere - More professionally known as Dunbar’s Number
Basically, there’s a finite number of people our brains evolved to be able to consider as part of ‘our group’, and once you go beyond that number you tend to run into issues ‘humanizing’ those people and seeing them as complex personalities.
interesting ill look at this thx
Exactly. I didn’t know that term but about all primitive communities consisted of about 100 to 150 individuals and trading with other communities. Kingdoms are something really new in evolutionary timespans, far newer than clothes, to which we already have slight adjustments in skin hair.
150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century
as well as notions of appropriate company size.
lol
Maybe Dunbar’s Number.
Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.
Humans are natural, so really anything we do is the natural order.
The right wing and hierarchy, like pb&j. They love rules and a king, not so much for them but, more for other people. They demand you be controlled.
Huh? The whole thing is that the natural order enforces itself, so if you don’t respect it you will suffer from that.
me suffering the consequences of life saving antibiotics: 😱😱😱😱 (the natural order is to die of a bacterial infection)
It is certainly hard to swallow as an individual, but consistently rejecting natural selection through technological intervention does eventually create significantly greater crisis. It’s a very difficult problem with modern medicine, where we can always keep more people alive, but the resources required to do so increase exponentially without limit. Death is ultimately one way that the natural world self regulates when any particular species outgrows it’s environment.
Counterpoint: everything humans do is just an extreme version of other behaviors in the animal kingdom, therefore nothing we do is unnatural. The “natural order” is just doing whatever and following the laws of physics.
Certainly, and the consequences of such are also a part of the natural order. Unless you want to argue that free will is a myth, you ought to seriously consider working towards making better decisions rather than complaining about how things are.
Wouldn’t a natural order imply a deterministic universe and thus no free-will?
That’s a very interesting subject to explore. If you want my personal opinion on it, free will is an artifact of our limited nature and the resulting inability to consciously perceive how everything fits together in the big picture. It may not necessarily be true, but we also have no other way to live than to assume we can make decisions about what is a good and a bad idea, such as deciding that jumping off a cliff is a very bad idea which will likely result in our death.
You’re confused. ‘Survival of the fittest’ doesn’t mean physical strength, it means those who fill their niche in the world and live to reproduce. A lion that kills a million deer but dies without reproducing is an evolutionary failure.
Our environmental niche is to invent and experiment. Back in the day, people thought that cities had reached their natural limit because you couldn’t have too many horses in one place. They thought people would never have heart transplants or IVF.
Correct.
And the “back in the day” you’re referring to was barely a hundred years ago, just to give people some reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894
And I also don’t think the earlier person realises that evolutionary pressures still apply despite medicine and tech removing some of things that limited us before.
That is to say that because we don’t need to worry about certain things which used to be important, the pool of people now “competing” is larger, meaning that competition between needed traits is higher, making for “more fit” individuals.
In the sense that we don’t need to worry about being physically strong anymore, so we can focus on cognition, and looking at history, the speed at which our intellect (or at least level of tech) has grown — as a species — is pretty fucking insane.
And we didn’t even get into the fact that we’re a few steps away from genetic manipulation on a wide scale.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/21/1239790816/first-pig-kidney-human-transplant
Pretty soon you will be able to grow an animal with transplantable kidneys, or hearts, or any organ.
we’re a few steps away from genetic manipulation on a wide scale
That actually happens to be within my specific area of study, and you may be overstating things. We’ve only just scratched the surface of genetic manipulation, and nobody really knows how long it will take before we can design effective genetic code deliberately. So far we have determined the nucleotides which build the basic structure of DNA, and found correlation between certain blocks and traits exhibited, but it’s not quite as simple as cutting and pasting those blocks like you’re writing computer code. We have also found further layers of ‘information storage’ within DNA which relates to how those nucleotides are arranged, called epigenetics, which we barely know anything about at all. As things stand with our current level of knowledge, we have established an extremely extensive testing regime for any novel genetic product which takes decades to complete, and which nearly every product tested so far has failed to complete, often due to unexpectedly resulting in sterility and death. It’s a very exciting science, and I have great hopes for what it can accomplish if we don’t kill ourselves first, but it’s a stretch to suggest that it’s just around the corner.
I didn’t mean that it was going to happen over night. But it only took them about 30 years to go from the Theory of Relativity to the A Bomb, and about 40 years to go from Goddard’s first rocket to Man on the Moon.
That’s not how evolution or natural selection works. Its a very difficult problem if you completely misunderstand it yea.
what 💀 “we can always keep more people alive” no we cant, people die all the time the fuk is u talking bout homie 😭 😭
You contradict yourself by saying that the natural order rules everything and humans have escaped it.
Besides, none of our technology has been around on a timescale meaningful to evolution. What your talking about is Social Darwinism.
If humans aren’t separate from nature, then anything humans create falls within “nature”. Humans aren’t the first species to create tools and create farms. Even art have been observed in other species.
As far a “paying attention to the nature order”, I do have my concerns, but it has more to do with putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we cause runaway climate change. Not showing basic empathy to other humans is a departure from the “natural order”.
The part of the brain that governs “Empathy” has been narrowed down to a region called “mirror neurons”. It causes us to see ourselves in people we’re observing. It’s also directly responsible for how we learn tool use. Monkey 1 sees Monkey 2 put stick into anthill to get food, so Monkey 1 also puts stick into anthill.
I think people are getting their wires crossed by bringing prior bias into this discussion here. While I do agree with what you have said here, my personal understanding of the argument for respecting the natural order comes from seeing people make decisions which will naturally lead to their own inability to survive/procreate, then getting mad at others for failing to respect those decisions.
Define “Natural Order”. It’s often used to justify being shitty to other people by Social Darwinists/Libertarians/Manosphere types. If you use that term without elaborating exactly what you mean, you’ll get slotted into one of those types because that’s exactly what they do.
I literally just did in the comment that you replied too.
No, you were being vague. Give examples of what you mean.
comes from seeing people
who?
make decisions
what did they decide to do?
which will naturally lead to their own inability to survive/procreate
how so? you seem to have a lot of experience seeing these admittedly horrific sounding situations play out. i think we all would benefit from hearing what is going on so that we can save ourselves from a similar scenario!
Ants build large, elaborate and engineered structures and shape their environment to suit their needs by moving large quantities of earth, therefore ants are unnatural for not following the rules of nature and actively working to give themselves an evolutionary edge.
What do you mean by natural order?
In the broadest sense possible, the laws of physics and the world that is formed as a result.
I’ll give you a little piece of advice, your argument is unconvincing without evidence.
Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And I’m seeing a lot of complaining about other people asking for evidence and not a lot of evidence actually being produced.
but have you considered that asking for evidence makes you a sea lion 😔😔😔
I have not considered it, perhaps I should have lol
fun fact one of the first sea lions was Socrates 😞😞 truly so saddening #badfaith
Huh, who would have thought that asking questions to get people to clarify their arguments and defend their positions and not to derail the conversation was sealioning? Ya learn something new every day!
name 1 example and defend your position
What? O.o
name one example of your thesis statement and defend it please
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’ve said here…
yeah im totally misunderstanding you hence why im asking you to explain :D
Natural order lead to the the human developing tools and the brains to question things. Oops.
The natural order is me smashing your skull in and taking your shit.
