Come on, you know that creatures who evolved the capacity for linguistic communication adapted to external forces with more than just greater and greater violence. We’re not whispering cobras. We’re creatures that demand community. The reason we even feel emotions like shame and love is to bond us together as a tribe for greater protection.
Nah, anti-natalism would be anti-progress. Evolution is a process that should continue to happen. Even Evolution is violence. Violence is necessary for life. It’s a core part of what allowed us to exist in the first place. It’s one of the fundamental forces of life. The problem is seeing violence as inherently bad. Or humans as inherently special.
Once you start viewing humanity the same way you’d view organisms in a Petri Dish, you’ll have gotten it. Higher order functionality is neat and all, but fundamentally not shattering to our basic goals. It doesn’t overwrite our core reason for being: To spread.
When talking about something like Game Theory, one of the most effective strategies follows only a few basic rules:
Cooperate with others.
If wronged, strike back.
Don’t hold a grudge.
So - as you can see - even the most effective, cooperative strategies, employ violence.
I see! Well, isn’t it also true that even the most effective violent strategies also employ cooperation? Why only highlight the violence - is it to serve a need or narrative?
Come on, you know that creatures who evolved the capacity for linguistic communication adapted to external forces with more than just greater and greater violence. We’re not whispering cobras. We’re creatures that demand community. The reason we even feel emotions like shame and love is to bond us together as a tribe for greater protection.
FTFY.
Damn, social structure only does violence? At this point I’m convinced you’re just moralizing your own traumas. Are we heading for anti-natalism?
Nah, anti-natalism would be anti-progress. Evolution is a process that should continue to happen. Even Evolution is violence. Violence is necessary for life. It’s a core part of what allowed us to exist in the first place. It’s one of the fundamental forces of life. The problem is seeing violence as inherently bad. Or humans as inherently special.
Once you start viewing humanity the same way you’d view organisms in a Petri Dish, you’ll have gotten it. Higher order functionality is neat and all, but fundamentally not shattering to our basic goals. It doesn’t overwrite our core reason for being: To spread.
When talking about something like Game Theory, one of the most effective strategies follows only a few basic rules:
So - as you can see - even the most effective, cooperative strategies, employ violence.
I see! Well, isn’t it also true that even the most effective violent strategies also employ cooperation? Why only highlight the violence - is it to serve a need or narrative?
Maybe…because that’s the focus of the original post…
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.