4 ms·

> pinnacle of nature's great evolutionary process > bunch of bastards to most life on Earth seem almost synonymous, unfortunately.

titzer 8y ago
> seem almost synonymous, unfortunately. This is what I disagree with. Evolution is not a process that is maximizing anything. What survives just survives. We got stuck in a feedback loop that optimized brain size for evolutionary fitness, but we're stuck in a tiny fractal corner of a corner of a corner of the entire space of biological life. E.g. Tardigrades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade) are extremely successful at survival in a huge variety of conditions, and very stable over millions of years without a lot of genetic drift. Similar for cockroaches. We don't consider these "pinnacles" of evolution just because of our arbitrary value system. Yet cockroaches (and all insects, really) serve extremely important jobs in ecosystems which would collapse without them. Humanism is blind and immoral, IMO.
- tome 8y ago
  > Humanism is blind and immoral That's a judgement that a human can make only because our species reached the pinnacle of evolution.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    I assume by "pinnacle of evulution" you mean the currently most successful species in terrestrial ecosystem on the planet Earth. Surely there is no "pinnacle" to all of evolution, whatever that would even mean. You seem to be implying that evolution is a process with some ideal, perfect outcome that can be achieved, or you're just being sarcastic. I can't tell but both are silly.
    - tome 8y ago
      I didn't introduce the word "pinnacle" to this debate, titzer did. I just thought it was ironic that he/she was using his/her moral judgement to criticize the human species in such a way.
      - titzer 8y ago
        I introduced it as a strawman, just trying to be terse. You embraced it to say that we must be at some kind of pinnacle to be able to make moral judgments. I started by pointing out facts; despite the perjorative term "bastards", it's pretty undeniable that humans have pretty much decimated every other form of life that is either a competitor or not a domesticated food source. As for "blind", that's not a moral judgment, whereas "immoral" clearly is. I admitted that both are my opinion, not fact.
        airstrike 8y ago
        Of all the species mentioned in this thread, only one can sit in front of a computer and type out their opinions about evolution. So, yeah, we're the pinnacle of evolution at least as far as Earth is concerned.
        nkrisc 8y ago
        That's a very anthropocentric metric to use, it's no surprise we're the best at it. Whales are the largest animals alive today, so perhaps they're the pinnacle of evolution. Implying there's a "pinnacle" of evolution implies evolution has a goal or intended outcome, which it does not.
        airstrike 8y ago
        We could kill any animal on Earth effortlessly. We’re the fittest. From an evolutionary standpoint I’d say we won. I’m not saying we’re better, but arguing that humans aren’t the most advanced species really serves no purpose other than pedantically pointing out “many other ways” in which we can define pinnacle. You know what the parent meant.
        nkrisc 8y ago
        My point, and I'm not just being pedantic, is that there is nothing to win. Humans are the most advanced species? By which metric? Intelligence? Perhaps. Strength? No. Sheer numbers? No. Impact on the environment? Arguably (plants, though not a single species, would probably win that). You might as well say we're the most advanced species because we're the only one that cares enough to give ourselves a trophy for it. Evolution is not a game to be won nor a process with an end or a goal. We weren't here before, we're here now, and we likely won't be here forever. We're ephemeral.

titzer 8y ago

> seem almost synonymous, unfortunately. This is what I disagree with. Evolution is not a process that is maximizing anything. What survives just survives. We got stuck in a feedback loop that optimized brain size for evolutionary fitness, but we're stuck in a tiny fractal corner of a corner of a corner of the entire space of biological life. E.g. Tardigrades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade) are extremely successful at survival in a huge variety of conditions, and very stable over millions of years without a lot of genetic drift. Similar for cockroaches. We don't consider these "pinnacles" of evolution just because of our arbitrary value system. Yet cockroaches (and all insects, really) serve extremely important jobs in ecosystems which would collapse without them. Humanism is blind and immoral, IMO.

tome 8y ago
> Humanism is blind and immoral That's a judgement that a human can make only because our species reached the pinnacle of evolution.
- nkrisc 8y ago
  I assume by "pinnacle of evulution" you mean the currently most successful species in terrestrial ecosystem on the planet Earth. Surely there is no "pinnacle" to all of evolution, whatever that would even mean. You seem to be implying that evolution is a process with some ideal, perfect outcome that can be achieved, or you're just being sarcastic. I can't tell but both are silly.
  - tome 8y ago
    I didn't introduce the word "pinnacle" to this debate, titzer did. I just thought it was ironic that he/she was using his/her moral judgement to criticize the human species in such a way.
    - titzer 8y ago
      I introduced it as a strawman, just trying to be terse. You embraced it to say that we must be at some kind of pinnacle to be able to make moral judgments. I started by pointing out facts; despite the perjorative term "bastards", it's pretty undeniable that humans have pretty much decimated every other form of life that is either a competitor or not a domesticated food source. As for "blind", that's not a moral judgment, whereas "immoral" clearly is. I admitted that both are my opinion, not fact.
      - airstrike 8y ago
        Of all the species mentioned in this thread, only one can sit in front of a computer and type out their opinions about evolution. So, yeah, we're the pinnacle of evolution at least as far as Earth is concerned.
        nkrisc 8y ago
        That's a very anthropocentric metric to use, it's no surprise we're the best at it. Whales are the largest animals alive today, so perhaps they're the pinnacle of evolution. Implying there's a "pinnacle" of evolution implies evolution has a goal or intended outcome, which it does not.
        airstrike 8y ago
        We could kill any animal on Earth effortlessly. We’re the fittest. From an evolutionary standpoint I’d say we won. I’m not saying we’re better, but arguing that humans aren’t the most advanced species really serves no purpose other than pedantically pointing out “many other ways” in which we can define pinnacle. You know what the parent meant.
        nkrisc 8y ago
        My point, and I'm not just being pedantic, is that there is nothing to win. Humans are the most advanced species? By which metric? Intelligence? Perhaps. Strength? No. Sheer numbers? No. Impact on the environment? Arguably (plants, though not a single species, would probably win that). You might as well say we're the most advanced species because we're the only one that cares enough to give ourselves a trophy for it. Evolution is not a game to be won nor a process with an end or a goal. We weren't here before, we're here now, and we likely won't be here forever. We're ephemeral.