Might be a moronic philosophical question but I always get better answers at Wauf than Wauf or Wauf. I find it funny how all the unimaginable horrors of grimdark fantasy like being consumed, cannibalism, rape, parasitism, necrophilia, bestiality in Warhammer, Berserk, etc. are very much real and everyday part of nature. I have two question regarding this
>Why is life this way?
I am not talking about the problem of evil but the nature and structure of things. What would cause evolution to occur in this manner?
>Are animals like the stoic, badass protagonists of these grimdark fantasies? Would humans too become like them if found in that situation?
I only heard of domesticated completely turning wild biologically after spending a few months in wild.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
dumbest thread I've read in a while.
Most interesting thread in a while*
yes
Idk
Were primordial germs this violent and competitive with each other?
>pic
Of course things are just the way they are, on a base level that is obvious. but we use terms and descriptions like "beautiful" or "horrible" to set our minds and steer them towards goals or philosophies, whether that means wanting to preserve nature, or wanting to elevate the human standard above the "natural state". Trying to give up on subjective classification and see the world as a robot (tool) would, is not an "above it all" way of thinking, rather it is a weak man's way of thinking. In effect it is BELOW it all for you have surrendered your will to power.
>not talking about the problem of evil
>question is about the problem of evil
>Why are things the way they are?
https://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals
That's it, that's the answer. Read it and weep for the Eden we lost, then pray to the Lord.
Frick off schizo
You have nothing to say that the other 5000 religions (many older than yours, many claim yours is just a cult) haven’t said better
Theres no reason for them to not be that way unless they don't reproduce. At some point everything was a mutation and that happens pretty much randomly.
That's 2 questions
>why are organisms violent about sex and eating?
Because violent organisms get more food, get eaten less often, and reproduce more
>why are we scared of being eaten or raped?
Because animals that are scared of being eaten or raped reproduce more than ones that aren't
Very simple stuff
Is that your answer for everything? Are all traits because of this? What about when 2 individuals have opposing traits?
>Is that your answer for everything?
No
> Are all traits because of this?
No
>What about when 2 individuals have opposing traits?
Their offspring may inherit one or the other or both or neither
Why are you asking biology questions any child should already know the answer for?
Are you mentally handicapped?
Nature does not have morals, stop anthromorphizing everything. Anything that helps survival and spreading genes is fair game. Being "cruel" is a waste of valuable energy.
There is no philosophical answer to life, it's all just physics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcfLZSL7YGw
>a bunch of creatures exist
>a bunch of them do something and live on
>the rest dies
>the survivors have offspring
>the survivors and offspring keep doing the successful things, some of them try other things, etc, etc
>5000 years later this process turned them into a gay bird with a long beak that can only eat from one plant
OP here, is it not weird that every horryfying thing such as consuming others, cannibalism, rape, parasitism, necrophilia, bestiality is somehow just part of nature? Lets say these traits do help in passing your genes. Why would humans develop such moral aversion to them, if they help us?
Man has an innate drive to elevate himself above mortality and animality, which is why a Chagga tribe member would sympathize with Strephon, if he could fricking read. Reproduction is the next best thing to immortality.
>Reproduction is the next best thing to immortality
I always keep hearing this, but it seems like a conjecture. The genes themselves aren't self-aware, and if you were to ask a person if he is okay with getting killed just because he had kids, he would say no.
your brain failed to understand that second place isn't necessarily anywhere close to first.
I wonder what other things you can't understand?
>that second place isn't necessarily anywhere close to first.
What do you mean?
>You can't live forever
True
>You're not going to reproduce
Why not? That is the whole problem. Any self-aware person would realise that reproduction is not immortality, thereby question the true intent and nature of it. If it is indeed a substitute for immortality, why does our genes "think" so? Why the need to "transfer" and keep this information(your genetic code) alive?
>>You can't live forever
>True
Life could aim at it. Death as we know it is an evolutionary choice, one taken very very darn early.
>Death as we know it is an evolutionary choice, one taken very very darn early.
This is interesting. How would that help? Especially considering lifeforms compete with each other. Wouldn't dying eleminate that lifeform.
>Wouldn't dying eleminate that lifeform.
Only if they have not reproduced before, and even then, its just genetic triage. "Nature intends" for some of us living beings to fail, its not a bug, its a feature.
"Nature could have" always tried to maximize survival of individuals at all time for the longest time, we'd all be like water hydras, with regenerative capabilities so strong our cells could reassemble and reorganize even after being completely disassembled... but odds are good if that was the path evolution had decided to go for the majority of living beings we might all be no bigger than 10mm, and would never grow a complex nervous system.
Obviously it wasn't that Nature intended any of this, its that statistically one path had better odds than the other.
>it seems like a conjecture.
It's a bit weird that anon thinks any statement containing the word "immortality" could be otherwise. Or "reproduction" in this venue for that matter. You can't live forever and you're not going to reproduce, so of course it's conjecture.
>Why would humans develop such moral aversion to them, if they help us?
we didn't
the only reason we don't regularly do those things is because it reduces social bonds of the group, and we can't really survive without groups. But as individuals, all of those things are regular stuff for humans if they can get away with it.
>Also, how and why does the concept of reproduction even arise? Just what is it's purpose?
It's the main part of the definition of life. It's the very second thing life did right after eating. Life eats, then it reproduces. That's pretty much the definition of the stuff.
That's not a purpose, it's just what life is. There is no purpose. It just happened.
Reproduction rate. Nothing more.
>HAVE BABIES SO WE CAN GO TO WAR AND HUNT MORE MAMMOTH!
Many cultures consider these fine, especially rape and cannibalism of your enemies, bestiality for young men to practice or old men who are bored, and pedophilia for any man who asks.
See: muslims and pacific islanders
Also, how and why does the concept of reproduction even arise? Just what is it's purpose?
>Also, how and why does the concept of reproduction
Sexual reproduction is a variant of reproduction which has statistical benefits for mixing genes by multiplying their "life paths" so to speak.
Reproduction itself is the most basic function of life, its the minimal feature you need to have it be a viable product, in other words. No reproduction, you have no way to get the product. Life is an object, it needs, at the barest, to be made to exist.
WHAT life is is a bit different but relates closely to reproduction. Its an increase in the functionality of autopoietic substances. Autopoiesis is the property of substances to create an interface at their border. Pretty much every substances have some degree of autopoeisis, but some have much stronger than other (ex. vegetable oil drops in water).
Life evolves as the ability of cells to create better and more interactive membranes evolve, i.e. as our autopoiesis increases.
>>Why is life this way?
Because of every which ways it was before, which determined the horizon of potentials of ways it could be in the future. I don't think you are going to get a much more satisfying answer than that.
>>Are animals like the stoic, badass protagonists of these grimdark fantasies?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but if its that "are animals in a deeply different ontological/existential situation to ours? Are we ontological/existential pussies while they are badass?"
then the answer is somewhat yes and no. Animals have a different existential and ontological relationships to the world, but the differences are mostly relative to our evolutionary path and context. The closer they are, the closer the ontological and existential sets are going to match (with the exception that animals are going to have highly limited ideation). Wittgenstein was pretty hilariously wrong about it, if a lion could speak, we would be able to understand it, because lions and humans don't have a vast chasm separating them.
>I'm not sure I understand the question
I want to know how much truth there is to the whole "Man turns into stoic badass in difficult violent situations" trope? Like those boars and locusts. I am a normal guy, also a coward, I know I can't survive in a movie-like darwinist setting. I think that is true for most normal people. Yet there is the whole "man is the secretly violent" trope and the whole hard times create strong men. How true is that?
Very true of some men. Basically the same trait that causes that is the one that makes people racist.
Oh, that meme?
No that's complete bullshit. You don't need evolution to show it tho, just read Aristotle. The most important virtue to build a society is that most people in them are neighborly, i.e. they will err on the side of meekness in a conflict with people who are part of their society. Its the one exception to the law of the fair middle.
>Very true of some men. Basically the same trait that causes that is the one that makes people racist.
Again, completely wrong. Read Sir Henry Sumner James on the process of tribal adoption in ancient societies. The strongest societies were the ones which had effective ways to integrate migrating populations when those shared some traits with your population. Sometimes it was slavery, sometimes it wasn't.
>The strongest societies were the ones which had effective ways to integrate migrating populations when those shared some traits with your population. Sometimes it was slavery, sometimes it wasn't.
that's some revisionist liberal bullshit if i've ever seen any
>that's some revisionist liberal bullshit if i've ever seen any
Sir Henry Sumner James was a Social Darwinist and wrote his thesis after extensive studies of both ancient and contemporary people, including Indians, which he concluded were completely degenerated socially and had to be conquered for their own good.
moron.
>liberal bullshit
It’s a description of white nationalism and honorary aryans.
you don't see why societies would be strong if they could simply convert competitors into themselves?
Why do you think there is a purpose? If it happens once by complete coincidence, by definition it will keep happening until something stops it.
domesticated pigs turning into wild hogs*
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a43294202/feral-hog-genetics/
you won't get any good answers there either, but at least it'll be on topic
>I am not talking about the problem of evil
but it sort of is "problem of evil"
> What would cause evolution to occur in this manner?
its very easy to answer that question.. are you familiar with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
>Are animals like the stoic, badass protagonists of these grimdark fantasies? Would humans too become like them
Op no offence but humans ARE animals, thers hardly much diffrence between "civilised noble lord" and wild wolf, i suggest you tqake a look at sociobiology and Evolutionary psychology
>Why would humans develop such moral aversion to them, if they help us?
except they dont, learn some basic history
>cannibalism
not only common in most "tribal" societys, even english lord easly go that route when faced with "cannibalism or starving to death" situation (btw i suggest checking on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film)
>rape
that is BASIC way of human reproduction, for most of human existance as a species
theres fricking DOZENS of books on topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape
>Rape is viewed as a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage
>bestiality
ever heard about speciation and macro-evolution ? or Mallard ducks ?
+
>war
war is basic HUMAN activity