My point is not that previous people haven’t done significant things, it’s that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.
If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn’t have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren’t working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.
That’s why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.
And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don’t understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it’s an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.
Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.
I don’t believe that anyone truly acts independently. We are all products of our environment, of which our ancestors comprise a significant portion. I don’t believe in free will.
Your contention regarding inventions is wrong, but irrelevant anyway. I understand that it’s nearly impossible to discuss this topic objectively without allowing your personal emotions to bleed into it, so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve already made my points but you don’t seem to understand at all.
significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed.
And I don’t understand evolution? Wow. I think it’s possible you may be suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What about my understanding of evolution is incorrect, and how do you see natural selection working in present humans? Very possible that Dunning-Kruger is at play, but we may have to agree to disagree as to where…
I’ll get back to you on that. Seriously, I just don’t have time rn but I’ll edit this when I have a chance within the next 24 hrs. The second half of your question is particularly difficult to answer.
Ok I just accidentally wiped my entire edit before saving. Fuck that, I’m not writing all that again. God damn it that was such a good response too. Sorry.
It’d be wasted on you, as my previous insights have been. But yeah, evolution doesn’t exist, genetics don’t exist, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.
There’s nothing different between me and LeBron James, I’m just not trying hard enough to dunk 😅. If only I made the choice to dunk the basketball, independently of the fact that my ancestors are not particularly tall. But my ancestors are irrelevant, as you’ve clearly asserted.
My point is not that previous people haven’t done significant things, it’s that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.
If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn’t have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren’t working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.
That’s why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.
And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don’t understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it’s an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.
Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.
I don’t believe that anyone truly acts independently. We are all products of our environment, of which our ancestors comprise a significant portion. I don’t believe in free will.
Your contention regarding inventions is wrong, but irrelevant anyway. I understand that it’s nearly impossible to discuss this topic objectively without allowing your personal emotions to bleed into it, so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve already made my points but you don’t seem to understand at all.
And I don’t understand evolution? Wow. I think it’s possible you may be suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What about my understanding of evolution is incorrect, and how do you see natural selection working in present humans? Very possible that Dunning-Kruger is at play, but we may have to agree to disagree as to where…
I’ll get back to you on that. Seriously, I just don’t have time rn but I’ll edit this when I have a chance within the next 24 hrs. The second half of your question is particularly difficult to answer.
Ok I just accidentally wiped my entire edit before saving. Fuck that, I’m not writing all that again. God damn it that was such a good response too. Sorry.
I’m sure it was better than Darwin
It’d be wasted on you, as my previous insights have been. But yeah, evolution doesn’t exist, genetics don’t exist, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.
There’s nothing different between me and LeBron James, I’m just not trying hard enough to dunk 😅. If only I made the choice to dunk the basketball, independently of the fact that my ancestors are not particularly tall. But my ancestors are irrelevant, as you’ve clearly asserted.