You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 18406361? ago 

nice post especially the kin selection reference. i see entirely what youre saying individuals being instances of a gene but i feel its a two way road. the gene needs to adapt for more survivable instances in the process. we get in a false dichotomy to a degree with collectives and individuals when they are bipartisan forces of one process. in our genetic instances currently weve taken on some debilitating traits for overall survivability and this itself may be an ebb and flow "morphogenetic" cycle to ultimately breed better instances. so what im saying is in a time of weakness in the face of collapsing societies and traditions where those in your genetic family are ultimately self destructive one would have to incorporate elements of hedonism and even anarchy. if our collective is weak in certain elements itll breed other elements to clean it out like antibodies. this is played out in individual instances as conquerers historically it seems. but again satanic anything is kind of uncreative garbage.

0
0

[–] 18406367? ago 

Interesting take. However, those best able to protect the ability of a group to survive and reproduce have traditionally been rewarded by access to reproduction. Women are evolved to desire these traits, because they allow kin selection to function without succumbing to the issues you describe. I would even say that ensuring men are selected for on this basis is a large part of what constitutes "culture". I do see merit in your dualistic take and I agree that there is room for competition within a group as long as it does not jeopardize the unity of a group.