Message from @snakeeater
Discord ID: 553116209202200586
Me
just kidding
nice
@CronoSaturn Well.. in the context of this discussion, I am particularly interested in natural human psychology... and evolutionary psychology deals with the issue so it can be quite well defined.
Well... by that I mean diseases like Parkinson, Altzheimer, allergies etc. So in other words a disease as understood by an average normie.
what would you say if i said this would you believe me
monarchs protect you democracies exploit you
would you believe me
Correct
God save the Czar
i have an entire reason why im a nationalist monarchist so much i won't waste my time typing it
which is why im in debate voice chat
Well I would agree with you so you’ll have to find another dude
best of all tho
stability
@Aki Right but evolution is dynamic and so evolutionary psychology is descriptive not predictive. Our environment is no longer the savanna but increasingly engineered and so expecting the same psychology to serve each would be strange. Evolutionary psychology also doesn’t deal with individual well being, only the long term statistical success of differing strategies. Rape here would be considered a high risk but valid strategy, as would cuckoldry and infanticide. Typically Parkinson’s, altzheimer’s, allergies etc is not understood in evolutionary terms but through the principle of harm. This is why we consider sickle cell anaemia a disease despite its ability to sustain populations more sustainably in malaria prone areas. None of this, however is psychology
lol how is cuckoldry a strategy
Game theory is typically the mathematical frame used to analyse actions in not only evolution but in pretty much any value optimising scenario with other actors. In that frame a strategy is defined as a set of actions which are based not only on that actors decisions but also the decisions of others. If you can cuck someone and they decide to raise your kid for whatever reason, you receive an evolutionary payoff in that you have passed on your genes, the child is cared for and you have no outlay to support that, allowing you to devote them to passing on your genes, getting further payoffs
@CronoSaturn Well... if you think that the environment we live in doesn't suit our nature, then maybe there is something wrong with the environment that needs correction... no? ~ Evolutionary psychology doesn't deal with the individual well being but it deals with the psychological roots of morality, for example and measures the current state of the human condition... and that alone should be enough to establish a set of principles.
The principle of harm is not a very good way to define a disease because it allows a huge leeway... but I don't think there is a good way to define it so that is why I said "as understood by a normie". Regardless... this line of conversation is not really related to the first paragraph.
@CronoSaturn oh, sure cucking somebody is a strategy, but when you said cuckoldry I was thinking of the cuck, who doesn't have a strategy here lol
@snakeeater depends. Some tournament mating systems see pretty stable systems of cuckoldry emerge as the cucker draws in more females, giving the cuckee higher access then they would otherwise have. This would be less common in humans as we *tend* not to operate at those kinds of scales but it would still be valid, even knowing your being cucked, where the higher access to females overcomes the increased outlay.
if the cukee was unaware its a case of asymmetric information in which case it makes sense to take no action where the risk of acting poorly is higher then the risk of outlaying resources innapropriately
@Aki the mistake your making here is that evolution has a set standard of what is our "nature". The fact that evolution deals with the emergence of new species should put this thought in the ground. This means that in cases where the environment changes the basis for an established standard is shifted. It would also be very difficult to use this as a system of moral judgement because the sole basis of judgement would be whether its practitioners reproduce. For example the elderly killing themselves as soon as they are unable to reproduce or conduct productive work would be considered highly moral as from an evolutionary perspective they can no longer contribute and are simply consuming resources
@CronoSaturn
_"the mistake your making here is that evolution has a set standard of what is our "nature". The fact that evolution deals with the emergence of new species should put this thought in the ground. This means that in cases where the environment changes the basis for an established standard is shifted."_
The dynamism of the process is not an issue as far as humans are concerned. We can control our environment and in a given timeframe there exists a given standard of "nature" (including this timeframe). So... why would it be a problem Crono?
_"It would also be very difficult to use this as a system of moral judgement because the sole basis of judgement would be whether its practitioners reproduce. For example the elderly killing themselves as soon as they are unable to reproduce or conduct productive work would be considered highly moral as from an evolutionary perspective they can no longer contribute and are simply consuming resources"_
It isn't an issue tho... There exists a certain standard of our "nature" and this standard can be measured. Why do you see it as an issue Crono? Maybe because it doesn't go along well with your liberal morality based on feels? Maybe because deep inside you know that it is quickly becoming redundant?
@Aki the problem is that the current standard of the environment or nature has an exceptionally low amount of data to ascertain from an evolutionary standpoint what the optimised behavioural set might be and is changing at such a pace that it would be unlikely that we would at any point reach a time where enough data can be gathered in such a span so that conclusions would not only be valid retrospectively.
Also you realise I’m a transhumanist aki? I think theres a moral requirement for us to pursue ends that would make humanism completely invalid
I exaggerate, completely is a stretch but you get the meme
@CronoSaturn
_"The problem is that the current standard of the environment or nature has an exceptionally low amount of data to ascertain from an evolutionary standpoint what the optimised behavioural set might be and is changing at such a pace that it would be unlikely that we would at any point reach a time where enough data can be gathered in such a span so that conclusions would not only be valid retrospectively. "_
I am not sure why do you keep making this misrepresentating of my position. As we currently are evolution does not advance as fast as science does... (as a matter of fact, it seems to be going in a direction that is not compatible). My position is that large parts of our moral compass are based on natural instincts encoded in our genes and that the tools of evolutionary psychology can be used to measure it... as such what is optimal in our current environment is not an issue I am concerned with... at least from this standpoint.
_"Also you realise I’m a transhumanist aki?"_
That is a very shortsighted position, but fitting a librul that you are! :p
_"I think theres a moral requirement for us to pursue ends that would make humanism completely invalid"_
There is no such thing. You can only hold such a position because you have somehow managed to detach your moral code from the material world despite being an atheist. In the transhumansit world, there is no place for any sort of morality my dear Crono... it can just be engineered on a whim.. as the engineer intends to.
They have their hands in everything it seems
hello
Begone from me
White devil
lol
Stinkin cave beast
Das right
im not cave beast
wtf?