/phi/ - Philosophy

Selfish and speciesist behavior as 'genetic reproductive strategy Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)07:35 No. 13093 ID: d5439c

File 150433055760.jpg - (9.63KB , 332x336 , later homo.jpg )

Here's a spicy one. It's pretty simple too. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Anyway, enjoy.

...

If a human does something to seriously harm and deprive fellow humans, or even something to seriously harm and deprive other species (for example, making them go extinct), is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?

For example, let's just make some random, kind of exaggerated scenarios.

In scenario 1.) Elon Musk finds a way to reproduce by budding. The police try to stop him, so he is left with their choice to either surrender, or destroy Earth and create a self-sustaining colony on Mars. So, out of supposed good 'genetic reproductive strategy,' he goes through with the latter option. Sure, he succeeded in propagating his unique DNA more than otherwise, but he also destroyed the all species on Earth, one of which was carrying 99% DNA similar to him (humanity).

Another scenario, 2.) humanity finds a cure for cancer, but it involves killing all of the other primates. Humanity goes through with the plan, and all other primates are dead. Humanity helped itself thrive and prosper more by eliminating cancer, but what about the fact that many of those primates contained 95% similar DNA to humans? Humans succeeded in propagating the DNA that is unique to humans over the other primates, but they also hurt biodiversity and made it so that there will be no remaining primates if humans go extinct.

So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'? Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?

...

Note: I would suggest that callousness and hostility towards animals and strange humans was very beneficial for most of humanity's existence, and that only in modern society is there any exception. Maybe wanting to survive over fellow humans, and being indifferent towards the poor breeding and elimination of other species, is an outdated survival mechanism. (I guess it would not be outdated if modern society failed in its ultimate goals and/or collapsed.)

Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)08:21 No. 13094 ID: d5439c

File 150433326223.jpg - (284.45KB , 1229x1171 , 1504332049595.jpg )

in another thread, one poster replied:

Genetic selection is not even about propagating your exact genes, it is about the continuation of the series that contains your genes. Of course, the many bloodlines are codependent, and the least dependent have less agency. A human doing something harmful to other humans leads to 1/ reducing fair competition thus reducing gene selection 2/ reducing the amount of reproductive partners he could have, considering half of people are the opposite sex because of the Fisher's Principle. Depriving other species is also bad because human intelligence is basically partial retrocausation, thus human action has an impact against the natural equilibrium, and Earth being a chaotic system(see pic) implies the consequences aren't predicted nor that equilibrium is restored quickly after. Now in terms of biodiversity, diversity is more present in a complex being like a human than in a simpler animal. Diversity can be measured in many ways but consider this: are apes more likely to spawn humans than humans are likely to spawn apes? Humans choosing to survive without cancer is safer than apes being put in charge to maintain the Earth's biodiversity. Humans have a huge potential along their power to destroy, the two are inseparable for an intelligent species.

>is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
Yes.
>So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
No,
> Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?
Wrong. There is a unique DNA, we are propagating a set of DNA sequences, I don't pass my exact DNA, I sacrifice it to make a random mix with other's DNA. Also "and prolonging human existence" that is the case of curing cancer, even though you just said humans should sacrifice themselves with cancer if that meant killing all the apes. Shitty question wording.

Anonymous 17/09/03(Sun)06:18 No. 13104 ID: d5439c

and another poster:

You are assuming that genes make long term decisions and try to determine the outcome of their strategies.

It is really just a bunch of programmed behaviors that happen to succeed or fail based on the environment.

"Kill wolves and eat those fuckers" works until there aren't any wolves left.

Then some other strategy works better. "Cannibal everyone and eat their brains."

Until a disease kills cannibals and not non-cannibals.

On and on and on in the circle of life.

Anonymous 18/05/13(Sun)19:48 No. 13524 ID: 04954d

>>13104
Nature ((programmed)) itself so that one can never have too many good things - after a while, the good things must come to an end ; either due to a lack of resources or limited quantity and or some sort of malady/sickness/termination/expiration

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)19:36 No. 13534 ID: 1e4c65

Not in the scenarios you propose.
But killing off a species that was harming the biosystem in some way — that I would say was good.

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]