6 ms·

Chickens are one the most successful animals on earth! By evolving to become fatter, more succulent, and delicious, they have convinced humans to feed and house

Chickens are one the most successful animals on earth! By evolving to become fatter, more succulent, and delicious, they have convinced humans to feed and house them, and in doing so have multiplied to vast numbers and spread their genes almost everywhere across the globe.

perfmode 7y ago
black people, too! we were so strong and resilient and good at labor that humans paid for our travel across the seas and gave us the opportunity to help build America! we were fed and housed and everything, oh my! gosh > Shadow with me while I'm steppin' on my own resentment > Life scatter in all directions, I was overzealous > Overcurious, Momma worry her days get better > I know she heard me, a timid voice in her stormy weather > And Poppa taught me our ancestors were tarred and feathered And brought across the sea, bodies swinging from poplar trees > I wore a modernesque version, my burden haunted me I cautiously approach the rather daunting sea > By nightfall I face the man I'm 'sposed to be All this grief, been eatin' away my stomach lining > It's hard to eat when my poppa image stuck inside me > I wore his death mask, > smilin' through the trauma > In his honor, > I'm expounding
- purplezooey 7y ago
  wait.... what
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Animals are not people and they do not occupy the same moral category.
  - perfmode 7y ago
    blacks weren't people then, either. back then, blacks didn't occupy the same moral category as the humans who bred and traded them. afterwards, blacks were upgraded to 2/5ths human. now, we still struggle for acceptance and parity. morality is a process.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Animals are categorically not humans. This is a scientific fact which you can quantify and measure. Blacks are humans. That is another scientific fact which you can quantify and measure.
      - taffer 7y ago
        Who says that we should draw the line at species level and not in any other arbitrarily chosen category? Science is not.
      - perfmode 7y ago
        blacks being humans didn't stop us from slotting them into an inferior moral category. and back then, we asserted as scientific fact that they were inferior. the apparatus of justification is something which changes over time. it is interesting to me to observe your invocation of our present day apparatus of justification. :)
        toasterlovin 7y ago
        Yes, but we came to see blacks as equal because they are, in fact, humans, just like whites. Animals will never be humans, no matter what. They will always remain a separate moral category. Here's a simple thought experiment that should illustrate this: Imagine a scenario in which you can save one of two lives: a human or a dog. You can't pick both. Just one. The question is not, "Which would you save?", but instead, "Would you final moral fault in a person who chose to save the dog?". Almost everybody would hold a person who chose to save the dog morally culpable for the death of the human. But they would not hold them morally culpable for the death of the dog if they chose to save the human. That will never change. Because animals are not humans.
        perfmode 7y ago
        that's post-hoc rationalization. we came to see blacks as humans because lots of people shed blood and fought for their rights. nothing was handed to anyone for free.
- Creationer 7y ago
  I realise this is satire, but the quality of life of Africans living in the USA now is substantially higher than their ancestral cousins who remained in Africa.
  - perfmode 7y ago
    are you really attempting to justify transatlantic slave trade?
IanCal 7y ago
Depends how you define success. > By evolving to Being selected to by us > they have convinced humans to feed and house them No, humans have constructed chickens to meet our requirements, minimising the amount we need to house them (e.g. killing them at a few weeks old).
- matz1 7y ago
  Human are part of nature too, so yes they evolved.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Personally I would say they "were bred" rather than they "evolved" because it's the result of artificial selection, rather than natural selection.
    - evgen 7y ago
      Once again, humans are a part of nature. Chickens exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans. Would you describe the fungus grown by certain ant colonies as having been 'bred' by the ants or as co-evolving with them? Chicken evolution is only artificial if you consider human desires and motivations as being outside of nature.
      - michaelt 7y ago
        What I'm saying is that scientists and dictionaries literally define "artificial selection" to mean a process where people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce [1]. Chicken farmers breeding a fast-growing chicken is a textbook example of artificial selection. And while humans are part of nature, nobody would call a car crash a "natural disaster" just because it was caused by humans. [1] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    Evolution and selective breeding are opposites. Evolution is designed to increase the chances of survival by introducing genetic diversity and adapting to an environment in order to maximize life expectancy. Selective breeding actually reduces the chances of survival and introduces massive defects. It's much more likely all of the chickens will die of a single disease with selective breeding, while evolution allows them to survive.
tyho 7y ago
> Wheat domesticated humans as humans domesticated wheat.
mikeash 7y ago
A flying saucer lands in front of the UN. The aliens’ speech to the General Assembly is the most watched live broadcast in history. The world listens to this speech and learns: - The UFO craze of the mid 20th century was real. Aliens really were abducting and probing humans. - Their evaluation established that we are not clever or strong enough to be useful, but we are delicious and cheap to feed. - A fleet of transports will soon arrive to take humans throughout the galaxy to be raised as food. - The technological gap between us is incomprehensibly vast, so there is no possibility of resistance. This is the story of how humanity became successful.
- ars 7y ago
  Let's go with your idea. The desires of a chicken are to eat and make more chickens. The desires of a human are more complex. For this example we don't need to list out what they are. So let's say you are offered the opportunity to go to space as in your scenario. And your desires are met. But at the age of 40 you are painlessly killed and eaten. And you are assured of having lots of children. What do you think? Would some people agree to this? And to make the example more complete, the alternative is not a comfortable life on Earth, but rather war where lots of people are killed young and the rest have very difficult paintful lives of constant fear.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    I’m not sure chicken desires are quite that simple, nor that many humans would accept your deal. But even if we take all of that at face value: would you describe the result as “successful”?
    - ars 7y ago
      Well that depends on your goal wouldn't it? I'm not sure what the goal of the chicken is except maybe to make more chickens, and if that's the goal then yes chickens were successful. If your goal as a human is to explore and pass on your knowledge to your children, then yes, that could be considered as successful as well. Also, it depends in large part on if your goals are personal, or generational. If personal then you could argue both ways. But if generational then yes definitely a success.

perfmode 7y ago

black people, too! we were so strong and resilient and good at labor that humans paid for our travel across the seas and gave us the opportunity to help build America! we were fed and housed and everything, oh my! gosh > Shadow with me while I'm steppin' on my own resentment > Life scatter in all directions, I was overzealous > Overcurious, Momma worry her days get better > I know she heard me, a timid voice in her stormy weather > And Poppa taught me our ancestors were tarred and feathered And brought across the sea, bodies swinging from poplar trees > I wore a modernesque version, my burden haunted me I cautiously approach the rather daunting sea > By nightfall I face the man I'm 'sposed to be All this grief, been eatin' away my stomach lining > It's hard to eat when my poppa image stuck inside me > I wore his death mask, > smilin' through the trauma > In his honor, > I'm expounding

purplezooey 7y ago
wait.... what
toasterlovin 7y ago
Animals are not people and they do not occupy the same moral category.
- perfmode 7y ago
  blacks weren't people then, either. back then, blacks didn't occupy the same moral category as the humans who bred and traded them. afterwards, blacks were upgraded to 2/5ths human. now, we still struggle for acceptance and parity. morality is a process.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Animals are categorically not humans. This is a scientific fact which you can quantify and measure. Blacks are humans. That is another scientific fact which you can quantify and measure.
    - taffer 7y ago
      Who says that we should draw the line at species level and not in any other arbitrarily chosen category? Science is not.
    - perfmode 7y ago
      blacks being humans didn't stop us from slotting them into an inferior moral category. and back then, we asserted as scientific fact that they were inferior. the apparatus of justification is something which changes over time. it is interesting to me to observe your invocation of our present day apparatus of justification. :)
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        Yes, but we came to see blacks as equal because they are, in fact, humans, just like whites. Animals will never be humans, no matter what. They will always remain a separate moral category. Here's a simple thought experiment that should illustrate this: Imagine a scenario in which you can save one of two lives: a human or a dog. You can't pick both. Just one. The question is not, "Which would you save?", but instead, "Would you final moral fault in a person who chose to save the dog?". Almost everybody would hold a person who chose to save the dog morally culpable for the death of the human. But they would not hold them morally culpable for the death of the dog if they chose to save the human. That will never change. Because animals are not humans.
        perfmode 7y ago
        that's post-hoc rationalization. we came to see blacks as humans because lots of people shed blood and fought for their rights. nothing was handed to anyone for free.
Creationer 7y ago
I realise this is satire, but the quality of life of Africans living in the USA now is substantially higher than their ancestral cousins who remained in Africa.
- perfmode 7y ago
  are you really attempting to justify transatlantic slave trade?

IanCal 7y ago

Depends how you define success. > By evolving to Being selected to by us > they have convinced humans to feed and house them No, humans have constructed chickens to meet our requirements, minimising the amount we need to house them (e.g. killing them at a few weeks old).

matz1 7y ago
Human are part of nature too, so yes they evolved.
- michaelt 7y ago
  Personally I would say they "were bred" rather than they "evolved" because it's the result of artificial selection, rather than natural selection.
  - evgen 7y ago
    Once again, humans are a part of nature. Chickens exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans. Would you describe the fungus grown by certain ant colonies as having been 'bred' by the ants or as co-evolving with them? Chicken evolution is only artificial if you consider human desires and motivations as being outside of nature.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      What I'm saying is that scientists and dictionaries literally define "artificial selection" to mean a process where people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce [1]. Chicken farmers breeding a fast-growing chicken is a textbook example of artificial selection. And while humans are part of nature, nobody would call a car crash a "natural disaster" just because it was caused by humans. [1] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  Evolution and selective breeding are opposites. Evolution is designed to increase the chances of survival by introducing genetic diversity and adapting to an environment in order to maximize life expectancy. Selective breeding actually reduces the chances of survival and introduces massive defects. It's much more likely all of the chickens will die of a single disease with selective breeding, while evolution allows them to survive.

tyho 7y ago

> Wheat domesticated humans as humans domesticated wheat.

mikeash 7y ago

A flying saucer lands in front of the UN. The aliens’ speech to the General Assembly is the most watched live broadcast in history. The world listens to this speech and learns: - The UFO craze of the mid 20th century was real. Aliens really were abducting and probing humans. - Their evaluation established that we are not clever or strong enough to be useful, but we are delicious and cheap to feed. - A fleet of transports will soon arrive to take humans throughout the galaxy to be raised as food. - The technological gap between us is incomprehensibly vast, so there is no possibility of resistance. This is the story of how humanity became successful.

ars 7y ago
Let's go with your idea. The desires of a chicken are to eat and make more chickens. The desires of a human are more complex. For this example we don't need to list out what they are. So let's say you are offered the opportunity to go to space as in your scenario. And your desires are met. But at the age of 40 you are painlessly killed and eaten. And you are assured of having lots of children. What do you think? Would some people agree to this? And to make the example more complete, the alternative is not a comfortable life on Earth, but rather war where lots of people are killed young and the rest have very difficult paintful lives of constant fear.
- mikeash 7y ago
  I’m not sure chicken desires are quite that simple, nor that many humans would accept your deal. But even if we take all of that at face value: would you describe the result as “successful”?
  - ars 7y ago
    Well that depends on your goal wouldn't it? I'm not sure what the goal of the chicken is except maybe to make more chickens, and if that's the goal then yes chickens were successful. If your goal as a human is to explore and pass on your knowledge to your children, then yes, that could be considered as successful as well. Also, it depends in large part on if your goals are personal, or generational. If personal then you could argue both ways. But if generational then yes definitely a success.