4 ms·

That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance. A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of chil

That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance. A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of children with different women more selfish than someone who has 1-2 children. The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Is that selfish? Since we are talking about selfishness and commons as a collective inheritance, define commons.

Ericson2314 6y ago
I really don't care about individual-morality questions that do not show up in the aggregate. These are perhaps good philosophical problems to ponder, but the legacy of liberalism is such that we think that they imply questions to how society should be run. Nope, they don't. These serial breeders do not show up in the aggregate in any country I've every been too. If you are worried about population rates in dirt poor countries, the per-capita consumption is so much lower you shouldn't bother. > The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Do you have evidence to think this numerically insignificant behavior is so genetically hereditary we should worry about it?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Yes. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/demo/sehsd-wp2019-07.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-pa... : census for 2019 and men’s fertility
8note 6y ago
This parent does not get that benefit though, each child does usually when you say somebody is selfish, they're actually doing stuff that gains benefits for themselves.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Parents pass down their genes. They benefit.
  - perilunar 6y ago
    The genes benefit. The individual doesn't really. Dawkins wrote a book about it: 'The Selfish Gene'.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      The book came out in 1976 and there has been a lot of discussion and debate around it since then. Wikipedia can update you and is easy to look for links in the reference : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene [..] The view of The Selfish Gene is that selection based upon groups and populations is rare compared to selection on individuals. Although supported by Dawkins and by many others, this claim continues to be disputed.[33][34] While naïve versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels.[35] Both sides agree that very favourable genes are likely to prosper and replicate if they arise and both sides agree that living in groups can be an advantage to the group members. The conflict arises in part over defining concepts: "Cultural evolutionary theory, however, has suffered from an overemphasis on the experiences and behaviors of individuals at the expense of acknowledging complex group organization...Many important behaviors related to the success and function of human societies are only properly defined at the level of groups".[34] In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[36] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61)[..]
paconbork 6y ago
> the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels I believe you mean the needs of actual human beings born of such people, to whom the God-given rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, the collective inheritance of the commons, are owed.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Can you please point out to me the original source where said ‘God-given rights’ are proffered?

Ericson2314 6y ago

I really don't care about individual-morality questions that do not show up in the aggregate. These are perhaps good philosophical problems to ponder, but the legacy of liberalism is such that we think that they imply questions to how society should be run. Nope, they don't. These serial breeders do not show up in the aggregate in any country I've every been too. If you are worried about population rates in dirt poor countries, the per-capita consumption is so much lower you shouldn't bother. > The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Do you have evidence to think this numerically insignificant behavior is so genetically hereditary we should worry about it?

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Yes. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/demo/sehsd-wp2019-07.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-pa... : census for 2019 and men’s fertility

8note 6y ago

This parent does not get that benefit though, each child does usually when you say somebody is selfish, they're actually doing stuff that gains benefits for themselves.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Parents pass down their genes. They benefit.
- perilunar 6y ago
  The genes benefit. The individual doesn't really. Dawkins wrote a book about it: 'The Selfish Gene'.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    The book came out in 1976 and there has been a lot of discussion and debate around it since then. Wikipedia can update you and is easy to look for links in the reference : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene [..] The view of The Selfish Gene is that selection based upon groups and populations is rare compared to selection on individuals. Although supported by Dawkins and by many others, this claim continues to be disputed.[33][34] While naïve versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels.[35] Both sides agree that very favourable genes are likely to prosper and replicate if they arise and both sides agree that living in groups can be an advantage to the group members. The conflict arises in part over defining concepts: "Cultural evolutionary theory, however, has suffered from an overemphasis on the experiences and behaviors of individuals at the expense of acknowledging complex group organization...Many important behaviors related to the success and function of human societies are only properly defined at the level of groups".[34] In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[36] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61)[..]

paconbork 6y ago

> the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels I believe you mean the needs of actual human beings born of such people, to whom the God-given rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, the collective inheritance of the commons, are owed.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Can you please point out to me the original source where said ‘God-given rights’ are proffered?