3 ms·

I see this nearly everyday and wonder how it took billions of years to produce a species which is so dumb?

by dazc 4y ago

heresie-dabord 4y ago
Unlike other species, we have optimised our ability to create losing conditions for some.
koolba 4y ago
A lot of the genetic evolutions for individual survival do not perform well in a group setting. It’s kind of like how our love for sugar once, it’s abundantly available, turns us into a diabetes machine.
- bombcar 4y ago
  And if you're in a position of power (on top of your massive SUV throne) evolutionarily you'd do better to run down your competitors. So evolutionarily we should see men on SUVs riding down other men and rounding up women, I suppose.
wpietri 4y ago
For humans, a lot of the "dumb" stuff is rooted in our evolutionary history as primates, for whom dominance hierarchies are a big part of their evolutionary environment. For our nearest ancestors, chimps, being a dominant male has a lot of value in terms of reproductive success. So it's not shock to me that humans males are prone to the same sort of dominance assertion and performance of being highly placed that chimps are. I read this sort of behavior as the driver asserting his "superiority", putting "lesser" people in "their place". If you're interested, de Waal's "Chimpanzee Politics" was a real eye-opener for me. There was a big chunk of human behavior that went from "what is wrong with him" to "ah, ok, primates gonna prime".
- atoav 4y ago
  When cars were first introduced to US streets there were pedestrian clubs who wanted them regulated as much as possible. Sure, one could argue this was because it wasn't that common to own a car back then and therefore those who didn't liked to "stick it" to those who did. However I think it is hard (and unwise) to ignore the role which (car) culture has played in this. Before car culture streets were a thing one shared with pedestrians, horses, carriages and cars. If you change that culture and priorize other things in your public spending for a decade you can end up somewhere entirely else [queue pictures of Amsterdam in the 70s vs today]. This influences culture and therefore the way motorists will treat cyclists. I am not saying that the nature-side of the nature vs. nurture debate isn't existing. It is quite clear that both sides exist from what we can observe. Thr nature side is much harder and riskier to change in our favour than the culture side. The way it worked in the Netherlands is a good example. If your bicycle infrastructure is good enough, more people will bicycle. If more people bicycle, more motorists bicycle. This means more motorists understand what it feels like as someone cycling. This in turn means there is less conflict for both sides.

I see this nearly everyday and wonder how it took billions of years to produce a species which is so dumb?

by dazc 4y ago

I see this nearly everyday and wonder how it took billions of years to produce a species which is so dumb?

heresie-dabord 4y ago

Unlike other species, we have optimised our ability to create losing conditions for some.

koolba 4y ago

A lot of the genetic evolutions for individual survival do not perform well in a group setting. It’s kind of like how our love for sugar once, it’s abundantly available, turns us into a diabetes machine.

bombcar 4y ago
And if you're in a position of power (on top of your massive SUV throne) evolutionarily you'd do better to run down your competitors. So evolutionarily we should see men on SUVs riding down other men and rounding up women, I suppose.

wpietri 4y ago

For humans, a lot of the "dumb" stuff is rooted in our evolutionary history as primates, for whom dominance hierarchies are a big part of their evolutionary environment. For our nearest ancestors, chimps, being a dominant male has a lot of value in terms of reproductive success. So it's not shock to me that humans males are prone to the same sort of dominance assertion and performance of being highly placed that chimps are. I read this sort of behavior as the driver asserting his "superiority", putting "lesser" people in "their place". If you're interested, de Waal's "Chimpanzee Politics" was a real eye-opener for me. There was a big chunk of human behavior that went from "what is wrong with him" to "ah, ok, primates gonna prime".

atoav 4y ago
When cars were first introduced to US streets there were pedestrian clubs who wanted them regulated as much as possible. Sure, one could argue this was because it wasn't that common to own a car back then and therefore those who didn't liked to "stick it" to those who did. However I think it is hard (and unwise) to ignore the role which (car) culture has played in this. Before car culture streets were a thing one shared with pedestrians, horses, carriages and cars. If you change that culture and priorize other things in your public spending for a decade you can end up somewhere entirely else [queue pictures of Amsterdam in the 70s vs today]. This influences culture and therefore the way motorists will treat cyclists. I am not saying that the nature-side of the nature vs. nurture debate isn't existing. It is quite clear that both sides exist from what we can observe. Thr nature side is much harder and riskier to change in our favour than the culture side. The way it worked in the Netherlands is a good example. If your bicycle infrastructure is good enough, more people will bicycle. If more people bicycle, more motorists bicycle. This means more motorists understand what it feels like as someone cycling. This in turn means there is less conflict for both sides.