3 ms·
> Species is a construct though, our genes have no idea about species. You could also say that atoms are a construct, also molecules and nuclei. Nature has no
by scotty79 2y ago
> Species is a construct though, our genes have no idea about species.
You could also say that atoms are a construct, also molecules and nuclei. Nature has no concept of any of those. But the clumping is repeatable enough at everyday energies so that it's useful to think about it in those terms.
- mmooss 2y ago> You could also say that atoms are a construct, also molecules and nuclei. You could say it, but they are real things that interact with the environment. DNA is a real thing that interacts with the environment. Species, the periodic table, etc. are constructs. They are useful because they help us understand the world.
- scotty79 2y agoIt's just clumps of matter. Ssme way species is just a clump of individuals. > Species, the periodic table, etc. are constructs. They are useful because they help us understand the world. My point exactly.
- mmooss 2y agoThat clump doesn't exist, except in rare circumstances - it's conceptual, which is why you use a metaphor. The clump of hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make a water molecule is actual, real - you can touch it and see it.
- pfannkuchen 2y agoMy point is that it isn’t really unexpected from a biological perspective that humans are violent towards “their own species”, because our instincts don’t know about the concept of species. My impression is that people who bemoan man’s inhumanity to man typically act as if all humans should be interpreted as family members by our instincts and somehow they aren’t due to culture, and I don’t think that line of thinking is supported by biology (because species is a construct).
- scotty79 2y agoI think it's compared to other animals who fight a lot (for mates for example) but it rarely ends with death.
- pfannkuchen 2y agoI’m reacting to the quality of the post’s inference on how humans would behave towards non-humans. Where the inference is: if they do this to their friends, imagine what they would do to their enemies. I’m arguing that the inference is invalid because other humans aren’t their friends, because the human system goes from kin :) to OUTSIDER pretty fast. I’m not aware of evidence that it intensifies beyond OUTSIDER, and if anything I would imagine that it would diminish. If it diminishes, then humans could treat human-like species further away from them better than they treat rival humans, if their niche isn’t threatened by the human-like (but-not-human) species. So the inference has a hole in it. I’m just pointing out that this man’s inference has a flat. But really I’m just interested in engaging people on this topic, so I poke holes in the comments of people who seem interested, to get a reaction. Sometimes they knock over my argument and I learn something new.
- scotty79 2y ago> human system goes from kin :) to OUTSIDER pretty fast. I’m not aware of evidence that it intensifies beyond OUTSIDER, Yeah, that sounds accurate. > if anything I would imagine that it would diminish Not sure what gives you that hope. People didn't really have diverse behaviors towards animals dependant on how human-like animals are.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago> People didn't really have diverse behaviors towards animals dependant on how human-like animals are. If they aren’t edible or dangerous we pretty much ignore them, no? Like they might be wiped out as collateral damage post industrialization, but I see that as an emergent side effect that no one cares to prevent, as opposed to a positivistic aspect of human nature.