crt0o

Blender material moment

I wholeheartedly agree, and as funny as this sounds, I just started writing a manifesto about this yesterday lmao.

I think the main issue is the way morality is framed in neoliberalism, many religions etc.—as something prescriptive. We follow laws not because of some internal moral principles, because we conform to authority and fear punishment. This isn't rational but deeply instinctual, and it leads to immoral action. Similarly, I think tribalism is a consequence of instinctual action and probably one of the main causes of evil in the world. Racism, nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. can all be explained in this framework. We need to educate people to recognize instinct and transcend it. A political system, however perfect, cannot be forced on people who aren't ready for it.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Being moral is a matter of will and character—consciously choosing what kind of person you want to be. I want to be the kind of person that brings pleasure into the world, and so I am a utilitarian.

Edit: And I'm not saying that I am fulfilling that adequately at all. Any coherent moral stance usually has implications which are "undesirable". If I were truly utilitarian, I should probably be donating money to the global south, and so should anyone else who claims to be moral.

The difference is that when you're physically sick, there usually isn't much you can do to help yourself, but there's a lot you can do about many mental illnesses. I'm not saying it's easy or that mentally ill people don't need support and care, but these are not comparable.

Personally I'm not religious at all, but if I were to believe in a religion it would definitely be Buddhism. The fact it doesn't center around a god and denies the existence of a soul outright seems much more honest and realistic to me. Really, it's pretty fascinating how brutal and almost nihilist it is compared to other religions.

I meant that our goals aren't aligned with the evolutionary "goal" of maximizing the number of offspring anymore. We are still deeply driven by evolved instincts, but we should recognize them as needs that our biology requires to be satisfied in order to achieve happiness, rather than goals in themselves. Of course we are still part of the biosphere and subject to evolution, but that evolution isn't significant on our timescale or meaningful (in the sense that by our criteria of good people, we won't evolve to be better). If we want to improve as a species, we should focus on a different, memetic, kind of evolution, passing knowledge and ideas instead of genetic material.

Fitness can be seen as a phenotype trait, i.e. the kind of phenotype that will produce the most offspring. Of course that is dependent on the environment, but it is worth noting that the kind of adaptation you mentioned can also happen epigenetically or by other means. Basically organisms can have some adpatability built into their genotype.

People don't understand that fitness is related purely to the number of viable offspring, which isn't a useful indicator of a person's virtue. Anyways Social Darwinism is idiotic and a wonderful example of the appeal to nature fallacy. We've surpassed evolution for fuck's sake, if we want to progress as a society we need to educate people.

In evolutionary biology, fitness is defined as reproductive success, aka the number of viable, reproducing offspring

The idea itself isn't wrong, the fittest individuals (those who have the most offspring) are always those whose genetic material will be best represented in the next generations. Kin Selection Theory just includes the fact that even selfish and thus fitter individuals which are helped by altruistic ones usually carry some altruistic genes which they propagate.

Death to fascism, freedom to the people!