No, that’s not how evolution works. Humans are incredibly complex animals, and there are a ton of different evolutionary traits (some of which seem contradictory) at play that affect our social structures. Boiling it down to “humans want to be on top of someone else” is a huge oversimplification to the point where it’s potentially harmful.
It’s just straight up wrong. One of the reasons humans have done so well is because we’re extremely empathetic and cooperative. Selfish species tend to do poorly, with the majority of species being cooperative, even if not quite as cooperative as us.
That’s wrong af. Look at the civilizations on top right now. I’ll let you guess which ones are in charge. I’ll even give you a hint they aren’t the peaceful ones.
Depends on your idea of being “on top”. I for one could say Denmark is on top (and has been for some time) as they’ve been some of the happiest people on earth. Does that mean it agrees with your definition?
Being dishonest about all these civilizations that abused others is more negative and intellectually dishonest. All I said was that humans naturally try to conquer others once they reach a certain point. If you were correct about your assertions, well we wouldn’t be having a conversation about what if.
I don’t know who’s being dishonest about civilizations doing harm, but it’s certainly not me. I’m advocating for those civilizations to take the blame and responsibility for their actions, not absolving them of culpability in the name of evolution (which is what you’re doing, implicitly).
By blaming things on evolution, you’re taking the responsibility out of the hands of those civilizations doing harm. You’re blaming it on a “natural process”, making it seem like it’s an inevitable part of the human experience, a foregone conclusion. That’s dangerous. Humans are responsible for their actions. Humans can find better ways to do things. Humans have more control over their world than any other animal in the animal kingdom. Humans can even deny evolutionary instincts if the situation calls for it. Humans are more than just products of evolution, and to try and claim otherwise is harmful.
OK, but to say humans AREN’T a part of evolution is being intellectual dishonest at the very least. Not once did I claim that humans are merely a by product of evolution. If you understood my concluding sentence you would see that I make an argument for denying baser instincts. Furthermore you claiming that humans are not connect to these base instincts is causing tremendous harm in that were above nature. Which we are not.
People are shitty by nature and need to grow into conscious being. To try to argue against the betterment of man is asinine.
:::.
No, that’s not how evolution works. Humans are incredibly complex animals, and there are a ton of different evolutionary traits (some of which seem contradictory) at play that affect our social structures. Boiling it down to “humans want to be on top of someone else” is a huge oversimplification to the point where it’s potentially harmful.
It’s just straight up wrong. One of the reasons humans have done so well is because we’re extremely empathetic and cooperative. Selfish species tend to do poorly, with the majority of species being cooperative, even if not quite as cooperative as us.
Well, in some sense, we DO want to be on top of somebody else. Or under someone.
Procreation is one hell of an evolution booster.
That’s wrong af. Look at the civilizations on top right now. I’ll let you guess which ones are in charge. I’ll even give you a hint they aren’t the peaceful ones.
Depends on your idea of being “on top”. I for one could say Denmark is on top (and has been for some time) as they’ve been some of the happiest people on earth. Does that mean it agrees with your definition?
Wait, the people who raped and pillage? That is not the defense you think it is…
Being dishonest about all these civilizations that abused others is more negative and intellectually dishonest. All I said was that humans naturally try to conquer others once they reach a certain point. If you were correct about your assertions, well we wouldn’t be having a conversation about what if.
I don’t know who’s being dishonest about civilizations doing harm, but it’s certainly not me. I’m advocating for those civilizations to take the blame and responsibility for their actions, not absolving them of culpability in the name of evolution (which is what you’re doing, implicitly).
By blaming things on evolution, you’re taking the responsibility out of the hands of those civilizations doing harm. You’re blaming it on a “natural process”, making it seem like it’s an inevitable part of the human experience, a foregone conclusion. That’s dangerous. Humans are responsible for their actions. Humans can find better ways to do things. Humans have more control over their world than any other animal in the animal kingdom. Humans can even deny evolutionary instincts if the situation calls for it. Humans are more than just products of evolution, and to try and claim otherwise is harmful.
OK, but to say humans AREN’T a part of evolution is being intellectual dishonest at the very least. Not once did I claim that humans are merely a by product of evolution. If you understood my concluding sentence you would see that I make an argument for denying baser instincts. Furthermore you claiming that humans are not connect to these base instincts is causing tremendous harm in that were above nature. Which we are not.
People are shitty by nature and need to grow into conscious being. To try to argue against the betterment of man is asinine. :::.
Mkay cool, I’m not saying any of that. This conversation is over because you can’t stop putting words in my mouth. Goodbye.
Same you just lie about facts to make your point. Idk idc deep thinking isn’t your strongest suit.