67
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] The_Sasswagon@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

Is that true? That sounds like something someone would just say with no factual backing. I read a fair bit recreationally about pre European societies and I haven't seen some universal truth about screwing each other over for some action.

There were and presumably are many societies that treat procreation and child rearing completely differently than we do today. Once you stop looking at your neighbors kids as "theirs" and seeing them as "ours" there isn't much drive to compete with them.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is that true?

LOL do you expect me to say "no"?

https://lmsptfy.com/?q=evolutionary%20psychology%20mating%20behaviour

Once you stop looking at your neighbors kids as "theirs" and seeing them as "ours" there isn't much drive to compete with them.

I'm not talking about an ideology or culture, I'm talking about how biological life functions. You'll never see your neighbours' kids as carrying your own genes and your genes are the primary concern of the biological drives that underlie human behaviour.

[-] luciole@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

Evolutionary psychology does tend to strictly reduce human nature - and nature in general - to some cruel law of the fittest, as well as denying there is any debate to be had. It’s basically genetic determinism. Nevertheless, altruism is deeply seated in our behaviours and does go as far as collective child-rearing, or alloparenting.

There is still heated debate about why and how altruism expresses itself in human behaviour despite the apparent competitiveness of basic Darwinian evolution. In practice altruism and competitiveness are both present in humanity and we do have agency over how the balance tilts.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

altruism is deeply seated in our behaviours and does go as far as collective child-rearing

Indeed. But it doesn't preclude otherwise screwing people over.

Nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. Ensuring one's own survival by altruistically caring for infants doesn't mean one sees those infants as carriers of one's own genes. Genetic relatives, especially offspring, are always one's primary concern. Because they share one's genes.

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
67 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2865 readers
36 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.


Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS