Selfish and speciesist behavior as 'genetic reproductive

>>9143301
OP again, here. I would suggest that callousness and hostility towards animals and strange humans was very beneficial for most of humanity's existence, and that only in modern society is there any exception. Maybe wanting to survive over fellow humans, and being indifferent towards the poor breeding and elimination of other species, is an outdated survival mechanism. (I guess it would not be outdated if modern society failed in its ultimate goals and/or collapsed.)

File: chaotic pend large.jpg (298KB, 1229x1171px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1229x1171px

>>9143301
Genetic selection is not even about propagating your exact genes, it is about the continuation of the series that contains your genes. Of course, the many bloodlines are codependent, and the least dependent have less agency. A human doing something harmful to other humans leads to 1/ reducing fair competition thus reducing gene selection 2/ reducing the amount of reproductive partners he could have, considering half of people are the opposite sex because of the Fisher's Principle. Depriving other species is also bad because human intelligence is basically partial retrocausation, thus human action has an impact against the natural equilibrium, and Earth being a chaotic system(see pic) implies the consequences aren't predicted nor that equilibrium is restored quickly after. Now in terms of biodiversity, diversity is more present in a complex being like a human than in a simpler animal. Diversity can be measured in many ways but consider this: are apes more likely to spawn humans than humans are likely to spawn apes? Humans choosing to survive without cancer is safer than apes being put in charge to maintain the Earth's biodiversity. Humans have a huge potential along their power to destroy, the two are inseparable for an intelligent species.

>is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
Yes.
>So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
No,
> Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?
Wrong. There is a unique DNA, we are propagating a set of DNA sequences, I don't pass my exact DNA, I sacrifice it to make a random mix with other's DNA. Also "and prolonging human existence" that is the case of curing cancer, even though you just said humans should sacrifice themselves with cancer if that meant killing all the apes. Shitty question wording.

>>9143318
>the many bloodlines are codependent, and the least dependent have less agency
>the least dependent have less agency
what does this mean?

>a human doing something harmful to another human reduces fair competition
>fair competition
but what do you mean here?

>human intelligence is basically retrocausation, this human action has an impact against the natural equilibrium?
what this means?

---

>shitty question wording
Now that I'm rewording the question, it seems too philosophical.

>>9143318
>>9143333
pls respond

>>9143301

You are assuming that genes make long term decisions and try to determine the outcome of their strategies.

It is really just a bunch of programmed behaviors that happen to succeed or fail based on the environment.

"Kill wolves and eat those fuckers" works until there aren't any wolves left.

Then some other strategy works better. "Cannibal everyone and eat their brains."

Until a disease kills cannibals and not non-cannibals.

On and on and on in the circle of life.

>>9143318
You sir, are autistic. But I'll bite because you seem to want a bit of a conversation, and it's not like it's impossible to understand you- just that you're all over the place man. I understood what you mean, but in cases like you relying on the pic to talk about a chaotic system without nay explanation of it is a bit much, especially if you're trying to get someone else to understand something.

Basically, you're talking about how, along with what we traditionally think of intelligence as begetting, intelligence also gives a very large degree of control of selection pressures- pressures which we are not immune to, and are inexorably tied to the selection pressures and survival of other species that come into contact with humans. It's the nature of the size of our impact as humans on the equilibrium of life on this planet that bonds us to the fates of everything within the biosphere, more or less.

>>9145403
Genes don't make long term decisions, right. They're not intelligent in every sense of the word. Some of it is chaotic, like >>9143318
mentioned.

>>9145415
he's been missing for a while

>>9145437
I'll be damned, I didn't notice the date/time. Thanks for pointing that out mate.