Twitter access

General Discussion Help Center
41

I agree with everything you say. I believe, however, that the problem is even more complex.

If you go walking on the savannah, and you are eaten by hungry lions, that’s not because they’re bad lions. The lions are just doing what lions do. They have no concept of good or bad. The fault, if any, is yours, for getting in the way of hungry lions.

Similarly, human infants are not born either good or bad. They’re just born human - with the range of instictive responses that implies. Every other aspect of behaviour is learned. Hopefully they will learn to be social - to get along with other people, and make a life amongst them. “Social”, however, is not the same thing as “good” or “bad”.

The trouble is, there is no hard and fast definition of good or bad. They change and merge, all the time. I cannot think of an action or behaviour that is now considered “good” that was not, at some time, in some place, considered evil. I know of no action that is now considered “bad” that was not, in the past, or in another country, considered desirable.

The Vikings built a successful empire on the basis of theft, murder, enslavement, and rape. They considered these actions heroic.

When I was a boy, homosexuality was illegal. All right-thinking people, priests, politicians, police, the press, schoolteachers, condemned and vilified homosexuals. At the same time, Jerry Lee Lewis was free to marry his 13 year old cousin.

Now it’s the people who criticise homosexuals who risk jail, and a man who had sex with a 13 year old would be locked away for a very long time.

Human nature and instinct are fixed. Behaviours and attitudes can be learned - but concepts such as “right and wrong” or “good and bad” are entirely mutable, and largely dictated by fashion.

4 Likes
42

I agree mostly. What is considered Socially Right and wrong can be decided by social change, yes. Certainly have seen that over the centuries as you have described. I would say some acts regardless of Social acceptance are still good or bad, but can be influenced by events. Murder for example is bad. But during war is made socially acceptable. Of course there are as many exceptions and examples of these that defining what is good and bad would go on forever.

Harming a 4yr old for sexual purposes, even if somehow that became socially acceptable, doesn’t change the evilness of the act. Social acceptance doesn’t equal good. Nor does social abhorance make something evil.

For many decades what defined good and evil was higher law…for many God. Problem there is many people believe in different Gods and they don’t always agree.

So what is the solution? As stated Social acceptance changes.

Like a child, maybe we need a parent to guide us to becoming better?

4 Likes
43

Doesn’t that get us straight back to God though? I mean that’s literally how the majority of christian denominations see God…

4 Likes
44

Ah, but which God?

The one who looks like a beetle, and pushes a ball of dung across the sky? The one with the crocodile head? The one who demands that we take children up onto his pyramid, and cut out their beating hearts with a stone knife?

I can see this getting confusing…

3 Likes
45

God? That clearly hasn’t worked so far.
In fairness when man feared god, they were more likely to do good…out of fear of repercussions. So I would say we are in many was worse off not having god in our lives…but again which one. People choose religions that enforce their own beliefs and reinforce there existing ideals…this isn’t a solution, it’s just us surrounding ourselves with people who agree with us.

I am not sure an answer exists. At least not yet.

Maybe it will take life that has evolved long before us to help guide us? Move us forward as a species? if anything else exists out there that is…hope there is.

4 Likes
46

The trouble with that is that human evolution has stopped. In fact, it has probably gone into reverse.

We can’t move forward as a species, because there’s no mechanism to make it happen.

3 Likes
47

There is some very interesting theories and analysis about humanity entering a new Dark Ages

This article is a review of a book focused on the topic

4 Likes
48

@kliktrak - very good. He puts it in a nutshell, really:

"In reality, we are lost in a sea of information, increasingly divided by fundamentalism, simplistic narratives, conspiracy theories, and post-factual politics. Meanwhile, those in power use our lack of understanding to further their own interests. Despite the apparent accessibility of information, we’re living in a new Dark Age.

From rogue financial systems to shopping algorithms, from artificial intelligence to state secrecy, we no longer understand how our world is governed or presented to us. The media is filled with unverifiable speculation, much of it generated by anonymous software, while companies dominate their employees through surveillance and the threat of automation."

(edit)
“fundamentalism, simplistic narratives, conspiracy theories, and post-factual politics.” - I might get that made into a T shirt.

7 Likes
49

Part of the problem is not social media per se, but rather that the modern connected online age let’s people attack others anonymously. Face-to-face interaction with others present can serve to restrain anti-social behavior.

Add to that the speed of communication and it’s no wonder that we have anonymous online bullies and hate groups drawing in like-minded bigots.

6 Likes
50

Except right there…that’s the problem, its not all bigots and bullies. Its not one side over whelming attacking the other. I’ve seen plenty of hate, violence, intolerance and negativity from both sides. One side nor the other has the right to claim moral superiority and attack the other. Most of what is being fought over was condemned not long ago. If people stayed on that path more countries would be like Muslim countries and there would be a lot of people put to death.

Thats the problem with social acceptance changing. Not everyone will except the change, some will fight against it. And even if the change happens, doesn’t always mean it wont change again. And again not all change is good or bad, who gets to decide? Clearly not people because we have proven, that opinions change, so can’t be trusted. Majority? Still people making the choice just more of them…God? Which one? Many have rejected such things.

Social Media has caused tribalism on a massive scale.

The next War wont be country against country, it will be countries fighting within themselves on a massive scale. That should scare the hell out of people.

5 Likes
51

The one that is a turtle, obviously. Sorry, I meant to say Tortoise.

There isn’t really a reverse gear in evolution. It might take U-turns, but in the context of evolution, that’s still just forward…
In any case, evolution happens way too slowly to be useful for helping with societal change of a species that has an average live expectancy in the 2-digit range. There’s at least 4 orders of magnitude of difference between the practical timescales…

4 Likes
52

OK - stand by for a step-change in the discussion. Fasten your seat belts, folks, we’re about to go even further off-topic…

Within a large population, nature is constantly throwing up small mutations. These are caused by a combination of natural background radiation, environmental mutegenic chemicals, and the basic instability of DNA. Sexual reproduction further complicates matters, by constantly mixing and rearranging the existing genes. The result is that organisms that are slightly different from their parents are being born all the time.

The great majority of mutations are harmful, and the foetus does not survive. In a small number of cases, the foetus may live, but be born disabled. In an even smaller number of cases, the mutation is neither good nor bad - just different. That’s where things like red hair or webbed toes come from. However, in a tiny number of cases, the mutation or genetic combination produces a characteristic that confers a survival advantage.

Beneficial changes might make the individual slightly stronger, or more resistant to disease. They might be somewhat more intelligent, or better able to survive extreme temperatures. Under normal circumstances, these rare variations would, over generations, be gradually absorbed back into the gene pool, diluted, and lost.

The evolutionary change only happens when some cataclysm befals the general population. If a famine occurs, many of the population will die. The ones who survive will be those who were stronger, or able to eat a wider variety of foods, or were cleverer at finding food. If a plague occurs, many of the population will die, and the ones who survive will be those who were more resistant to disease. The process is true of a huge range of environmental stressors, and of a huge range of possible genetic variations.

Over time, the population will become better able to survive the environment. This happens because those individuals who were not suited to the environment die, do not survive to breed, and therefore do not pass on their genes.

And that’s the crucial thing. Evolution only works if large parts of the breeding population are regularly killed off, and it’s only the survivors who get to reproduce.

Since the introduction of farming in the Neolithic, we’ve been regulating our food supply, and protecting ourselves from the worst of famine. We’ve been building houses, and protecting ourselves from the worst of cold, heat, and predators. For 2,000 years we’ve been developing increasingly sophisticated and effecive medical practices, to the point now where young people hardly ever die from disease. For 200 years we’ve developed social care systems to the point where those unable or unwilling to support themselves are looked after by others. Even people who can’t, or won’t, work, rarely starve.

The result of this is that all the mechanisms that used to drive evolution have effectively been removed. We no longer (at least in the developed world) experience mass deaths amongst our young, breeding, populations. We’ve removed all the filters - evolution has stopped.

Actually, evolution can happen very rapidly, under the right circumstances. It can produce a whole new species in 2 or 3 generations. The process is known as allopatric speciation. It’s mostly known as a geographical phenomenon, but it can also occur due to environmental factors.

5 Likes
53

Yes and no… We’ve removed most of the natural filters. We kind of instituted our own, though. You could maybe say that the environment we create ourselves provides the selection pressure.

Granted. Only if it were to happen to humans, we would probably call it “The greatest most horrendous bloody catastrophe ever” or something like that, considering the selection pressure at work… :grimacing:

5 Likes
54

In the developed world, the only recent source of mass mortality amongst the young I can think of is war. And it’s hard to imagine an evolutionary change that would stop a bullet to the head. What evolutionary change would war favour? Perhaps we’re breeding a new society of draft dodgers? That would be fun.

“We’re going to war!” said the politicians;
“No, we’re not.” said the young men.

3 Likes
55

While we may have outgrown the circumstances that facilitate evolution via natural selection, we are evolving in a sense outside of ourselves with these attempts at civilisations and technological advancements, it’s a different type of “evolution” for lack of a better word but to say we’ve come to a complete stand still doesn’t feel right to me, biologically we’ve changed very little but we’ve done every thing around us to change our environment to make facsimile’s of what would be natural advantages to survival; abilities to defend ourselves, abilities to withstand the elements, ability to be wealthy and stupid enough to sail an egg down to the titanic, etc.

3 Likes
56

Did Twitter make another change again? No longer having the issue when not logged in or using ‘incognito’.

Oh well … Nitter used to work fine until July 1st. Since then I found Traittor to work for those who really want.

3 Likes
57

I reailised this morning that the back pocket on the trousers that I had ordered online is fake, and I’m starting to wonder if there might actually be something to this “gone in reverse”… :thinking:

5 Likes
58

The genetics of trousers is a difficult subject. Whilst there is a clear sexual dimorphism between skirts and trousers, trousers themselves can be associated with both sexes. Being asexual, trousers would be expected to reproduce by cellular fission - effectively forming clones of themselves. Either your trousers are a clone of trousers that also had a fake back pocket, or (as seems more likely) you have a rare case of mutant trousers.

Mutant trousers can be quite dangerous, particularly if the effects are expressed while you are wearing them.

5 Likes
59

Nothing’s changed for me. I still can’t get past the login screen.

3 Likes
60

Evolution has never stopped and as long as homo sapiens is made up of biomass, it will never stop.
Evolution is all about adaptation. Nowadays, modern man adapts to the current, highly comfortable environment.
And it should be remembered that the broadly understood evolution includes not only physiological changes, but also changes in behavior, including social ones.
For example, 100 years ago, a woman in trousers was seen as extremely outrageous behavior and highly antisocial. My great-grandmother never wore pants, she thought women who wore pants were transvestites. Well, today female transvestism has become so popular that it has become part of their femininity xD
And I think it’s a great example of the emancipation of the female species as part of social evolution of whole.
Behavioral adaptation first, then perhaps physical adaptation. Stronger and more muscular women by birth. It could be that way.
Man lives so ridiculously short that it’s hard for him to notice small changes over the centuries - which in turn is a ridiculous span of time for the species in general.

3 Likes