Ghostc1212

One can't let themselves be defined by what's done to them, only what they've done in response. Those who act like toddlers in response to life's obstacles should be treated as such, while those who react calmly and constructively are exhibiting virtue, and will probably get further as well.

It's not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.

This is true, and it is true that the standards change depending on what type of society you're in. For example, in pastoralist societies women went after men who were strong and displayed risk-taking behavior because that kind of behavior is what got you ahead in a pastoralist society, while in parts of Asia, some genes which are known to correlate with ADHD (commonly known to cause greater impulsivity and risk taking behavior) are exceedingly rare because rice cultivating societies do not mesh well with impulsive risk-takers, so those people just never got laid.

That being said, I don't believe the rate of biological adaptation as a result of sexual selection was ever really fast enough for modern humans to qualify as truly adapted for the societies they lived in. All the stuff we just talked about above is barely just the beginning of the adaptations we'd need to be suited for an agricultural society, let alone an industrial or digital one. The main adaptations were in the form of social constructs like etiquette and religion, as well as technologies designed to make things more comfortable, and of course, drugs, all of which made people more easily capable of coping with their unnatural habitats.

short snouts are dumb

we in agreement here

Also I'm glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It's a world of difference from Reddit.

Depends on which community, the politics community on whichever instance it was is just as not worth using as it was on Reddit

listen to electric callboy

The former, by definition, because the vast majority of society does the latter. Extremists always try to reframe themselves as the moderate ones and say mainstream society are the extremists instead, so I'm not surprised you're saying this.

Achsjullllyallyyyyiu, humans also do a form of Selective breeding voluntarily and it's why families that tend to live in a more rural farming type communities tend to naturally be larger. We breed for what our families job is going to be.

This is not really what I'm talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they'll protect your livestock

All I'm saying is the Human race is very adaptable and we have changed a lot since drawing on cave walls.

Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.

Achsjulllyally, dogs and cats changed quickly on account of selective breeding. Natural selection, especially in cases where flaws in biology won't immediately lead to someone losing reproductive fitness, operates on much longer timespans.

Ackshyually, we've had millions of years to get used to fire, about 200,000 to get used to being sentient, 20,000 to get used to agriculture, about 150 to get used to industrial society, and about 30 to get used to computers. We have just barely figured out how to cope with knowledge of our own deaths by making up supernatural stuff about it and we have not gotten used to any of that other stuff at all.

So when flowers rub their gametes on passing animals in the hopes that those animals transmit them to other flowers, it's fine, but when I do it, everyone loses their minds???

Why would you specifically use the sentient robots for your grunt work and why would an artificial intelligence have problems with the same things humans do? Especially if an AI was made for the specific purpose of doing work. The reason humans don't like doing work is because evolution naturally selected for us to be good at things like

-hunting gazelles

-gathering berries

-making finger paintings on cave walls

-sitting around a campfire making ape noises

and not working at a corporation. For an AI, it'd presumably be the opposite, meaning that AIs would be about as content with their lives as humans are in their natural environment.

But also no because I find weight training to be exceptionally boring.

Same, that's why I prefer cardio. I can do something with my brain and hands while burning calories at the same time. However, when I push myself to lift more, it's very rewarding, especially when you get to the point where you feel like you could lift the entire fucking rack with how much you're lifting.

When you pump large amounts of iron in rapid succession at the gym, it makes you feel unstoppable, like you could take on the world. It's an absolutely wonderful feeling to have, and I think it can be chalked up to the testosterone boost. The way to cultivate this mindset is

1. Simply work out. The body releases the "unstoppable" chemical when you do Chad shit.
2. Have more faith in your own capabilities. This will naturally happen if you surround yourself with positive reinforcement and if you do step 1.

r/Imaginarymaps.