If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

It's actually not conflicting or contradictory. You're reading your preconceptions and biases into this piece, methinks.

he spends a considerable amount of time about the word choices for trans people from in the Academic West and the Academic India. That's probably the largest aspect of his post

You've never heard a Christian say that transgender people are violating a natural order that hurts themselves and others in their family? That's an appeal to biological essentialism (albeit a grossly simplified one).

so now academics respond to random Christians in wordy lengthy pieces like this? come on Ein. This is not subject matter for the mainstream audience

I'm not. That's a description of biological essentialism, which I disagree with.

so who coined this term and who uses it in their work? you aren't defining and I spent .02s in a google search.

All it does is explain the variant morphologies across species.

AND it also explains that the current species adapted to the current environment better than their predecessors. and that adaptation was random/fools gold whatever you wanna call it

The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

I don't agree with this line. The ability to survive in spiders is separate than the interest in flies. The increased survival rate of spiders DOES force the fly to adapt or die though (and subsequently force the spider to adapt its diet or die) but making survivability a term that requires comparison makes little sense to me. The "survival" question: Does this mutation make it easier for spiders to live? If so, great. If not, let's hope it dies off instead of spreads.

Jesus Christ, and you think I'm condescending!

you have that elitist snobbery to you, that's probably why you cited this dude's post. Hasn't popped up here though

Why? My point is that it doesn't exist. It's made up.

I just wanted to know it since I don't know what it means. The "pleaseeeeeeeee" was off base but I was actually just curious

"These people" in the liberal arts get that; and I think you do too, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

because apparently liberal arts people think that because there isn't a "best outcome" that can be defined that the whole idea of evolutionary biology a social construct made by westerners to advance some sort of white-christian theory (extrapolating here with no certainty but I imagine this is true for some in this sphere).

Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism

not to be repetitive, but I don't think anything you have said has countered this statement from the FB post. It just seems that the discourse is overly interested in making sure that everyone knows biology has no inherent agency. But you already seemed to have ceded the point that the environment doesn't force organisms to adapt so I feel like you agree with me and not him.

Which is what that author is saying! But even better, explains why.

I don't think he gets at anything, I think that other article was much, much better in demonstrating the futility of identity politics. This FB post comes off to me as some strange conflicted piece about trans people. Especially focusing on how the original author did things so terrible within the trans academic field to which the author was unfamiliar with

 

[zabu of nΩd]

it has to exist if you think the term is stupid or shouldn't exist.

Best argument ever

 

[rms]

seeing that in quotes makes me think that response is a little too cold

 

[Einherjar86]

I like to think that Grant is being sarcastic there.

Those who promote biological essentialism believe it does exist. I'm saying it doesn't. What's so hard to understand?

 

[rms]

I don't think it's appropriate to speak on it anymore without a set in stone definition that we both can look on

 

[Einherjar86]

I already gave a definition. You ignored it.

That's how you define it. It's a metaphysical determinant that gives rise to biological form/anatomy.

It's amazing how much of these threads fills up with useless exchanges likes this.

 

[rms]

my b my historical skimming prowess came into play when I noticed your topic sentence

I agree with your take on that definition but I agree with the Oxford reference one;

the belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture).

bleh, then it seems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then it seems.

 

[EternalMetal]

It's neither a good or a bad thing. It just is. The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

We arent talking about spiders though, we are talking about human beings. Us. Do you really view the success and propagation of the human race like you do bacteria in a test tube? Im all for objectively oriented science, but to deny human beings to have pride for their species is where I duck out. How do you even come full circle to tackle social issues with this degree of disconnect from the human race? This sounds kind of like nihilism to me, which I guess makes sense if you are trying to justify something like the transgender identity crisis.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm disagreeing with you because it sounds like you're saying environments provide a reason for mutation--in broader terms, evolution. While I absolutely agree that there is a circuitry of sorts between environments and genetic mutation, I would stop short of saying that environments gives organisms a reason for mutating. It's not as though an organism's genes are responding to the conditions of an environment when a mutation occurs. That's not what's happening (at least, not in any directly observable or causal way).

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

This is my reason for focusing on why versus how. "Why" implies some kind of purposiveness behind a mutation, as though the very change in genetic structure was somehow directed by environmental conditions--but genetic mutations are accidents, that's all (again, unless induced somehow). "How" attends to the fact that mutations have occurred, and that some prove more successful than others--in this case, the environment intervenes only in the process of selection, meaning some mutations allow an organism to survive, while other genetic variations dwindle.

So yes, environments put pressure on organisms, but only after the mutation has already occurred. They don't pressure the organisms to mutate. Mutation just happens.

Sorry if this is what you've been saying all along.

You're acting as if selection isn't an innate part of evolution. Yes, mutations provide the "how", but so does competition for reproduction, with environmental pressures providing the "why". Mutations have no inherent purpose, they just happen (though arguably low-fidelity polymerases found in primitive lifeforms like bacteria are evolutionarily preferable due to their ability to create novel adaptions quickly in a population) but the environment creates a purpose for keeping or getting rid of mutations. If there was no inherent reason to evolve, we wouldn't, we'd just remain inorganic particles on a lifeless planet.

 

[Einherjar86]

We arent talking about spiders though, we are talking about human beings. Us. Do you really view the success and propagation of the human race like you do bacteria in a test tube? Im all for objectively oriented science, but to deny human beings to have pride for their species is where I duck out. How do you even come full circle to tackle social issues with this degree of disconnect from the human race? This sounds kind of like nihilism to me, which I guess makes sense if you are trying to justify something like the transgender identity crisis.

It's perfectly fine to talk about survival as a good thing from the point of view of a single species. For humans, yes--we want to survive, and that which contributes to survival can be evaluated as "good."

From the point of view of evolution, humans are just another species. We aren't special. Mutations that enable the survival of a particular species are neither good nor bad.

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

You're acting as if selection isn't an innate part of evolution. Yes, mutations provide the "how", but so does competition for reproduction, with environmental pressures providing the "why". Mutations have no inherent purpose, they just happen (though arguably low-fidelity polymerases found in primitive lifeforms like bacteria are evolutionarily preferable due to their ability to create novel adaptions quickly in a population) but the environment creates a purpose for keeping or getting rid of mutations.

Hmm, I'm not sure how I'm suggesting that. I do think that selection is a part of evolution--a crucial part, actually.

I wouldn't use the word "purpose," but yes--environments provide the conditions in which some mutations work, and others don't. I don't see that as "purpose.

If there was no inherent reason to evolve, we wouldn't, we'd just remain inorganic particles on a lifeless planet.

"Inherent reason" makes evolution sound quasi-spiritualist. I don't think species are bestowed with an "inherent reason" to evolve. They just need to mutate in order to better their chances for survival, since staying exactly the same will guarantee extinction (eventually). There's no way for us to observe an inherent connection between mutation and some pre-established purpose; this would imply that, before evolution even began, genes already knew they had to mutate in order to guarantee survival.

It makes just as much sense to say that organisms just mutate--there's no significant rhyme or reason for it. Lucky for us.

 

[rms]

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

on essentialism, yeah. since the definition talks about innate human behavior that is genetically transferred, not culturally

but for the rest, was only talking about organisms

I don't think species are bestowed with an "inherent reason" to evolve. They just need to mutate in order to better their chances for survival, since staying exactly the same will guarantee extinction (eventually).

Saying there isn't an inherent reason to evolve and then your next sentence says there is a need to evolve is so confusing and has been confusing throughout this entire thing. I don't get how you don't think "the need" to evolve hasn't permeated all levels of all beings throughout Earth's history which then becomes the "inherent reason" one evolves

 

[arg]

Humans are a cancer to the planet and Mother Nature is trying to wipe us out by turning us into fags. We keep curing diseases meant to purge us and redistributing wealth to the poor allowing them to multiply. So she is attacking our sexuality.

 

[CiG]

Hippie shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Saying there isn't an inherent reason to evolve and then your next sentence says there is a need to evolve is so confusing and has been confusing throughout this entire thing. I don't get how you don't think "the need" to evolve hasn't permeated all levels of all beings throughout Earth's history which then becomes the "inherent reason" one evolves

It's just a different perspective, but it's the perspective that I think is more scientifically presentable.

Think of it in terms of surface and depth--saying that evolution reflects an inherent quality in things to evolve implies some kind of built-in impulse, an innate quality, some deep essence, that pushes organisms toward survival (ideally). This perspective makes mutation into a necessary thing, something that has to happen and that is predetermined to happen in some originary model of organic life.

Alternatively, we can think of evolution as something that just happens, a surface-level accident, a purely contingent event. It needs to happen in order for organisms to have any chance of surviving, but this doesn't mean it needs to happen at all. The universe could just as easily be a lifeless space. Just because life emerges and begins to mutate/evolve doesn't mean that the necessity of evolution for survival becomes an inherent reason for mutation. Mutation is just something that happened, and continues to happen. It could just as easily stop happening, in which case all life would (theoretically) go extinct.

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

 

[rms]

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

Exactly the problem here. Instead of a cosmic process that has been 'fine tuned' over billions of years, apparently your perspective is that it's culturally driven for humans and ?? for non-conscience beings.

One question I think helps my point: If every organism was immortal, would evolution be a natural process for any organism?

Alternatively, we can think of evolution as something that just happens, a surface-level accident, a purely contingent event.

I never thought liberalism would deny agency for non conscience beings, but here we are.

The universe could just as easily be a lifeless space

I agree in theory, but the opposite has happened because species inherently strive to survive and then thrive. You can't just ignore the trajectory of evolution because in the multiple universe theory there's a planet Earth where dinosaurs never became extinct and humans never evolved. There is luck involved, there is chance involved, but there is always the inherent need to survive, and surviving is influenced by evolving.

Mutation is just something that happened, and continues to happen. It could just as easily stop happening, in which case all life would (theoretically) go extinct.

The only way this could happen is if the environment changed so drastically that no species could adapt. If there is an option for a species to mutate to then thrive in this new dystopian environment, one would. We see that jellyfish are thriving all over the oceans now because of all the plastic in there. This position denies evidence for theory.

You say this is the more scientific approach to be applied to the mainstream, but it's quite the opposite to what you are saying and how you support your thesis. You rely entirely on philosophy, not evidence.

 

[EternalMetal]

It's perfectly fine to talk about survival as a good thing from the point of view of a single species. For humans, yes--we want to survive, and that which contributes to survival can be evaluated as "good."

From the point of view of evolution, humans are just another species. We aren't special. Mutations that enable the survival of a particular species are neither good nor bad.

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

Nah, I actually follow where you are coming from

Im also not disagreeing with your evaluation of evolution and biology. It is a very unbiased stance, so you are free to evaluate the data in purely observational ways (ie. 'true' science). Evolutionary science is deliberately ignorant to assigning judgment because it is purely observational. From the perspective of this single discipline alone, you are correct. My point of contention is the continuation of this approach when looking at human beings. Why should you feel obligated to observational science when analyzing the data of our own species? Especially considering that the context of the whole discussion is in the evaluation and judgment of phenotypes. From your current perspective, any criticism of human behavior or state of being is beyond reproach; this perspective is not worthy of critiquing things from ethical, moral, or philosophical viewpoints because it doesnt even consider them. Is this really a valid justification for transgenderism within liberal arts circles?

organisms just mutate--there's no significant rhyme or reason for it.

This. It is a random event without any real sort of directed action. What works, propagates. What doesnt work, dies. Even horizontal transfer is a happenstance event. Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

 

[Einherjar86]

@rms Okay, I'm turning the tables here. Also, you need to read my response to EM, because I think you have totally misread this entire discussion and blown it out of proportion.

Exactly the problem here. Instead of a cosmic process that has been 'fine tuned' over billions of years, apparently your perspective is that it's culturally driven for humans and ?? for non-conscience beings.

How am I denying the natural process of evolution? What am I saying that makes you claim that? I don't believe, nor have I ever insinuated, that evolution is a culturally driven phenomenon.

I never thought liberalism would deny agency for non conscience beings, but here we are.

How am I denying any organism agency? Where are you getting this?

I agree in theory, but the opposite has happened because species inherently strive to survive and then thrive. You can't just ignore the trajectory of evolution because in the multiple universe theory there's a planet Earth where dinosaurs never became extinct and humans never evolved. There is luck involved, there is chance involved, but there is always the inherent need to survive, and surviving is influenced by evolving.

We can retain the instinct for survival and the phenomenon of genetic mutation without reifying survival as the reason for mutation.

You say this is the more scientific approach to be applied to the mainstream, but it's quite the opposite to what you are saying and how you support your thesis. You rely entirely on philosophy, not evidence.

Again, how. I have no idea what you're seeing in my comments.

Why should you feel obligated to observational science when analyzing the data of our own species? Especially considering that the context of the whole discussion is in the evaluation and judgment of phenotypes. From your current perspective, any criticism of human behavior or state of being is beyond reproach; this perspective is not worthy of critiquing things from ethical, moral, or philosophical viewpoints because it doesnt even consider them. Is this really a valid justification for transgenderism within liberal arts circles?

Historically, yes--I think it is. It may not seem as relevant today because we have largely moved away from essentialist arguments against transgender identities (such as religious ones, which rms dismissed out of hand).

The entire point of the FB post is to point out a criticism within identity politics itself--i.e. a reinvigoration of the essentialist position as it informs gender identity. The author is saying we've actually won this battle, we've moved beyond such spiritualist critiques of transgender, thereby making the reiteration of these points seem rather irrelevant and, as you suggest, nihilistic today.

The FB post wasn't attacking arguments levied by, for example, religious or conservative figures against transgender identity. It was to criticize the invocation of essentialist arguments, similar to those from religion, within identity politics itself. It's basically reminding the academic community, "Hey, remember how we made lots of convincing arguments against essentialism? You're committing the same error you accused those people of making when you proclaim that gender derives from some inherent sense of identity!"

This. It is a random event without any real sort of directed action. What works, propagates. What doesnt work, dies. Even horizontal transfer is a happenstance event. Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

Very well-said.

 

[rms]

How am I denying the natural process of evolution? What am I saying that makes you claim that? I don't believe, nor have I ever insinuated, that evolution is a culturally driven phenomenon.

here:

Think of it in terms of surface and depth--saying that evolution reflects an inherent quality in things to evolve implies some kind of built-in impulse, an innate quality, some deep essence, that pushes organisms toward survival (ideally). This perspective makes mutation into a necessary thing, something that has to happen and that is predetermined to happen in some originary model of organic life.

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

instead of defining cosmic determinism differently, you only see it as a "hand" that tells all organisms to evolve or else. It's not a thinking being, but, and I noticed you ignored the question I posed, since organisms are mortal they must reproduce. By reproducing there are mutations, and because there are mutations there is evolution. Good and bad evolution. Yes the mutations are random and seemingly impossible to define and quantify, but they do happen.

How am I denying any organism agency?

By going back to the tuna discussion, when an organism who eats tuna no longer has tuna to eat, they don't just say "oh well I guess that's it for me now." They find something else to eat, and either they adapt (evolve) to the new food source or they do not. By calling all mutations an accident is removing the ability for organisms to introduce change. They cannot control that change, but they do bring it in.

Scientists are starting to think peanut allergies are on the rise because kids simply don't eat nuts anymore. Same with milk and lactose intolerance. I wonder what studies will suggest about gluten.

We can retain the instinct for survival and the phenomenon of genetic mutation without reifying survival as the reason for mutation.

It totally is the reason for mutation. I already answered this above in reference to the tuna & chicken.

Again, how.

Show me what evidence you have used to support your position

You're committing the same error you accused those people of making when you proclaim that gender derives from some inherent sense of identity!"

it does! at least for the vast majority of it.

Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

You cannot separate the organisms need for survival from mutations. I'll ask EternalMetal now, if all organisms were immortal would they strive to survive?

 

[Einherjar86]

here:

In no way does that statement imply that evolution is culturally driven. I have no idea what you're talking about.

instead of defining cosmic determinism differently, you only see it as a "hand" that tells all organisms to evolve or else. It's not a thinking being, but, and I noticed you ignored the question I posed, since organisms are mortal they must reproduce. By reproducing there are mutations, and because there are mutations there is evolution. Good and bad evolution. Yes the mutations are random and seemingly impossible to define and quantify, but they do happen.

First, I don't believe in cosmic determinism. I was articulating another position, not my own.

Second, and I apologize, but I don't see what you're getting at with your question. If organisms were immortal then no, they wouldn't strive to survive. This doesn't prove that because they do strive for survival there's some inherent purpose or meaning in mutation. As EM said, survival is the result, not the cause, of evolutionary mutations. You're imposing necessity onto an entirely accidental phenomenon.

By going back to the tuna discussion, when an organism who eats tuna no longer has tuna to eat, they don't just say "oh well I guess that's it for me now." They find something else to eat, and either they adapt (evolve) to the new food source or they do not. By calling all mutations an accident is removing the ability for organisms to introduce change. They cannot control that change, but they do bring it in.

An organism doesn't mutate during its lifetime, unless radically invasive substances/chemicals are introduced into its environment (such as radiation). What you're talking about isn't mutation, you're just talking about an organism starving so it eats whatever it can find. When confronted with a scarcity of food, an organism can't will itself to mutate. That's not denying it agency, that's just science.

Scientists are starting to think peanut allergies are on the rise because kids simply don't eat nuts anymore. Same with milk and lactose intolerance. I wonder what studies will suggest about gluten.

So are you suggesting that mutation is cultural? I'm confused.

I don't know enough about allergies and genetics to comment, but I'm having serious trouble following any logic through your comments.

It totally is the reason for mutation. I already answered this above in reference to the tuna & chicken.

No, I'm sorry. You're not correct here, and nothing you said has demonstrated otherwise. You're making illogical associations between physical necessity and inherent purpose.

Show me what evidence you have used to support your position

I'm relying on the evidence already gathered and assessed by decades of evolutionary research! You're committing the common error of misreading evolutionary theory. My entire argument hasn't been about providing new evidence, it's been about how you're misreading the evidence that's there.

Your jellyfish example disproves nothing. I'm saying that it is theoretically conceivable that life could not exist, and evolutionary theory doesn't contradict this.

it does! at least for the vast majority of it.

Again, this is not my position. I'm paraphrasing the FB post; I'm saying that the FB post itself is saying this of gender theorists and identity politics broadly speaking. That's why I used quotation marks.