There is an inherent conflict in our biology. What's coded in our biology is a natural altruism we feel towards other members of our own species; it seems likely this altruism developed naturally because there are more members of our own species who go through temporary periods of harm, mental or physical, that can be "cured" and have some use for the rest of the tribe than "stunted ducks" who will put the tribe in harm and drain them physically and mentally. Further, this inherent altruism is incredibly, incredibly strong for parents, for obvious reasons.
Despite this altruism, at our root we are still animals in the process of natural selection; people want to promote the best genes possible based on their perceptions of "pretty" and "ugly"; like cardinals, women are constantly searching for the best men physically and genetically to have kids with. People want to alienate, isolate, and "kill off" bad genes, by pushing people in isolation to suicide or by pushing people to isolation such that nature kills them. This natural selection process of killing off bad genes is slow and tiresome, because women themselves have bad genes, this cycle is further complicated by men who may not have the best genes but who have resources for her kids. Regardless, this cycle will, in fact, over time, weed out worse and worse genes
A huge amount of inherent injustice in this society results from this conflict of natural instincts. On the one hand, we want to repulse, isolate, and kill off people with bad genes naturally; on the other hand, we want to help other people so they have some use for the tribe.
Ultimately though, there are more "useful" genetically unfit human beings than there are "non-useful" genetically unfit. Even an ugly autist can work at McDonalds, for example. We've evolved to prefer altruism to killing off genetically unfit people, even though we don't want genetically unfit people to reproduce; so we act in ways that are just enough to try to make these people function in society, without them ever reproducing.
I truly believe that this conflict with altruism has led human beings to naturally feel shameful, upset, sad, crying over how "evil" they are. Emotional turmoil does, in fact, result when their natural urge to altruism yells at them and screams at them for their actions which, otherwise, would caused people to isolate, alienate, either kill themselves or be killed in the jungle. We literally make fun of people and hurt them only because of genetics. "What are you, stupid?" "Ugly" "Fat" "Small dick size" "Gross" "Loser" "I just fucked your mom" (Your genetics are so bad even your mom wants to fuck me) "Autist" "Downie" "Piece of shit";
When we see the results of harming other people, we naturally feel "bad" "ashamed" "sad" because even though we naturally want to alienate people, our altruistic instincts yell at us for pushing them to a point of self-harm, suicide, or death.
What's more important though is this: that this conflict causes genetically unfit people to become disillusioned with society and not want to function in it. They want to simply die, kill themselves, or die off.
I think it's entirely plausible that this this preference is why human beings have created stories and ideas that suggest that there is, in fact, a system in place which try to place value on every human being and gives hope to those who are genetically unfit. Religion. Political Ideology. Nationalism.
All these systems tend to have in common is this:
1. Placing some intrinsic value on every human being (Christianity: Made in the image of God; communism: everyone has the ability to contribute equally to society and all are equal)
2. The idea that the rich, powerful, strong, and genetically fit might be suffering like the genetically unfit are (Christianity: need I say more? Marxism: The bourgeoius and their evil behavior)
3. Some justification as to why this happens (Christianity: Demons are tempting people; Marxism: The bourgeious are oppressing you!)
4. A reenforcement of altruism (Christianity: The good samaritan, the prodigal son, etc. Marxism: Helping out the fellow workers against the oppressive bourgeious)
tl:dr: Nature itself has condemned you to be weeded out and not pass on your genes, while trying to push you to a level such that you can at least function in society and prove some use to the tribe.
Despite this altruism, at our root we are still animals in the process of natural selection; people want to promote the best genes possible based on their perceptions of "pretty" and "ugly"; like cardinals, women are constantly searching for the best men physically and genetically to have kids with. People want to alienate, isolate, and "kill off" bad genes, by pushing people in isolation to suicide or by pushing people to isolation such that nature kills them. This natural selection process of killing off bad genes is slow and tiresome, because women themselves have bad genes, this cycle is further complicated by men who may not have the best genes but who have resources for her kids. Regardless, this cycle will, in fact, over time, weed out worse and worse genes
A huge amount of inherent injustice in this society results from this conflict of natural instincts. On the one hand, we want to repulse, isolate, and kill off people with bad genes naturally; on the other hand, we want to help other people so they have some use for the tribe.
Ultimately though, there are more "useful" genetically unfit human beings than there are "non-useful" genetically unfit. Even an ugly autist can work at McDonalds, for example. We've evolved to prefer altruism to killing off genetically unfit people, even though we don't want genetically unfit people to reproduce; so we act in ways that are just enough to try to make these people function in society, without them ever reproducing.
I truly believe that this conflict with altruism has led human beings to naturally feel shameful, upset, sad, crying over how "evil" they are. Emotional turmoil does, in fact, result when their natural urge to altruism yells at them and screams at them for their actions which, otherwise, would caused people to isolate, alienate, either kill themselves or be killed in the jungle. We literally make fun of people and hurt them only because of genetics. "What are you, stupid?" "Ugly" "Fat" "Small dick size" "Gross" "Loser" "I just fucked your mom" (Your genetics are so bad even your mom wants to fuck me) "Autist" "Downie" "Piece of shit";
When we see the results of harming other people, we naturally feel "bad" "ashamed" "sad" because even though we naturally want to alienate people, our altruistic instincts yell at us for pushing them to a point of self-harm, suicide, or death.
What's more important though is this: that this conflict causes genetically unfit people to become disillusioned with society and not want to function in it. They want to simply die, kill themselves, or die off.
I think it's entirely plausible that this this preference is why human beings have created stories and ideas that suggest that there is, in fact, a system in place which try to place value on every human being and gives hope to those who are genetically unfit. Religion. Political Ideology. Nationalism.
All these systems tend to have in common is this:
1. Placing some intrinsic value on every human being (Christianity: Made in the image of God; communism: everyone has the ability to contribute equally to society and all are equal)
2. The idea that the rich, powerful, strong, and genetically fit might be suffering like the genetically unfit are (Christianity: need I say more? Marxism: The bourgeoius and their evil behavior)
3. Some justification as to why this happens (Christianity: Demons are tempting people; Marxism: The bourgeious are oppressing you!)
4. A reenforcement of altruism (Christianity: The good samaritan, the prodigal son, etc. Marxism: Helping out the fellow workers against the oppressive bourgeious)
tl:dr: Nature itself has condemned you to be weeded out and not pass on your genes, while trying to push you to a level such that you can at least function in society and prove some use to the tribe.
Last edited:
)) commonly gets painted as a marxist boogeyman following a false ideological dichotomy between different forms of liberalism.
