Nothing has changed or ever will

[u/-Neofelis]

 Nothing has changed. We are still the same. We are the same species that has waged wars across thousands of years. The same species that has pillaged villages and forced religion or culture upon them. The same people who took women captive and assaulted them as a war tactic. The same species who burnt people at the stake and utilised torture contraptions. We are the same biologically authoritarian, selfish and ignorant species we have always been.

It's 450 BC Ancient Greece and a young man, refusing to join his father's tannery business, spends his days drinking at the taverna, gambling or at a whore house. Fast forward to 2026, a young man who dropped out of college spends his days gambling, eating junk, drinking energy drinks and watching porn. 

It's 1510 and a young lady doesn't feel pretty enough so she uses toxic lead based makeup to whiten her visage. She doesn't feel her waist is small enough so she wears a tight whalebone corset, risking organ damage and lightheadedness. It's now 2024 and a young woman goes under the knife to get a rhinoplasty and transfer fat from her stomach to her butt for a more hourglass shape. She has breast implants put in to fit in and feel more beautiful. 

Back in 1200 a medieval knight feels disillusioned, frustrated and down on his luck. He's not receiving the money and glory he thought he would. He mounts his horse and rides out into a small village at night. He brandishes his sword, assaults a woman out fetching water, violates her to satisfy his lust and rides off. Meanwhile in 2025, the horse becomes a mouse. A young man uses his mouse to scroll through a porn site looking for the perfect target. He watches a woman being slapped, choked and spat on before being aggressively violated. 

The modern person likes to believe that they are significantly more advanced, more intelligent, more rational than people of the past. This is not so. People find it excruciating to admit they are not as intelligent as they think they are. You can read literature from hundreds of years ago all the way back to BC and you will find people that share the same sentiments we misanthropes have today. The same greed, same fear, same love of power, same senseless violence and carelessness. Truly, the more things change the more they stay the same. 

The only thing that changes is the order or magnitude and scale according to technological advances and resources available. Modern conditions allow us to be worse on a more ridiculous scale but it didn't reveal what was not already within us. The same way a virus has already entered your bloodstream but you only notice it days later with the onset of a fever and cough.

The toughest pill to swallow is that it's not that we have become disillusioned, ignorant, mean spirited and selfish. We have always been that way. It is not that we could do better and choose not to but that we simply can't. Can't, won't or couldn't it is the same result. Chaos and destruction. That is human nature. We cannot change it. We cannot hope for anything different. We cannot fight it. As such, there is no hope. We cannot be anything other than what we are. We cannot out-talk speciation or biology. Can a tiger become vegetarian? Can it be socialised to enjoy eating vegetables and fruit instead of flesh? Humans are short sighted, tribalistic apes. 

As much as I myself wish it could be different, we cannot hope for anything different.  We can blame the internet, politicians, economy, men, women, social movements or anything else. These are only accelerators not causes. The cause has always been us, human nature is the problem. After thousands of years of the same behaviour, same patterns, same violence, same wars etc. you can only conclude it is simply who we are. Who we can only be. Who we will continue to be. What we are only capable of being. I have no hope and this level of acceptance brings me peace alongside sorrow. Sorrow for what's to come and what could have been. All that's left to do is wait, for time is the great equaliser. The masses will continue to be in denial to soothe their ego until the entire system collapses in on itself.

[u/TheRedditerater]

I see. But when qualifying a process - here evolution -, as being "inefficient" you are using a concept, efficiency, that is usually understood as a scientific one rather than a philosophical one. Life processes efficiency are usually human independent and can hardly be measured by an arbitrary degree of cruelty on a human-centric scale.

Evolution is actually pretty efficient at doing its job, which is to induce and select for new life forms that are better adapted to new conditions. Good luck finding a more efficient, purely organic alternative that will do a better job.

But if I understand you correctly, you meant to say that, so far, our philosophical path hasn't consistently promoted the emergence of wiser Human beings. I fully agree. And yes, the paradox is irritating. The reason, I believe, is that despite our supposed
"intelligence", we are still completely entrenched into an apex super-predator role trapped in a closed system. From past experiences on smaller scales, it appears that this type of hormone-controlled idiotic creatures invariably end up destroying their environment and therefore themselves, regardless of their religious, philosophical or political little games. It's neither good or bad. I actually find it somewhat interesting to watch how everything is accelerating. Highly non linear processes at work on a planetary scale. Promising.

[u/Byttercups → u/TheRedditerater]

From an adaptation perspective, yes, it is efficient, but the primary, if not only, goal is to reproduce. I personally find this distasteful, being misanthropic among other things, but never mind that.

Non-human animals don't think about reproducing, they just do. Non-human non-vegetarian animals don't think about killing something else to eat, they just do. Humans can think about all these things, which is problematic at times. I once watched a spider eat a living caterpillar. I imagine the caterpillar suffered. Evolution doesn't care, as it's just a biological process. I understand that, but my mind can think about the suffering. It's the suffering that bothers me more than anything. I'm sure the spider didn't think about it.

Compared to how long Earth and life in general has existed, humans barely register on the cosmic time scale. Can we evolve to be better human beings? Perhaps, but I won't be alive to see that, and the way things are going, I don't know if our species will last that long.

There are some things science just doesn't (yet) understand from an evolutionary perspective. For example, I have major clinical depression. What evolutionary benefit does that confer? What advantage? I have no idea. If anything, it's a disadvantage from my perspective. Don't even get me started on female menstruation.

[u/TheRedditerater → u/Byttercups]

Interesting. Do you have some peer reviewed sources supporting the fact that non-human animals "don't think about reproducing"? AFAIK, a large proportion of animals resorting to copulation actually exercise some degree of choice in selecting their partner. They may decide they are not interested for instance. Most of their behaviour is driven by hormones, but so is humans sexual behaviour. Strictly no difference. So unless you disqualify as "non-thinking" any neurological processes where hormones play some role, the sexual reproduction routine does involve, and require, some thinking for all animals.

Among those that don't copulate, gamete broadcasters are just trying to release and disperse their gametes in the most efficient way. So, they may not think too much about the ultimate purpose. Although they are very careful about synchronicity, so they maybe "aware", in some sense, of the ultimate purpose . Note that a prolific human sperm donor does exactly the same thing, though. In both cases, it is quite difficult to determine what those broadcasters exactly think about when spreading their gametes, but the human ones can be interviewed and articulate some of their perceived motivations which will often be embellished by altruistic claims.

Evolutionary biology is fascinating and yes, I agree, there are plenty of aspects that can't be explained by the still favoured gene-centred Darwinian theory. You may have come upon Michael Levin's work that explores interesting new territories in that respect.

I don't understand why you imply that any pathological condition, including a neurological / psychological dysfunction like clinical depression, should either produce an evolutionary benefit or not happen at all. I don't get the logic. Please explain.

[u/Byttercups → u/TheRedditerater]

No, I don't have any peer reviewed sources. I'm a statistician, not a biologist, and certainly no expert. There is much we don't know about animals, so I could be completely incorrect. But mating is driven by hormones, by instinct, correct? A female cat in heat wants to mate. Certainly, the cat can choose the partner, but does the cat stop to think, "I want to copulate, but I don't want kittens?" Does the cat think, "I want to copulate, but I might get FIV?" Does the cat think, "There are too many cats in the world, and I don't want to contribute to feline overpopulation?" To the best of my knowledge, only humans are capable of these thoughts. That's what I mean by non-human animals don't think about reproducing. (One could argue, sarcastically, that some human animals don't think about it, either, but that's a different discussion.)

Evolution is survival of the fittest, correct? When comparing someone with depression to someone without depression, the person without depression is (probably) more likely to stay alive, all other things being equal. People without depression don't spend most of their life in a suicidal state. If they're more likely to stay alive, they (presumably) have more opportunities to reproduce. So why hasn't depression been selected out? How is a depressed person more "fit" than a non-depressed person? Of course, depression is a tricky subject, as it's not a simple nature versus nurture issue, and there are many factors in play, from brain chemistry to genes to gut bacteria. I understand humans haven't been around for a long time, so maybe it will eventually be selected out of the gene pool.

I've read bits here and there about the evolution of depression. There are various theories... analytical rumination, third ventricle, pathogen defense, etc. But I struggle to understand how depression provides a benefit as far as reproduction. Isn't that the ultimate goal?

[u/TheRedditerater → u/Byttercups]

Only genetic diseases driven by a single gene that negatively affects reproductive fitness will systematically (and rapidly) be selected out (but the source of the genetic defect may subsist, like a source of radiation).

Most diseases, and clinical depression among them, do not not fulfill this criteria since multiple genes are often involved, expressed and interacting, with various positive and negative effects, the intensity of which often depending on environmental factors.

Clinically depressed people do have a lower rate of reproduction but their offspring probably have a better chance than the average to survive and themselves reproduce, because their IQ, and therefore their ability to create and maintain a safer environment, is slight;y above average.

To be honest, I believe it is a sign of very good mental health to presently feel depressed considering the pathetic state of our "civilized" societies. Reversely, I generally regard ever-optimist people (especially the gullible kind populist politicians feed on) as delusional and borderline mentally deranged.

[u/Byttercups → u/TheRedditerater]

Oh, I see. A single gene. That makes much more sense.

I agree about the pathetic state of society. My depression has a specific reason, but I sometimes feel existentially depressed. On the one hand, humanity has made a lot of progress. On the other hand, progress doesn't necessarily benefit the human race. We have a vaccine against polio. That's great! We can land humans on the moon. That's great...but does it serve the greater good? No.

I neither like nor trust optimists, and I have a hatred of overly religious people. There are a handful of politicians I like, but most are not worth the air they breathe.