Richard Dawkins lecture on natural selection and evolutionary psychology Part 1/2

[MuchContractForYou]

I didn't hear him say 'evolutionary psychology' once.

Misleading title.

[imnotabear]

adoption is not unique to humans by any stretch of the imagine - not even inter-species adoption. Sometimes these smart people just need to sit down and trawl YT a bit and learn about the real world

[AgowTisro]

@imnotabear In nature, adoption is incredibly rare. 

[euphemus2]

@AgowTisro True. The White-winged Chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos) (Australian) doesn’t so much ‘adopt’ as ‘kidnap’ the juveniles from other chatterings (collective noun). They live in large family groups with only one breeding pair - potential for in-breeding. It takes years to raise a chough - the offspring from previous years share the duty. By ‘adopting’ they decrease the work of rearing & bring genetic diversity to the chattering. Sorry, Richard (I think you are great BTW).

[napataatta]

Dawkin's braininess is so attractive... <3

[TheJBoy73]

@napataatta Almost as much as his voice right :P

I hope there's a Selfish Gene audiobook somewhere

[JollSSteR]

Best quote ever, Braininess is attractive

[verial]

Look, I am a very open-minded Christian. I believe in astronomy and that the earth is not the center of our solar system. I don't believe that the world is flat or anything. That's because astronomy and earth science have evidence. You can go to outer space and see the earth isn't flat or in the center of the solar system. But evolution has no evidence. Show us the evidence!

[Rewster86]

@verial I can go to outer space? Have you been there? How many people have been to outer space? 100 maybe? That's not evidence, it's hear-say. Pictures are not evidence of anything either. The only proof in existence is personal experience and that proof is only proof to the person experiencing. You cannot prove that we can get to outer space without building a spaceship and flying there yourself.

[guest7952]

@Rewster86 Haha ya and you can't prove that gravity exists either. Although I'm pretty sure you're a complete idiot if you don't believe it exists. Outerspace- hear-say....you sound like one of those 9/11 conspiracy believers. This guy is intelligent and if you don't agree with anything he says, make a better theory, write an empirical journal article, and prove that your theories are better. Until then, you're just an idiot saying we've never been to space haha

[oti87]

@guest7952 i believe in evolutionery psychology but not in the 9-11 attacks, you means osama bin laden planned the attacks hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

[drewwhonumba22]

@verial DNA shows genetic common ancestors, Fossil records, transitional forms, Selective breading (Un natural selection)....what more do you require?

[verial]

It's scary how good scientists are at making up these explanations to support their atheist beliefs.

[Jshect]

@verial Did you know that there are many Christians who except everything Dawkin's says in this video about Evolution and still consider themselves strong in their Christian faith. Professor Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist and a Christian.

[verial]

@Jshect Yes, you are right. Except everything Dawkins says is right!

[AgentTheGreat]

It is only within the bounds of religion that you see people making up justifications to support a God ever-unprovable. Science on the other hand thrives on being proven false; your accusation doesn't stick to scientists.

[AgentTheGreat]

@verial

It is only scary to see you not accepting what can even be seen happening right now, because of mere "faith". Delusion; that scares me most.

[Darwin42ME]

@verial Darwin was not an atheist. Neither was Theodosius Dobzhansky.

[Castaril]

I came to many of the evolutionary psychology conclusions myself before I ever heard about the field. Its just common sense in most cases, and makes far more sense than the drivel of social scientists who claim everything is a "social construct".

I doubt Richard Dawkins has the courage to take evolutionary psychology to its logical conclusion, namely that human beings are not equal and that egalitarianism is a myth.

[Geebsee]

@Castaril

Egalitarianism as a moral philosophy is not a myth. It does not rely on people being equal. Steven Pinker argues that biologically it is not the case that we're equal, quite the opposite, but it is nonsense way of thinking to bring morality in to all of this. If nature was the perfect virtue after which to learn morality, eugenics would be an acceptable moral philosophy. Nature can tell us how things are, not how they ought to be.

[Castaril]

@Geebsee Egalitarianism: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

If humans are inherently unequal then its foolish to expect equal outcomes. If you enforce equality you are punishing the more capable.

[Geebsee]

@Castaril

I think we differ in our separations of the word equal. There's also a problem with the statement "advocating the removal of inequalities". Here there's certainly a need to see the difference between biological equality and social equality in terms of inherent value. Egalitarianism isn't suggesting that you remove or suppress the biological differences, just that they don't principally govern differential treatment in society.

[Geebsee]

@Castaril

And as I'm sure you were about to write, it may not intend to remove or suppress biological differences, but by removing differential treatment it will suppress biological differences so that the more capable are punished, as you say. Well, that may or may not be, it doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with egalitarianism of and by itself, just that you may want to introduce some workarounds if that happens to be the case (which I'm not 100% convinced that it is).

[Castaril]

@Geebsee Which differential treatment are you speaking of?

[Geebsee]

@Castaril

I am primarily referring to the political aspects that all modern Western governments supposedly are built upon, the ideas that started flourishing during the Enlightenment (the removal of segregation of race, sex, age, socioeconomic background - civil rights for all, etc).

Please elaborate a little on your position in case I misinterpreted your compartmentalised statement below. You're more than welcome to do that on a PM if you want more space than a YouTube commentbox.

[crazysoccerman14]

0:45 - the top left photo is the background on my phone. It reminds me that nature does not specifically select for morality... only survival and replication. That's it.

[Garethduify]

Dawkins is master of the universe ---Genius !!

[mcrmusicwhore]

I love Richard Dawkins.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

@mcrmusicwhore I LUV NIGGA

[crazysoccerman14]

This makes a lot of sense. It's like someone threw a brick of reason at my face.

[Castaril]

@crazysoccerman14 Do you accept that men and women are biologically hardwired differently, and thus display different behavioral traits and capabilities? If you find that too offensive, go back to your Christian egalitarian moral system you had before because you aren't ready to face the full implications of evolutionary psychology.

[v4641]

Dawkins is god

[1988theLAW]

@v4641 Thats irony for you

[358Liberty]

Evolution and war-So war is all about resources, status and reproduction well we do seem more civilised than our ancestors so maybe theres hope for the end to nation-state war at least

[Bazompora]

Civilisation is but a thin layer, upon our nature that hasn't evolved much for the last ten thousands of years; we are still as brutal and bestial as ever: from swords and catapults, we've "progressed" to bombs and nukes.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

JUMBLED THOUGHTS HER PEOPLE.

Fats, Sugars and Salts helped us survive because they helped our bodies function properly. As a result, we evolved a taste for them long ago in our hominid past.

TAKE THE REST FROM THERE.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

@Pee And some JAMBALAYA!

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Pardon me, we like food that is "not all that good for us" (high in fat, sugar and salt content) because foods that were high in fat, sugar, and salt content were hard to come by in our ancestral past. So we evolved these cravings because they helped us survive, but since we live in a world of surplus, excess, and diminished scarcity (outside of the 3rd World) these cravings have come back to haunt us. We have too much of what we desire and it is now making us fat, ugly, and disease prone.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Now how does this relate to drugs? We like what makes us feel good at the expense of what it does to our body. So we've elvolved preferences for things that make us feel good (alter or release certain chemicals in our brains) and these preferences can be exploited or overwhelmed (hijacked) by things that "aren't all that good for us."

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Pardon me, foods with high fat, sugar and salt content we're hard to find and helped us survive. That combination boosted their appeal to us.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

WERE

[albionangel]

"They don't indulge in hedonistic activities" - what about the lemur - is it a lemur?- that bites at poisonous millipedes because the poison secreted gets them "high"? Or monkeys on tropical islands that steal tourist's alcoholic drinks and get drunk? Is this not hedonistic? I can't see what survival benefit it would have..? Just curious.

[skitzoLSD]

something that will make life more enjoyable will be beneficial. of course in extremes they would not but you will notice the animals that abuse those substances, like humans, are ostracized fro their community and sometimes kicked right out.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

5:15. The same reason we eat sweets and other foods that aren't all that good for us (a misfiring, a byproduct of something that benefits us [and was passed on through sexual selection], but was hijacked for other purposes)

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Excuse me, Natural Selection.

[TheRealDJLO]

@albionangel higher order animals do indeed indulge in hedonism, but they are by far the minority