Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.

Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.

Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.

We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have.

Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.

So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.

What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.

We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.

I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.

It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.

I don’t think this is right. We have laws against incest, because we were programmed by evolution to think incest is bad. The causal chain is:

1. Incest lowers survival rates,
2. Evolution causes humans to find incest disgusting to increase survival rates,
3. Humans create laws to abolish incest because they find it disgusting.

Homosexuality is not like that at all, if I understand correctly (which I may not, tbf). Homosexuality may in fact be a evolutionary trait that is selected for in a certain sense, or it may just be a side-effect of other evolutionary efforts. For instance, having a homosexual uncle could be beneficial to you, as he would spend less time taking care of his own kids (obviously won’t have any) and more time taking care of you. The uncle’s genes would have no incentive to do this and evolution would not pressure the uncle to become homosexual, but your common ancestor (your grandparents on one side) would benefit as your genes would be helped along by your uncle, and so evolution could have caused homosexuality to occur ever so often, to produce one of these “helpful uncles”.

Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans. All Some animals avoid incest, it’s not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It’s pre-programmed in us, so to speak.

While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.

This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.

Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.

You can’t really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I’m no biologist so I’m not an expert by any means, but we can’t go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.

That said, such an “ew” response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There’s nothing “inherently disgusting” about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.

And btw this isn’t restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.

First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.

Well, actually, it’s the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the “ew” evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.

I was kinda surprised as well that you couldn’t annotate the function or something. But then again, an attribute like “please don’t use this instruction” sounds like something that’s pretty hard to integrate in the code generation. What kind of flag would you use? I don’t think you want to apply that flag to everything, just to that particular function.

My instance runs on a dedicated server at hetzner, from their server auction. My price only increased like 3%, which is honestly lower than inflation given how many years we’ve been at that price point. So I’m completely fine with it. I’ve not heard of these enormous price hikes before.

I honestly don’t think that is very usual. I would even say it’s more usual to see bare links posted, at least if I look in my own feed. But maybe that’s just the sort of stuff I follow.

Fuck the commission.

The EU is definitely a net-positive thing, but the way the commission works is too undemocratic for my tastes. Stop Killing Games seem to have wider support in the parliament, which is the actual democratically elected part of the EU. The commission and all the other undemocratic parts should just be abolished honestly.

What do you mean?

European English

Is this a thing? Isn’t it just “British English”?

For slet ikke at tale om hvor meget man bliver holdt i hånden.

Åh det er så irriterende. Jeg tror det er et resultat af at mange store spil med store navne som Lego forsøger at tiltrække et publikum der slet ikke er vant til videospil. Jeg oplevede det også da jeg spillede Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. Det var tydeligt at tutorials osv. var sat efter laveste fællesnævner. Det er sikkert rart hvis du er hardcore Indiana Jones fan og aldrig har spillet videospil før og bare gerne vil prøve det spil pga. brandet, men for os andre kan det godt være lidt belastende.

Velkommen til @SHB90@feddit.dk!

Hvordan fandt du frem til Feddit.dk? :)

Konen og jeg har spillet Little Problems, som er et detektivspil. Det ser sødt ud men derfor skal man ikke tro at det er nemt!

Vi fik også set My Love Story with Yamada-kun at Lv999. Kort anime på 13 episoder, sød og humoristisk romantik. Lige som den skal være.

Har selv heads up display i min bil og jeg tror ikke jeg kan gå tilbage til at undvære den. Ser det nærmest som en sikkerhedsfeature for man behøver ikke tage øjnene væk fra vejen (lige så meget i hvert fald) for at se hvor hurtigt man kører osv.

I’ve been very happy with typst. Works great and so much easier than LaTeX.

If the electricity comes from renewable sources, it is no (global) problem. In that case, you’ve just taken the sun’s energy from one place (solar panel, wind turbine, etc.) and moved it elsewhere (the ocean). That’s fine, that energy was going to end up heating the Earth in any case.

This is very different from greenhouse gas emissions, as those increase the total amount of energy the sun delivers to Earth, changing the global balance.