this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
350 points (97.3% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
3050 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean, the Roman Empire was an olive tree superorganism. Prove me wrong.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There’s a Pax Romana/olive branch joke in there somewhere

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am pretty sure they were sentient, rotting fish guts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Like in that sauce the whole mediterran had then?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 months ago (27 children)

While I wouldn't say that's right, I also wouldn't come right out and call it wrong either. This very much engages with the "Selfish Gene", an heuristic model of thinking about evolution from the perspective of the gene itself instead of populations.

As an added amusement, the book "The Selfish Gene" came out in 1976, and is the source of the word "meme," used somewhat differently than it is now, naturally.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Makes total sense: who's working for whom? Is wheat making an effort to till the soil and find fertiliser to help us grow, or is it the other way round?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (13 children)

And here we have a typical specimen exhibiting capitalist realism: Observe how the subject is analysing everything they come across on a "who works for who" basis, projecting human modes of production onto the universe. Applying it, even in vain, this reductive universality ensures that they will never think beyond it and, not thinking beyond it, not question either working for a capitalist or being a capitalist who is worked for, thereby in either case working for capitalism, a form of human cooperation in which happiness, well-being, yes even human connection (that necessitating eye-level communication) is traded for hastened advancement of the economy to achieve post-scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

9 points out of 10, very good. Except that capitalism doesn't want to ever achieve post-scarcity. They're a dog chasing a car, without scarcity and demand their profit streams dry up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Hence why post-scarcity is the natural death point of capitalism.

Your question is essentially the same as Freudians arguing among themselves about the existence of a death drive: How could it possibly benefit the individual? If it can't in some way benefit the individual, how can it be a drive? How does it mesh with the pleasure principle? The answer is simple: It doesn't benefit the individual. In certain circumstances it benefits the genome, that's why us seed-pods can, in certain circumstances, enter states in which it is pleasurable.

And all-encompassing and all-powerful, indeed, religious, as capitalism may seem right now it, too, is a seed pod. It does not have to will its abolishment to bring about the material conditions abolishing it.

Of course there's also nothing speaking against it not making things unduly nasty for us. But that's mere politics, not fate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Class war: wheat vs humanity

Don't even get me started on cats.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

We have been played for absolute fools

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Omni-Man's red eyes make him look blazed, which fits what he's saying pretty well. "Dad, what the hell are you talking about?"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, who's living in the house? Certainly not the wheat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I so want to befriend my local crows, been meaning to buy some seeds for bribing them

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

There's some magpies near me, but I don't have a predictable enough routine to befriend them. I had some crow friends once and they would knock on my window when I was late coming out to them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They like unsalted peanuts

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

I wonder what kind of cats rich people tend to go for. Like, say, it's some kind of black long haired green eyed mini cat. It'll receive better healthcare than most humans on earth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It really is a symbiotic relationship we've developed with the things we've domesticated (or that domesticated us)

Especially animals reserved for working instead of eating, because in those situations oftentimes the food being made with the work is shared between the symbiotes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I would say it's symbiotic to the continued survival and propegation of their genes, but not to their well-being as individuals.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

It's also a double-edged sword. The moment a domesticated species isn't useful enough for us, its numbers (and therefore genes) will decrease dramatically. Plenty of livestock populations may be reduced to a tiny size if artificial meat production becomes cheap enough, or if it's decided to be a necessity to fight climate change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, influence is rarely a one way street and things like agriculture or animal husbandry have definitely changed us as well

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

How to tell someone is reading Sapiens.

Still, insane that "science/technology improvements" did not improve happienes at all. Just shifted the standards.

load more comments
view more: next ›