#evolutionist kin

[citizenoftmrrwlnd]

self care for : a noncanon hermit/evolutionist (hermitcraft/evo smp) with a focus on the color red, carnivorousness/sharp teeth, soft things, watermelon, angels, and lemon demon requested by ⛓️🐬anon

x | x | x x | - | x x | x | x

[dailycharacteroption]

Races Among the Stars 8: Giant

Something that’s been coming ever since we first got entries for what giants have been up to in the far future of Starfinder, Ports of Call granted us a playable giant option!

More specifically, an option to play as many of the various large-size giant subspecies, so sadly no playable cloud or storm giants and the like, not without homebrewing, anyway.

While advances culturally and technologically have made sure that even hill giants have access to education to leave behind Pathfinder-era assumptions behind, giant culture as a whole is steeped in tradition and history, hailing back to their descent from the gigas, who in turn descended from the titans.

In this far-future era, their love of tradition and heritage means they spend much time honoring and preserving those traditions even with the modern amenities and advances all around them.

While giants are all large humanoids that seem very human-like, this does not truly encapsulate their appearance, especially since many have ties to the elements. Additionally, their proportions are oftentimes somewhat off from the human norm, rather than just being “resized human”

Hill giants are the most human-like in appearance, albeit favoring broad features and bodies. Meanwhile, fire giants sport red skin and vibrant hair that makes them seem to have flaming scalps and and/or beards at first glance. Meanwhile, stone giants tend to be lean with stony skin and irregularly or angular craniums that make their bald forms seem to be made of unworked stone. Slag giants, on the other hand, as hybrids of fire and stone giants, tend to have rust-colored skin and sturdy yet lean frames.

While fully capable of wearing modern armors and clothing sized for them, those living a civilian’s life on their claimed homeworld of Pholskar tend to wear outfits that draw upon the heritage of their ancestors, but with modern upgrades. A hill giant may still wear furs, but they are expertly tailored and symmetrical with under layers of modern fabrics, while the brass accents of a fire giant’s kilt hide modern alloys as well.

Giant society as a whole varies by various species, but all are defined by their love of their history and their pride. However, when you are most well-known for your strength, it becomes a mighty temptation for even the most supposedly civilized giants to not use their might, be it physical or political, to get one’s way, especially as evidenced by the Cloud Imperium, one of the major ruling bodies of Pholskar. That being said, there are plenty that see the tyranny of their kin and reject it, choosing to use their strength for the good of others, giant and otherwise, but change comes slow to these beings.

Giants are strong and tough, but their size makes them a bit ungainly.

They do, however, has a instinctive knack for picking up heavy objects and turning them into impromptu projectiles, which only grow in lethality as they master themselves.

They also possess a knack for both building things, as well as looming over others intimidatingly.

Where things get really interesting is the abilities granted by different subspecies. Fire giants are naturally resistant to flame and train with armor to move in it easier, while hill giants have a long tradition of wrestling and throwing their weight around that they put to good use. Slag giants are also resistant to flame, but their history as crafters gives them a knack for recognizing and exploiting the stress points of objects. Finally, stone giants have even better night sight, and their thrown objects hit just a bit harder.

Their strength and toughness makes giants an easy pick for pretty much any melee or tanking class, from melee soldiers, evolutionists, nanocytes, vanguards, and even melee solarions. Meanwhile, social and casting classes tend to be fairly neutral for them, though biohackers, mechanics and technomancers have their roles with their love of crafting, while mystic and witchwarper have their connections to the traditions of giant-kind. Their biggest weakness is the penalty to dexterity and size making most types of operatives, as well as most ranged builds somewhat difficult, but it’s not impossible to get around, especially when the heavyweight skirmisher gives you an option to play a strength-based operative anyway.

And that’s that. Giants are a fascinating addition to the playable options, and obviously the list of types of playable giants has been pared down a bit to save space, but there are plenty of Large-sized giants out there to adapt and play as, such as frost giants, though Huge and larger are still probably out of the picture due to the difficulties and power that they grant.

[murky-tannin]

Watchers kin angels not because of the angel statues or how the Evolutionists would sometimes refer to them as such, but because neither fanbase has any idea what the fuck they are and claim entirely contradictory things as canon

[kalamity-jayne]

Race is indeed a social construct but so is gender. Anyone who's understanding of biology goes beyond highschool knows that physiological sex exists on a spectrum and is infinitely more complicated than male or female.

More importantly, no matter how objective a scientist thinks their research might be, all data still has to be parsed through an interpretive lens. That lens is shaped by language, ie culture. Male/Female, Man/Woman, Boy/Girl, these are ultimately just words, abstract concepts applied to nature so that we can better understand our experiences with it. But the thing is, language's relationship to nature isn't 1:1. In a sense the relationship is actually a bit more metaphorical in function. Taxonomic systems can never perfectly capture experienced reality. There is always a point where the system nearly falls apart. As the categories proliferate so do the instances where nature defies categorization. Humanity's attempts to impose taxonomic order upon nature has never been sociopolitically neutral. Transphobes fail to acknowledge that science, and the people who do the science, are influenced by the culture(s) they are enmeshed in. You can't remove the scientist from their cultural context. The fact is The fact is the gender binary was created as means to both oppress women and justify colonialism.

Up until the 18th and 19th centuries Males and Females were viewed as different forms of the same sex. Back then the view was that everything in the universe has a temperament. Things that were hot and dry, like the sun for example, were considered masculine and things that were cold and moist, like the moon,were considered feminine. It was believed that people had the same sex organs only differentiated by the presence of more heat in males. Sex non-conformity (intersex bodies for instance) was understood as having too much heat or cold. The vagina was understood as an interior penis, the womb as a scrotum, and the ovaries as testicles. Tthis is evidenced in the illustrations of the body by Andreas Vesalius, the founder of anatomy. To be male or female was to hold a cultural role. Bodies were seen as illustrative not definitive. According to Aristotle, Sex was a cosmic principle and reproductive organs were just instruments. Today we take for granted that the “body” is more real than “culture” (which is very silly because even intangible things can be of great import.) but back then it was the opposite. In 1803 French physician Jacques Louis Moreau argued against Aristotle and Galen, maintaining that males and females were “different in every conceivable aspect of the body.” Male scientists utilized the same methods (like phrenology) to prove that males and females were anatomically opposite. “Differences” that had not been considered relevant or important for centuries were now foundational to categorization. This fed the Enlightenment notion that nature prescribed the laws of society and that the body was a visual blueprint for society.

Prior to 19th century science, European and US American men relied upon religion to justify restricting women's access to public and professional life, most often by referencing Genesis. In response, feminists offered re-interpretations of scripture to argue for women's empowerment. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution reframed gender debates in the late 19th century “from biblical ancestors to animal kin, from individual to species, from piety to reproduction.” This led to anti-feminists of the era to employing “nature as an ally to describe female inferiority as a biological inevitability and evolutionary necessity.” Patriarchal evolutionists would argue that as animals progressed from asexual to sexual reproduction they developed more complex mating systems as they ascended the evolutionary ladder, therefore, humans with the “most strictly defined gender roles” with couples composed of a working husband outside of the home and a wife in charge of domesticicty were the highest pinnacle of civilization. The thought of women going to college “threatened to minimize sex differentiation, thwart evolutionary advancement, and diminish white racial superiority.”

Modern gender and sex categories are not natural, they were created specifically in the context of Western empire as a way to naturalize chattel slavery and colonialism. In 2000 renowned Jamaican philosopher Dr. Sylcia Wyter argued that “from the very origin of the modern world...there were never simply men and women.” Western gender categories were developed as a metric to demonize Black people and “civilize” white people who were defined against the “savagery” and “sexual ambiguity” of Black and Indigenous people. In the 18th and 19th centuries the sex binary was defined as an accomplishment of civilization exclusive to the white race. Introducing Black and Indigenous people to the western sex binary was part of the colonialist project to bring so called "civilization" to the “savage races” across the world. Colonists sought to annihilate Black and Indigenous practices of kinship and embodiment and impose new genders and sexualities “molded in the image of the colonial mother and father."

The signifiers we choose and how they're organized is ultimately arbitrary. Different cultures use different systems of signification. We've seen through out history how many non+western european cultures had/have a very different conception of gender. Not all societies based gender roles off of anatomy. For example the Yoruba of Nigeria, prior to colonization, had terms for male and female but the usage of those terms was restricted to the sphere of procreation and did not exert any influence on the production of gendered social roles. There were/are many non-western european societies who construct gender in a profoundly different manner sometimes resulting in more than two genders. The notion of the gender binary, that there is only male and female is western European colonial import.

Biology, like much of academia, has historically been dominated by gatekeeping straight white men whose research stemmed from a patriarchal, white supremacist, western european colonialist framework. Science is rarely just a simple pursuit of knowledge. There was a time in which all of academia, from anthropology to biology, was very much in service to the West's colonialist projects. Among other things, biologists conceptualized sex differentiation as central to humanity's evolution toward civilization and was purely anatomical by nature.

In 1886 Krafft-Ebbing, a sexologist, expressed a view common at the time, "The higher the development of the race, the stronger the contrasts between man and woman." In 1897, William Thomas expressed a similar sentiment: “the less civilized the race the less is the physical differences of the sexes.” This notion was used to deprive women of their rights and was also one of many justifications for colonizing various parts of the world, paving over the gender classifications of the societies being colonized. In the late 1800's the belief was essentially that sex was race specific and as societies progressed from “savagery” toward “civilization” over time, the physical distinctions between men and women increased. Physical sexual differences were regarded as evolutionary products of the social roles of each sex. The belief was that if “civilization” were brought to “primitive” peoples they would eventually develop sex differences over time. This “scientific knowledge” was widespread and was used as the foundation for public policy. Even 19th century white feminists saw womanhood as “an advanced state of mental, physiological, emotional , and anatomical specialization only achieved by the civilized.” Surgeon Dr. Mary Walker defined womanhood by genitalia and reproductive capacity because”the vagina served as the linkage between the body and the race.” The vagina was discussed as one of the last remnants of animality in the white race that had to be managed by women for the future of the race. Other orifices were not linked to racial reproduction, oral and anal sex were seen as uncivilized.

Scientist began referencing newly substantiated sex differences like brain and pelvis size as evidence that women were inherently hyper emotional while men were inherently rational and thus justified the denial of white womens' rights. They argued that their only role was to perpetuate the reproduction of the white race through childbirth. White men feared that granting the right to vote to white women would cause the “effeminization of the men and the masculinization of women” and that this blurring of the sex binary would lead “the civilized race to slide down the evolutionary timeline back to primitivism.”

The point is, transphobes cling to their conception of biology because its at the core of how they maintain the borders of feminine authenticity. One should always be skeptical of those who apply notions of authenticity to entire groups of people because that is the primary mechanism of gatekeeping. You should always ask yourself who is deciding what is and isn't authentic and why. Bigots never ask those questions which is why you have so called radical feminists who may think of themselves as anti-racist (and are perhaps non-white themselves) unwittingly supporting white supremacy and the patriarchy by their attempts to enforce and defend the gender binary. Transphobes love to say " biology isn't bigotry" despite the numerous examples throughout history of supremacists of one kind or another using biology to justify their hegemony over others.

My sources:

The Biopolitics of Feeling: Race, Sex, and Science in the Nineteenth Century by Dr. Kyla Schuller (Duke University Press, 2018)

In From Eve to Evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women's Rights in Gilded Age America by Dr. Kimberly Hamlin (University of Chicago Press 2014)

The Sexual Demon of Colonial Power: Pan-African Embodiment and Erotic Schemes of Empire by Dr. Greg Thomas (Indiana University Press 2007)

The New Woman: Literary Modernism, Queer Theory, and the Trans Feminine, by Emma Heanney (Northwestern University Press 2017)

The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses by Oyeronke Oyewumi (University of Minnesota Press 1997)

[waka-chan-out]

two pages into a research paper on why creationists hate the gays and i have yet to talk about why creationists hate the gays

[mycelium-resistance]

NOTE: If you are uncomfortable with any of your posts/art being reblogged here or tagged with kin tags/pll tags, please let me know!! I’ll remove them immediately!

—

Ok! Official Introduction time!!!

Hi! My names from this life are King and Cas, but you’re free to call me Grian! Obviously I’m a Grian kin, and I’m always looking to meet some other Hermitkin ^^ doubles welcome!

More info ⤵️

Kinfo!!

I have 4 currently known Grian canons, a mostly canon-complaint Hermitcraft canon that also includes YHS and EVO, a 44/Blue AU canon, another Hermitcraft AU that includes YHS and EVO, and a 3rd Life canon.

Other important info: In both my 1st HC canon and the 44 canon, I was in a Polytechs relationship! There was no relationship in the other AU canon, and I was in a Scarian relationship in my 3rd Life canon!

In all of my YHS/EVO canons, Taurtis was more of a brother to me, and while I am aware that in official canon it was implied we had interacted romantically, shipping us makes me uncomfortable. (Although if you come from a canon where that relationship happened, I am ok with that ^^)

I also happen to be soulbonded with Iskall from the same 44 canon! It’s not exactly like traditional soulbinding, though. Our souls were both reincarnated into the same body. I’m the only one who controls it and does life stuff, but technically speaking we only have one brain. It’s really confusing and hard to understand. If you’re our Mumbo, PLEASE!!! Let us know!! We miss you a lot and knowing you’re ok would help so much.

Along with that I recently kinfirmed Afterlife Lizzie! So that’s on the list now lol

---

Tagging system!!

Series: I tag every series aside from Hermitcraft, as it’s the most consistent. Yandere High School is tagged #yhs, Minecraft Evolution is tagged #evo, and 3rd Life SMP is tagged #3smp!

People: Pretty much every character has a tag! Although for posts with Grian, it is tagged #me tag! If there is most or all of the members of a series I will tag it accordingly, such as: #all hermits, #all evolutionists, #all yhs, #all 3rdlifers! Also groups of people will be tagged, like: #architechs, #dragon bros, #property police, #castle dwellers, etc! Irl people are tagged with #irls and their name, or if their real name isn’t known, #“screen name” irl.

Categories: Right on the tin! #fanarts, #writing, #qoutes, etc!

#spec rom: This is short for “Specifically Romantic”, so any ship posts are included in this! 

#plls: This stands for “Past Life Lover”, basically any post that includes Mumbo or Iskall <33 Spec Rom or not!

#gifs, #stimmy: Gifs is for general posts with gifs and stimmy is for stimboards!

#videos: Both video posts and posts related to videos

#-G: Just my text post tag! This tag means I made the post myself!

[fictionkinfessions]

Grian YT channel: Hey, new series comign soon :))) *cryptic screenshot with a few Hermits, EVOlutionists, and some obscured people*

Me: I swear to the Watchers if this is another storybased/rp series and I kin from it I am going to SCREAM

-G #🧶🍄🐔

[afishtrap]

Until recently, cultural evolution has commonly been regarded as a permanent teleological move to a greater level of hierarchy, crowned with state formation. However, recent research based upon the principle of heterarchy – ‘... the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways’ (Crumley 1995: 3) changes the usual picture dramatically. The opposite of heterarchy, then, would be a condition in a society in which relationships in most contexts are ordered mainly according to one principal hierarchical relationship. This organizational principle may be called ‘homoarchy’. Homoarchy and heterarchy represent the most universal ‘ideal’ principles and basic trajectories of socio-cultural (including political) organization and its transformations. There are no universal evolutionary stages – band, tribe, chiefdom, state or otherwise – inasmuch as cultures so characterized could be heterarchical or homoarchical: they could be organized differently, while having an equal level of overall social complexity. However, alternativity exists not only between heterarchic and homoarchic cultures but also within each of the respective types. In particular, the present article attempts at demonstrating that the Benin Kingdom of the 13th – 19th centuries, being an explicitly homoarchic culture not inferior to early states in the level of complexity, nevertheless was not a state as it lacked administrative specialization and pronounced priority of the supra-kin ties. The Benin form of socio-political organization can be called ‘megacommunity’, and its structure can be depicted as four concentric circles forming an upset cone: the extended family, community, chiefdom, and megacommunity (kingdom). Thus, the homoarchic megacommunity turns out an alternative to the homoarchic by definition (Claessen and Skalník 1978: 640) early state.

Dmitri M. Bondarenko. "A Homoarchic Alternative to the Homoarchic State: Benin Kingdom of the 13th–19th Centuries." Social Evolution & History, Vol. 4 No. 2, September 2005 18–88.

The word ‘homoarchy’ first came to the present author and his colleague, Andrey Korotayev's minds during an informal discussion of Carole Crumley's concept of ‘heterarchy’ (1979; 1987; 1995; 2001). Crumley (1995: 3; see also 1979: 144; 1987: 158; 2001: 25) defines the heterarchy ‘… as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways’, just in the vein heterarchy is defined in biophysics from which the term was imported by her to social science (see Crumley 1987: 156–157). Respectively, homoarchy may be coined as ‘the relation of elements to one another when they are rigidly ranked one way only, and thus possess no (or at least very limited) potential for being unranked or ranked in another or a number of different ways at least without cardinal reshaping of the whole socio-political order’. The association used for delimitation of heterarchy and hierarchy in cybernetics is applicable for our purposes as well: ‘Heterarchy [is the] form of organization resembling a network or fishnet’ while ‘Hierarchy [is the] form of organization resembling a pyramid’ (Dictionary n.d).

However, in social science homoarchy must not be identified with hierarchy (as well as heterarchy must not be mixed up with egalitarianism [Brumfiel 1995: 129]). Hierarchy is an attribute of any social system while on the other hand, in any society both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ social links may be observed (Berreman 1981; Smith, M. E. 1985; Ehrenreich et al. 1995: 1–5, 87–100, 116–120, 125–131; Blanton 1998; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000c; for this dictum verity's explicit confirmation in recent works on an impressive variety of specific cultures, based on different kinds of sources – archaeological, written, and first-hand ethnographic, see e.g., Kelly 1993; Jolly and Mosko 1994; Small 1995; Wailes 1995; Kammerer 1998; Kristiansen 1998: 54–56; Nangoro 1998: 47–48; Anderson, C. E. 1999; Kuijt 2000: 312–315; Scarborough et al. 2003). More so: sometimes it seems too difficult to designate a society as ‘homoarchic’ or ‘heterarchic’ even at the most general level of analysis, like in the cases of the late-ancient Germans (see, e.g., Gurevich 1999: 45–57) and early-medieval ‘Barbarian kingdoms’ in which one can observe monarchy and quite rigid social hierarchy combined with (at least at the beginning) democratic institutions and procedures (like selection of the king), not less significant for the whole socio-political system's operation (see, e.g., Diesner 1966; Claude 1970; Dvoretskaja 1982). Hence, the questions which rise are if in a given social system there is only one hierarchy or there many of them? and in the latter case, are the hierarchies ranked rigidly or not: do, say, two individuals find themselves ranked towards each other the same way in any social context or not?

Every hierarchy in a society is underpinned by a specific set of values. A society may be considered as homoarchic when there is one value which is central to all the hierarchies and not only integrates but also arranges in a definite pyramidal order all the other, secondary to it, values and hierarchies they underpin. Under such circumstances this value ‘encompasses’ all the rest and makes the society ‘holistic’ (Dumont 1966/1980), that is homoarchic when the whole unequivocally dominates parts as the supreme expression of that all-embracing and all-penetrable value. Although Dumont's vision of ‘purity’ as the value (or idea) encompassing the holistic society in India is criticized nowadays (Mosko 1994b: 24–50; Quigley 1999), his theoretical contribution's validity is nevertheless testified, for example, by the 20th century totalitarian societies in which, e.g., the idea of communism clearly did play precisely the role Dumont attributes to that of purity in the case of India. On the contrary, when ‘there is a multiplicity of “hierarchical” or asymmetrical oppositions, none of which are reducible to any of the others or to a single master opposition or value’, ‘the … case immediately departs from the Dumontian formulation’ (Mosko 1994a: 214) – the society does not fit the homoarchic (or hierarchic in the Dumontian sense) model.

[...]

The overwhelming majority of modern theories of the state consider this phenomenon as a specialized and centralized institution for governing a society, to what its right to exercise coercive authority – legitimized violence is often added as the state's critical characteristic feature (see e.g., ‘summarizing’ definitions in anthropological encyclopedias, text-books, and general publications of the last decade: Earle 1994: 945; Claessen 1996; Marcus and Feinman 1998: 4; Ember and Ember 1999: 226–229, 242; Abélès 2000; Kradin 2004: 268). This approach to the state, rooted in political, philosophic, legal, and anthropological thought from Antiquity on (Hodgen 1964: 354–515; Harris 1968; Service 1975: 21–46; 1978; Nersesjants 1985; 1986; Iljushechkin 1996: 13–92; Gomerov 2002: 14–68), in the 20th century became equally typical of Marxists, (neo)evolutionists, and structuralists notwithstanding all the differences between them3. We may argue safely that these two characteristics – political centralization (‘the “concentration” of power in the hands of a few’ [Roscoe 1993: 113]) and specialization of administration, form the backbone of the theory of the state in general4.

However, contrary to the postulate of political anthropology's Founding Fathers, Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940/1987: 5), political centralization cannot be regarded as a specifically state's feature as it is applicable more or less to all forms of complex homoarchic (organized ‘vertically’) societies including chiefdoms first and foremost5. Even more so, in current research of the statelevel polities ‘… there is a clear movement away from a view of states as highly centralized, omnipotent entities toward a heterogeneous model that recognizes variability in state/urban organization and explores the limits of state power within the broader society’ (Stein 1998: 10). Good examples of such movement have recently been provided by Blanton (1998) and Kristiansen (1998). However, it must be noted that e.g., when Kristiansen postulates the opposition between ‘the decentralized archaic state’ and ‘the centralized archaic state’ (1998: 46–48)6, he de facto means that the former is less centralized than the latter but not that it is not centralized at all. Is it really true lack of centralization (if it is not mixed up with one person's omnipotence or lack of intermediary administrative levels) when ‘government is carried out (by “the warrior chiefs and king” – D. B.) through regional and local vassal chiefs…’ (1998: 46)?!7 It would be better to describe such a society as politically centralized but disintegrated (and what Kristiansen calls the centralized archaic state as politically [more] centralized integrated one).

In the meantime, specialization resulting in professionalization is precisely the feature which is typical of the state only, it is not by chance that in the specialization of the administrative apparatus scholars usually see the brink between the state and all the nonstate forms of socio-political organization, again including homoarchic ones like the chiefdom and complex chiefdom (see Wright 1977: 381–385; Earle 1978: 1–7; Godiner 1991; Belkov 1995: 171–175; Spencer 1998; Blanton et al. 1999: 112; Johnson and Earle 2000: 245–329; Bondarenko 2001: 244–245). So, I shall agree with Charles Spencer's (1998: 5) elegantly simple dictum (the first part of which I have already just quoted in note 5 and which is based on Henry Wright's seminal publication of 1977): specifically chiefdoms are ‘societies with centralized but not internally specialized authority’, and states are ‘societies with centralized and also internally specialized authority’ (see also Earle 1987: 289). ‘A state administration, from this perspective, is inherently bureaucratic’ (Spencer 2003: 11185; see also Cohen 1978).

Indeed, what makes the administrative apparatus specialized? It becomes such when it is ‘filled’ with professional (i.e., permanent and full-time) administrators thus forming bureaucracy. Max Weber elaborated the most authoritative concept of bureaucracy and his ideas form an implicit or explicit background for most of influential modern theories of the state8. Though not all the famous Weber's ten features of bureaucracy could apply to preindustrial states mainly because his definition is based on executive and decision- making functions only (Morony 1987: 9–10), and although it is stressed sometimes (recently, e.g., by Claessen and Oosten [1996: 5–6; Claessen 2003: 162], Kristiansen [1998: 45, 46], Johnson and Earle [2000: 248], Chabal, Feinman, and Skalník [2004: 28], Christian [2004: 273–274], and Kradin [2004: 179]) that bureaucracy can be poorly developed in early states, it must be admitted that it still has to be present as such if a given society is attributed as a state. In the meantime, even most complex among all complex chiefdoms, like Cahokia (Pauketat 1994; Milner 1998), the Powhatan paramountcy (Potter 1993; Rountree and Turner III 1998), or Hawaii (Earle 1978, 1997, 2000) notwithstanding their political sophistication, could not boast of having professional administrators at all. The existence of specialized administration was also improbable in Benin of the First (Ogisos) dynasty time, in the 10th – 12th centuries (see Bondarenko 2001: 108–117) attributed by me as a complex chiefdom elsewhere (Bondarenko 2000b: 102–103; 2001: 133–135; 2004: 340).

[turninginasignments]

Final Draft

Lochlan Dean

Fish 

English 2020

March 30th, 2020

Research Conducted on Altruism

Throughout human society’s history, there have always been questions about science and philosophy with the biggest names being Aristotle and Socrates for their philosophical ideas or Albert Einstein and Rosalind Franklin for their advancements throughout history. We receive new answers to questions and new questions every day that need to be answered. One notion that we researchers have looked into is the idea of altruism. Altruism is the concept of selfless actions or thoughts towards another individual. The term altruism was first thought up by a sociologist and philosopher of science named Auguste Comte. Ever since then altruism has been a major topic for evolutionary psychology researchers, psychology researchers, evolutionary biologists, and others to look into. The concept of altruism is a debated one today as there are few concrete facts about it. There are many hypotheses, theories, and ideas on the subject done by many different researchers throughout the decades. One of the biggest questions that is still unanswered is “where does altruism come from?” There may be some debates on the concept of altruism but one thing that is generally agreed upon is the idea that humans are altruistic and have empathy. One thing that is not known is where that human altruism comes from - is it biological in our genes or psychological? For this paper, I have decided to look into different sources to get an understanding of altruism and to be able to add my own voice to the discourse. I have looked at a variety of different sources ranging from public speeches, mini-documentaries, and of course, a number of peer-reviewed scholarly articles. As there are new studies being conducted frequently and new information being collected by them I have limited my sources to those conducted within the last 15 years. The discourse for altruism is vast and there are different ideas on where altruism has its origination in humans. 

One of the biggest questions that researchers want to answer about altruism is if it is biological or psychological. I am sure we are all familiar with Charles Darwin’s contributions to our understanding of nature and biology in his book On the Origin of Species. Darwin argues that all life in this world evolved through a brutal competition of existence. It is Darwin who is responsible for the idea of natural selection, which he thought is how life evolved. He also used the term survival of the fittest to describe natural selection. Natural selection is accepted by evolutionists to be a process that species evolve. Self-preservation is also thought to be a major drive factor on what dictates humans actions. There is the idea according to neoclassical economics that rational beings do whatever they need to in order to maximize their own wealth. The traditional views of both evolutionary biology and psychology have left little room for altruism. Darwin himself was unable to give a reason for biological altruism in his book. In his book, Darwin said “Can we consider the sting of the wasp or of the bee as perfect which… inevitably causes the death of the insect” (Darwin Ch. 6) Altruism is not only a human concept, but it is also found all throughout the animal kingdom in nature. 

Altruism is an umbrella term that can cover a vast number of other terms. There may not be one set type of altruism but there are different terms that are generally agreed upon. Two big main ones are biological altruism and psychological altruism. Biological altruism is tied to the biological fitness of the organism. When an organism does a biological altruistic act it is an act that helps the survival of another at the cost of its own physical health. As stated earlier altruism is not just found in humans but is also found in various animals in the animal kingdom. Some prime examples are vampire bats regurgitating blood to feed other bats from other families if they failed to hunt that night, or when an animal does a warning cry when they spot a predator, thus drawing attention to themself but warning others. Psychological altruism is when the actor just wants good for others with no reward. Psychological altruism relies heavily on the psychological state of the actor at the time. Another type of altruism that is similar to psychological altruism is helping altruism, which covers the acts that do not fall into either of the previously mentioned categories. Helping altruism is the concept that humans help other humans just for the sake of doing the action of helping someone, instead of it focusing on an individual’s mental state. This type of altruism focuses on all of humankind as a whole. Any act can fall into an individual type or multiple types. With the debate and non-unified ideas, there are many other types that fall under those three categories. There are some subcategories that are generally agreed upon. The first one is kin selection. Kin selection is an altruistic act for one’s relatives or possibly another organism in their small grouping. A second is reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism is the idea of doing an altruistic act for another organism with the expectation that you will receive an altruistic act back; the term “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” describes this one well. The third idea is indirect reciprocity, which is the idea that acts are given on the concept of reputation and wanting to avoid getting a bad reputation. Signaling is an idea that is not as commonly accepted as the other three, since it is similar to indirect reciprocity. The difference is that instead of performing an altruistic act to avoid getting a bad reputation, you do an altruistic act to signal that you are a good person. There is another idea of altruism called egotistical altruism. The idea of egotistical altruism is being altruistic towards others so that it will better the world which in turn will make your own life better. Egotistical altruism argues that the reason people will potentially do altruistic acts towards total strangers that they will never see again can be because of this idea. An example of egotistical altruism is someone donating money to help better conditions in some small groups in a third world country so that the inhabitants can have a better life and therefore make the world a better place. Education is a good example of egotistical altruism: if you help someone with financial issues and they are able to get an education, they can further contribute towards certain fields. Altruism can be thought of as a family tree chart, with the word altruism at the top as the head of the family with other terms going down getting more into specifics but they can all be traced back up to altruism. Having a general concept of the different ideas of altruism can help give a better understanding of altruism itself and hopefully help at looking at the origins of altruism, and solving the puzzle that is “why are humans altruistic?”

There are many different ideas on altruism and different fields of study hope to be able to explain it. One of these fields of study is genetics. Genetics is the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics. Genetics is a relatively new science that started in 1905 but did not take off in popularity until technology had advanced enough for a scientist to be able to accurately look into it. One such event was when the first picture of DNA was taken. The picture was taken by Watson and Crick using a technique called X-ray crystallography that was invented by Rosalind Franklin. All living things have DNA makeup inside of them making them who they are. Despite humans being separated throughout the world, we are still generally all alike and that is due to the fact that we are all 99.9% genetically alike with each other. Genetics is one way that evolutionary biologists have tried to explain altruism. 

Richard Dawkins is a well-known scientist around the world who presents one explanation on why humans are altruistic. Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author who has been contributing to the field of science since the 1960s. Richard Dawkins came up with the idea of the “selfish gene” on altruism and published it in 1976. Dawkins argued that humans are all just genetic survival machines. Survival of the fittest really only means the survival of the genes - a gene that doesn’t look after itself doesn’t survive. Richard Dawkins tries to use the science of genetics to crack the code of altruism. Dawkins makes the argument that the main objective of genes is to survive, which they do by organisms reproducing and passing the genes onto the offspring, essentially making genes “immortal.” He argues that the way our genes can achieve their goal of being passed down to future generations is by the typical self-preservation mentality. The way altruism comes into the picture is Dawkins claims that there are instances where the gene can achieve its selfish goals by doing a form of altruism. This theory best supports the idea of kin selection. Kin selection is when an individual organism acts in the best interests of other members of their family and/or small group, even at a cost to itself. The argument is that due to the selfish desires of our genes they produce unselfish actions to those around us. If our genes help related organisms reproduce, by helping ensure their survival, a gene then succeeds in helping copies of itself be reproduced and passed on. Dawkins’s theory is that altruism came from the selfish desires of our genes and we are just the vessel that carries our genes and DNA. 

There are some counter-arguments to Dawkins’s selfish gene theory. Richard Dawkins’s theory on the selfish gene is only backed by biological altruism and not by psychological altruism. One criticism is on Dawkins’s gene-centered view. Dawkins assumes the struggle for survival takes place on the genetic level and focuses on the survival of the genes instead of the organism as a whole. While that argument can be valid, many scientists have considered it too fluid of an argument without enough scientific backing for it. The main criticism is that this theory is too narrow-focused. It relies on genetic survivability and uses kin selection as a major backing up point, but there are many other types of altruism that this theory does not help back up. This theory only applies to populations in which sexual reproduction causes complete allelic mixing, panmictic organisms. There are organisms that are not panmictic so this theory would not apply to them. 

There is another idea on what the origins of altruism are that follows evolutionary genetics and genes. All the ideas of altruism that have been previously explained in this research paper have all been ideas that give back to the actor. There was one group of scientists, who called themselves the collective, that came up with the idea that the reason why humans are altruistic has to do with none of those ideas. They operate under the assumption that behavioral mechanisms are not perfect goal-seeking devices, like what Richard Dawkins claimed the genes were. The collective thinks that behavior mechanisms are context-specific physiological systems that respond to different environmental cues in order to engage what is the best course of action, based on evolutionary history. The collective think that altruism is backed more by psychological reasons and not biological ones. Some evidence to help support this idea is a study done on people helping other people. It was found that people were more likely to perform an altruistic act while having outside environmental forces paying a part. In particular, this study found that altruistic acts were performed always but that there was a stark increase when people were being watched by robots with human-looking eyes. The argument is that humans have strong reciprocity towards other humans, but that the reason for it is not due to any of the reasons previously mentioned (such as kin selection or reciprocal altruism). The collective argues that there is a biological and evolutionary logic to human cooperation. The idea is that the reason humans are altruistic is due to genes misfiring. The common human social environment, society, has only been around for 0.1% of all of human history; or in metaphorical terms has advanced in a gene’s eyeblink. The idea is, our social environment advancing so quickly has left some strange tendencies left over from past eras. It is thought that due to kin selection or reciprocal altruism or other forms of altruism, it helped humankind survive and advance in past eras when we lived in smaller groups. Now that we live in the world today things are different. A perfect example to liken it to is sexual reproduction. Humans feel a desire to reproduce and generate offspring. There are biological and evolutionary triggers to make us feel desire even though in today’s time humans engage in sexual intercourse without the purpose of having offspring. Contraceptives have been invented to thwart the outcome of having offspring, and yet we still have the biological urges and desires to engage in sexual intercourse. The idea is that being altruistic is much the same. In the past, there was the biological and genetic push to be altruistic to better help our species survive, and that is the reason people feel the desire to be nice today. It is a leftover evolutionary push. The difference between this argument for the origin of altruism and the selfish gene theory is this argument pushes the idea that it is a gene misfire - something from the past that is still in us - and it focuses on the organism as a whole. The selfish gene theory focuses on the individual genetic view and claims that the selfish gene is still within us. 

There are of course problems with this argument as well. This argument states that humans are naturally and biologically altruistic and caring. Perhaps the biggest reason why this argument might be hard to accept is because it goes against decades of biological research that states humans are inherently selfish. This argument is relatively new to the discourse compared to the many other ideas that have been researched about human nature. The economics standpoint is perhaps the most effective counter-argument to this idea. Another argument for this idea is the fact that there have to be social, political, or environmental restrictions upon people or else negative interactions can occur between people. Some examples of that are the pirate rule in the Caribbean in the 18th century, warlords, and other anarchistic situations. The argument is that we can not simply rely on humans being naturally altruistic or empathetic towards the good of the group. Instead, we require social, environmental, political, and economic restrictions to ensure the cooperation of individuals and have them avoid temptation. 

There are other voices in the existing work as the body of work on altruism is quite vast. The main reason I have conducted the research for this paper is to develop my own understanding of the issue so that I can add my own voice and arguments to the discourse. Throughout my experience of gathering knowledge on this subject, I noticed a severe lack of study about certain issues or actions that can be considered altruistic. One of the areas where I found the least study was regarding actions that were done after death or actions that resulted in the death of the altruist. A prime example of what I am bringing up is organ donation. Being an organ donor is something someone can decide when they receive their driver’s license but it can be changed whenever the individual wants. There are a huge number of scholarly and opinion articles about organ donation, but that particular topic is not central to my argument. Another example of what I was talking about are instances where the individual sacrifices him- or herself for the sake of others. Roy Benavidez was an American soldier who fought in the Vietnam war. He received the medal of honor for an instance called “six hours in hell.” He fought off thousands of Vietnamese soldiers while defending a position where other American troops were getting evacuated by helicopter. He also carried multiple bodies to the helicopter, all while receiving multiple wounds. He waited until he was the last soldier to get on. These are of course some extreme examples of what I want to focus on. I propose that in future research projects a new category of altruism needs to be considered, since it doesn’t seem that organ donation and self-sacrifice fit in any of the previously-discussed categories. Organ donation and sacrificing yourself for the sake of others are cases of extreme empathy and altruism that I do not believe fall under the current umbrella terms. Perhaps by looking into these extreme situations, researchers can define a new type of altruism and get a better understanding of what the driving force behind actions such as these are. 

Some counter-arguments for my idea can be found. Arguments could be made that even though those situations are extreme they can still be classified by other terms. Organ donation, for example, could be viewed as signaling: trying to show that you are a good person by being an organ donor. My response to this is that most of the time being an organ donor is a small mark on the individuals’ license and is not a thing that is often brought up in social situations. Further research would have to be conducted solely on the topic of organ donation to better understand where it fits in the puzzle of human altruism. An individual who does a drastic action to better the chance of survival for others at the cost of their own physical well-being could also be misclassified. Some counter-arguers could claim that even though those actions are extreme they still fall under kin selection. Kin selection could be a good umbrella for these types of self-sacrificing action. The idea of sacrificing yourself for the better biological health of others does fall under the definition of kin selection, but I still propose that there is more to it. Kin selection normally contains things such as grooming in primates, sacrificing some food for bats, or some kind of warning cry to alert the group. Hardly ever are instances observed in other animals of individuals sacrificing themselves for others, except of course parental units defending their offspring. Egotistical altruism could be claimed for both of them as by doing either act it would directly positively affect other people’s lives and indirectly make the world a better place. My response to that argument is this: true, the world would be a better place, but it comes at the cost of the life of the altruist so therefore the betterment does not affect them. Perhaps if you combine egotistical and kin selection it could make sense as you want to make the world a better place for your offspring or other close friends or family. I still believe that further research needs to be conducted on these issues as they have not been researched as they should be. I propose the research can be conducted by investing time, personal, and perhaps some resources into conducting a wide mass study on the mindset of those who are organ donors or those who have performed extreme actions of sacrifice. Better understanding the mindset of those individuals and what their reasoning was in those instances would give us a better understanding of the reason for those actions: whether biological or psychological.  Better understanding the reason humans perform altruistic acts is the first step to better understand the origin and reason why humans are altruistic.

Throughout this research paper I have taken a look into the discourse of altruism. I have looked at the various different terms and types of altruism, resulting in the words having a trickle effect of coverage. The literature on altruism is quite large, with many different ideas and hypotheses on the reason why humans have altruistic tendencies and what the origin of it is - if it is biological or psychological. Richard Dawkins has a theory that its origin sits upon the selfish gene concept. The selfish gene concept is the idea that the reason humans are altruistic is due to selfish gene desires. Our genes desire to reproduce and survive so with that desire they produce altruism to better help the survivability of the gene. The other argument was the reason humans are altruistic is due to the logical evolutionary development of humans. An opposing argument claimed that being altruistic was the best course of action for survivability. Human society has advanced in an extremely short time, genetically speaking, so some tendencies that don’t fit modern society have remained in our species. One biological tendency we still have in our current social environment is the desire to engage in sexual intercourse. With contraceptives we have thwarted the purpose of sexual intercourse (to reproduce offspring) and yet humans still have the desire and biological push. It is proposed that altruism is much like that: that we had to have the biological push to be altruistic to better enhance our species survivability and that is a leftover genetic misfire today. 

My own argument for this paper was to invest further research into different ideas of altruism as there are actions that I do not believe fall under any current idea of altruism. It is my thought that if further research is conducted on altruism it will lead to a better understanding of the reasons we feel altruistic tendencies, possibly helping to crack the biological puzzle of why are we altruistic. 

Sources 

Andy80o, “Richard Dawkins on Altruism and The Selfish Gene”. Youtube, September 1st, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8C-ntwUpzM&feature=youtu.be.

Burnham, Terence C., and Dominic D. P. Johnson. “The Biological and Evolutionary Logic of Human Cooperation.” Analyse & Kritik, vol. 27, no. 1, Jan. 2005. OneSearch, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2005-0107

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. 1 ed., 1859

Hoffman, Edward, et al. “The Psychological Benefits of Receiving Real-Life Altruism.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 60, no. 2, Mar. 2020, pp. 187–204. EBSCOhost, DOI:10.1177/0022167817690280.   

Joan B. Silk, and Bailey R. House. “The Evolution of Altruistic Social Preferences in Human Groups.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, vol. 371, no. 1687, 2016, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.24768660&site=eds-live.

Kurzgesagt. “A selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place - Egoistic Altruism.” Youtube, March 18th, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ&feature=youtu.be. 

Marsh, Abigail A. “Neural, Cognitive, and Evolutionary Foundations of Human Altruism.” WIREs: Cognitive Science, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 2016, p. 59. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=112128886&site=eds-live.

Ramsey, Grant. “Can Altruism Be Unified?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biol & Biomed Sci, vol. 56, Apr. 2016, pp. 32–38. EBSCOhost, DOI:10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.007.

Singer, Peter. TED. “Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism.” Youtube, May 20th, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diuv3XZQXyc&feature=youtu.be

TEDx Talks. “The Science of Altruism | Dustin Daniels | TEDxFSU” Youtube, June 29th, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brqg4HA3mUI&feature=youtu.be. 

[thesocialgene-blog]

Featureless Paddock

I will now return to the notional experiment that launched the hypothesis of the social gene: the featureless paddock that allowed the interpretation that a proximity reward caused some varieties of sheep to congregate together. When I discussed it originally, I did not explain that the purpose of those experiments had been to test whether the two genders formed single-sex groups. Perez-Barberia and co-workers showed conclusively that feral Soay sheep formed separate groups based on gender within a symmetric paddock in conditions that precluded estrus. Segregation did not occur within any single-sex group, including groups composed of mixed small and large animals that might be expected to exhibit size-dependent activity differences. On the other hand, strong and nearly equal segregation occurred in a random mixed-sex group and in a similar group that contained only animals that were of approximately the same size in both genders; i.e. relatively large females and small males. Foraging and resting synchrony of the mixed-sex groups was also significantly lower than those of single-sex. Since there was no size dimorphism in one of these categories, they concluded that it was not responsible for segregation. On the other hand, the observations were consistent with their alternative hypothesis that social affinity accounted for the formation of the single-sex flocks. This simple observation fulfills the definition of a reward that is conferred on each gender separately and provides the underlying basis of sexual segregation; it may be described as a “homosocial proximity reward”.   A definitive experiment or observation need not be complicated; indeed, some of the most dramatic events in scientific history have been no more than simple observations. When Galileo watched objects of different size and density falling from the leaning tower of Pisa at the same rate, he reshaped the principal claims of ancient Greek philosophers. When Eddington, at Einstein’s instigation, observed that stars modified their apparent position when their light passed close to the sun during an eclipse, he confirmed both the special and general theories of relativity. The featureless paddock experiment is not one of those categories, but, in its small way, it has opened the door to a reevaluation of animal sociality. It showed that animals associate spontaneously without an external stimulus, that they separate by gender and that this is not caused by differences in size.   Perez-Barberia- “One possible explanation of the results of our study could be the social affinity hypothesis (Bon et al. 2005, Conradt 2005, Michelena et al. 2005). But, why should animals show an affinity for animals of the same sex?” Bon- “Mechanisms proposed to explain social segregation in children, and data collected on behavioural development and social interactions in other mammal species inspired the social affinity hypothesis”   One can glean from these discussions that a few experimental investigators have moved beyond the millstone imposed by evolutionists, in order to explain their field observations. In particular, Bon et al. have broken the taboo of comparing animals with humans. Their conclusions do not directly address kin selection, but they do discuss social affinity without reference to it.   Read the full article

[thetruthseekerway]

Taking One’s Vain Desires as God

New Post has been published on http://www.truth-seeker.info/oasis-of-faith/taking-ones-vain-desires-god/

Taking One’s Vain Desires as God

By Harun Yahya

One who surrenders himself to the evil side of his soul turns to his soul whenever he needs to arrive at a judgment.

There are two aspects of the soul: the one inspiring evil and wicked deeds, and the other guarding against every inculcation of evil. In the Qur’an, the word “hawa” is used to express the evil side of the soul. Hawa is defined as “desire, passion, sexual desire, lust, and all negative internal factors spoiling man”.

The unique guidance for unbelievers is this negative and evil side of the soul, namely the hawa. Satisfying vain desires and passions becomes a way of living for them. Consequently, all their mental faculties and efforts are focused on the gratification of whims. In such a state of mind, it becomes almost impossible for an unbeliever to comprehend the teachings of religion. The Qur’an recounts this fact:

“And among them are men who listen to you, but in the end, when they leave you, they say to those who have received knowledge, ‘What is it he said just then?’ Such are men whose hearts Allah has sealed, and who follow their own lusts.” (Muhammad, 16)

One who surrenders himself to the evil side of his soul turns to his soul whenever he needs to arrive at a judgment. In this sense, whims and desires become the basis upon which to judge between right and wrong. This is also a clear manifestation that a person worships his own soul, or to put it another way, his ego. In the Qur’an, this state is called “taking one’s own vain desire as one’s god” in the following verse:

“Then do you see such a person as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart and understanding and put a veil over his eyes. Who, then, will guide him after Allah has withdrawn His guidance? Will you not then receive admonition?” (Al-Jathiyah, 23)

In the Qur’an, one who is guided by his passions and desires, and is thus lacking in a sound mind capable of thinking, is characterized as “deaf and blind.” Believers, on the other hand, are endowed with a sound mind, with which they can judge between right and wrong, and an insight with which they have a full grasp of all happenings around them. In the following verses people and societies devoid of understanding due to their following their own lusts as mentioned:

“Say: ‘O people of the Book! Exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the straight path.’” (Al-Ma’idah, 77)

“Say: ‘I am forbidden to worship those – others than Allah – whom you call upon.’ Say: ‘I will not follow your vain desires: If I did, I would stray from the path, and would not be of the company of those who receive guidance.’” (Al-An`am, 56)

“Why should you not eat meat on which Allah’s Name has been pronounced, when He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of necessity? But many people are misled by their appetites through ignorance. Your Lord knows best those who transgress.” (Al-An`am, 119)

“Thus We have revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Were you to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which has reached you, you would find neither protector nor defender against Allah.” (Al-Ra`d, 37)

“Do you see such a one as takes for his god his own passion (or impulse)? Could you be a disposer of his affairs?” (Al-Furqan, 43)

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Do not follow the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve from the truth; and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, truly, Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Al-Nisa’, 135)

“No, the wrong-doers (merely) follow their own lusts, being devoid of knowledge. But who will guide those whom Allah leaves astray? For them there will be no helpers.” (Al-Rum, 29)

“Therefore, let not such as do not believe therein but follow their own lusts, divert you therefrom, lest you perish!” (Ta-Ha, 16)

“If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! No, We have sent them their scriptures, but they turn away from their admonition.” (Al-Mu’minun, 71)

“To you We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. For each among you we have prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of all of you is Allah; it is He who will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute; and this (He commands): Judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you away from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, be assured that for their sins it is Allah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.” (Al-Ma’idah, 48-49)

Following lusts and vain desires makes the individual blind to his faults. Such a person rapidly meets with eternal disaster.

———

Harun Yahya was born in Ankara in 1956. He studied arts at Istanbul’s Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the author has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies. Some of the books of the author have been translated into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Albanian, Arabic, Polish, Russian, Bosnian, Indonesian, Turkish, Tatar, Urdu and Malay and published in the countries concerned. Harun Yahya’s books appeal to all people, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, regardless of their age, race, and nationality, as they center around one goal: to open the readers’ mind by presenting the signs of Gods eternal existence to them.

[dailycharacteroption]

Races Among the Stars 8: Haan

When we think of Bretheda’s many sapient species, one probably thinks of either the barathu or one of the many beings populating it’s numerous moons.

However, it’s easy to overlook that there is another species sharing the skies with everyone’s favorite form-altering jellyfish. I speak of course of the arthropoid haan, who sail through the skies of the gas giant on woven silk balloons! With these flotation devices and silken sails, haan can be shockingly agile in the air in their hunt for prey.

Although just as intelligent as other sapient species, the majority of haan society is extremely traditionalist, eschewing all but the simplest tools and weapons to hunt and roam the clouds of their homeworld as they have for millenia.

However, there are plenty of haan that leave their home to travel the stars and interact with other species across the galaxy, where they find their intuitive understanding of aeronautics gives them an edge as pilots.

This does come with a major drawback, as those who leave Bretheda are effectively exiled from their people, and written off as dead by their own families, unable to return. There is talk of these exiled haan creating a new colony home on a different gas giant, far from those traditionalist values, but most fear the upset that would be caused if they try recruiting directly from their kin still living on Bretheda.

Full disclosure, the appearance of the haan in their natural habitat versus the one wearing space armor… they almost look like different creatures. The haan native doesn’t look like it should be able to stand upright… Ah, but that’s just me.

In any case, haan resemble eight foot long, four-limbed arthropods with impressive mandible-like pedipalps near their mouths. They sport many barbs and bristles on their exoskeleton, which can be safely trimmed and groomed, fulfilling much the same role as hair does on mammalian species. They also possess silk glands which are equipped to create hollow balloons filled with light gasses from their internal stores to float themselves or whatever they attach them to in the air. Additionally, striking surfaces on their legs also allow them to ignite these gasses, making them an effective weapon as well.

As mentioned above, traditional haan society is very traditionalist and insular, eschewing many modern wonders in favor of retaining the hunter-gatherer society of their ancient past. While this is perfectly fine and viable, it does alienate and disown those haan who choose to join the wider galaxy, leaving them to struggle with their own cultural identity.

Strong and surprisingly agile despite their bulk, the haan’s focus on tradition over innovation has left most unused to exploring new ideas.

Their ability to ignite their own gasses allows them to have a strong weapon against multiple foes in an emergency.

While traditionalist haan are able to outright fly with their balloons and sails (not to mention sneak balloons onto foes to disrupt them), adventuring haan rarely do so, though they can reflexively craft a balloon on the fly to slow their fall in an emergency.

With their strength and dex, haan can excel in any combat role, favoring everything from soldier to evolutionist, solarian, vanguard, and even nanocyte. Outside of that, their dex bonus is also very useful for operative and even precog as well. Their weakness to intelligence does mean that mechanic and technomancer are hard picks for them, but they can get around this, as well as tap into non-intelligence options such as intuitive biohackers, mystics, and witchwarpers.

That does it for today, but I hope you enjoyed these floaty bugs. Tomorrow we’ll look into one of the new species from the Ports of Call book!

[jasrandal]

3-23-2017 Skin Kin

“These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood” (Genesis 10:32 NKJV). There is not an Evolutionist who can account for the different “nations” on earth. According to the Bible, however, all “nations” came from one family stock. God “created them male and female, and blessed them…

[fictionkinfessions]

Yea, swishing away from the chaos that was lest session,,, I am really happy about 3rdLife!!! It’s really nice to see new media I kin from that includes some of the EVOlutionists, cause I miss them a lot!!! They’re my friends and they’re great and!! New interactions, new series, new memories with them!! Anyway, Martyn, Jimmy, and BigB, Miss ya!!!! Sm!!! -G #🧶🍄🐔 (3rd Life SMP again, though the character is still Grian!! ^^)

[turninginasignments]

Final Draft- Opinion Series

Audience one: Academic

The purpose of this summary is to elucidate the reader on the subject of altruism. A simple definition of altruism is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Now, of course, the term altruism can be used as an umbrella term as there are different kinds of altruism such as biological altruism and psychological altruism and within those two there are; kin-selection, reciprocal and indirect reciprocal altruism, signaling, and others as there are debates today on the different types of altruism. Biological altruism refers to acts that benefit the survival of the species as a whole as psychological altruism refers to the empathy towards others or individuals. Biological altruism and evolutionary altruism are oftentimes used as interchangeable terms. The concept of biological altruism is a very scintillating subject as it has little room in the traditional Darwinism views of self preserver and natural selection. There are numerous debates about the evolution of altruism in humans, but the biggest arguments that are talked about the most are kinship and reciprocal altruism. Kinship is oftentimes found in the animal kingdom with the biggest examples being in primates, vampire bats, meerkats, and many other social dynamic animals. One hypothesis on why humans have the psychological drive to be altruistic is that there is a genetic lapse in our DNA. Human ancestors used to live in smaller groups and tribes and it is thought that kinship is one of the many reasons humans were able to survive, after all as Richard Dawkins put it, humans are just vessels to carry our genes into the next generation genes are immortal. Meaning, it is in our genetic code to want to help our fellow tribe but because our ancient ancestors’ history happened antecedent to modern human society, which has only existed for 0.1% of human history, we still have the lust to be nice to all of our fellow humankind. There are other hypotheses of course such as selfish egotistical altruism and reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism is the idea of quid pro quo, it is doing an altruistic act with the expectation of them doing an altruistic act for you in the future, you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. Some evolutionists think that reciprocal altruism is how our altruistic genes could have been chosen over non-altruistic genes. Of course, there is the reward behavior of the serotonin hypothesis, the hypothesis that one who has higher levels of serotonin in the brain is more in favor of cooperation.  Many explorational studies have been conducted on the subject matter of altruism, many of them being on the origins or the why and how. A few studies have been conducted on the effects of altruism. As one studies the science behind this subject matter it can sometimes be easy to disassociate oneself from the current effects of receiving real-life altruism. There have been a few studies done on this very subject. One study, that was conducted in Venezuela, found a direct link towards people who have experienced an act of altruism having a more optimistic view on life and generally having more positive mental health than those who claimed to never experience an act of altruism. Of course, there is the one reward behavior of the serotonin hypothesis, the hypothesis that one who has higher levels of serotonin in the brain is more in favor of cooperation.  The subject of altruism is a bigger field of study than a layman person might think. The study of altruism is a rather new conundrum in the academic world, but as interest grows perchance more studies will be conducted with this subject in mind. 

Audience two: Middle schooler/young kid

Today we are going to be learning about the subject known as altruism! Altruism can be a pretty big daunting subject to start learning about, but by the end of this summary, you will have a good understanding of the subject and be able to impress all of your friends by explaining some cool new facts. First, the simple definition of altruism is a belief or a practice of being selfless or having a concern for others. Some examples can include something small such as holding the door open for someone all the way to something big such as donating an organ. Now altruism is a big statement that can encompass many different definitions. In fact, there are debates going on about how many different kinds of altruism there are or what the exact definitions are on different kinds of altruism. Some different examples of different kinds of altruism include kin-selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, and signaling. There are others but today we are just going to focus on these four. Kin-selection is found in many species of animals all throughout the animal kingdom such as vampire bats, meerkats, chipmunks, and many others, not just in humans. Kin-selection is altruism towards someone who is your kin or within your small group such as grooming, giving off an alarm call for predators, or bats regurgitating up blood for other bats who may have failed to hunt during the night. Reciprocal altruism is the idea of doing an altruistic act towards someone with the expectation of them doing an altruistic act back to you, the expression you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours describes this perfectly. Indirect reciprocity is when someone does an altruistic act based on the idea of reputation and not wanting a bad one. Signaling is similar to indirect reciprocity as signaling is doing an altruistic act for the purpose of showing, or “signaling”, that you are an altruistic person.  There are also some debates on if altruism in humans is biological or psychology, basically meaning is in just due to nature or is it in our heads. Now that I have given you a small introduction into what altruism is how about we take a look at the different ideas on how altruism came to be what it is in humans today. As I said earlier, there are many different ideas and debates on how altruism came to be, but what isn’t debated is that humans are altruistic. This can often time be illogical or irrational when you look at nature through the traditional way of self-preservation with the survival of the fittest or natural selection. So if we are so irrational by being nice to each other, why are we?  Well, that topic is still unknown but there have been many studies conducted on it! As I said earlier, it is unknown if altruism is a biological or psychological trait in humans. There are multiple hypotheses on how altruism came to be the way it is now throughout our human history. One hypothesis is that it is a genetic misfiring in our brains. Let me explain, in our bodies we have DNA and genes that make up every living thing not just in humans. It is thought that in human history we used to live in small groups or small tribes and that one of the reasons we are alive today is because it is in our genes to be altruistic. In nature our genes are what we pass on to our spring, so you might think of genes are having superpowers as they are immortal. Another theory is that it isn’t in our DNA makeup at all but instead is a social pressuring factor, that is found in multiple animals, to better help our survival. Now we may not know where altruism comes from so you may be wondering why am I telling you all this. Well, there have also been studies done on what the effects of doing an altruistic act that can be for someone. There was a study done in the country of Venezuela that found a direct link of people who reported having a random altruistic act and their mental health and outlook on life it’s self. Those who had a random act reported having higher positive mental health and a more positive outlook on life. Now, of course, it is always good to give other people acts of kindness but you might be thinking “well how does this help me? Well there is something called egotistical altruism. The idea of egotistical altruism is almost like reciprocal altruism. It is doing an altruistic act towards someone, perhaps even someone that lives in another country that you will never ever meet, and making their life better. If their life gets better than that makes the world better which then, in turn, makes your life better! Altruism is surely a fascinating subject to learn about and hopefully, in the future, there will be even more information for kids such as your self to look into. 

Audience Three: A person who has just left their religion and now believes the world is a toxic place with no meaning and wants to find some scientific reason to believe in people (basically someone looking for optimism) 

So after a big transition in life, like leaving your religion, it is fairly common to look into new subjects. One subject worth looking into would be the subject of altruism. Altruism is the concept of having a selfless concern and the overall well being of others. Altruism is not a new concept but we are just now learning new things about it within these last few decades. While it is known that altruism is a concept found in humans there is still some debate surrounding the topic. One thing that is still debated is if altruism in humans is biological or psychological. Psychological altruism means acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to your self and biological altruism refers to behavior that helps the survival of a species without benefiting the altruists. Depending on what study or source you are reviewing you may come across how different authors will use different terms or different definitions. Some general terms you should be familiar with those are kin-selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocal altruism, and signaling. Kin-selection is acts that benefit genetic relatives or in some cases those in your small tribe or group. Reciprocal altruism is the idea of doing an altruistic act for someone with the expectation of receiving a reward or an altruistic act towards yourself later. Indirect reciprocity are acts that are given based on the concept of reputation, not wanting a bad one. Signaling is the concept of doing altruistic acts to signal to others that you are a good person. After hearing that it can sound very mechanical and make it sound like humans always have some hidden motive for everything they do but one thing to keep in mind while we look at this is this is a debated topic still. One thing that is still debated is the exact origin of altruism. This nay or may not come as a surprise but altruism is not only found in humans. In fact, altruism can be found in many different animals in the animal kingdom such as chipmunks, vampire bats, meerkats, and a variety of other primates. So if it is found in other species where did it come from? There are multiple hypotheses on that subject. One hypothesis is that altruistic genes were selected through natural selection over nonaltruistic genes because there is a logical process for human evolution. Essentially the reason we, and other social animals, have survived and evolved with altruism is that altruism was the most logical way for us to evolve. Altruism is here in us no matter where it came from. There have been studies done on the effects of altruistic acts being done and how it can affect people. There was one study conducted in Venezuela that found a direct positive correlation towards those that experienced an altruistic act and their mental health. In the study, they found that those who had received a random altruistic act had more positive mental health and generally had a more optimistic outlook on life. The effects of altruism are huge and you never know what you can do for someone just by doing one small act. There is also another form of altruism called egotistical altruism. The idea of that one is by helping others, even someone whom you may never meet in another country, have a better life they will make the world better which will give you a better life. Some can look at that mentality with negativity and claim all people are selfish, but despite the reasoning, the world still becomes a better place with egotistical altruism. The interest in altruism is growing through the years so maybe there will be more research on it in the future. While the direct reason and why are still being debated, we do know for now is that humans are altruistic and that it has been observed to benefit others. Being consciously aware of altruism and the effects it can have on other people can help you get a better understanding of empathy and perhaps give a person an extra drive to be altruistic which could potentially make the world a better place in the process. 

[thesocialgene-blog]

Familiarity

Animals in most social species form ties with others that become stronger as they grow more familiar with them as individuals. One may predict that, when two animals encounter each other for the first time, they experience little or no reward, but it grows with subsequent meetings. The role of familiarity in determining the size, composition, and extent of the herd is an essential feature of almost all colonies. The force increases with the duration, frequency, and closeness to their neighbors. This will allow a group of acquaintances to form who are not necessarily linked genetically. Since an animal of limited mobility may have only a limited number of neighbors, the size of the aggregate will be restricted to those few individuals who can remain close to each other, as is the case for herbivore species that graze or browse throughout their territory. On the other hand, animals that move around extensively, such as monkeys, can engage in frequent juxtapositions and so extend the family to groups of more individuals. An important feature of the role of familiarity on animal associations is that it is both inclusive and exclusive. Unlike familiar members of a herd, an unknown animal that tries to enter a preexisting community will have difficulty in joining the herd and will in many cases be rejected. This can account for the territoriality of many social species. Asocial species usually discourage other conspecifics from entering their domains by marking and defending their territories. The same instinct can be expected to occur with social species. In both cases, the feeding and mating needs of the animals require them to limit the incursion of competitors into their ecological niche. A major consequence of the effect of familiarity is its role in establishing the social ties that bind close relatives to each other, independent of genetic resemblance. Parents and offspring are attached to each other by bonds that formed from the day of birth of the infant and have been maintained throughout its upbringing. Similar ties may apply to siblings either from the same litter or from the same family unit, although they may also compete for family resources. This potential role of familiarity may confound interpretations of kin selection that in reality only reflect this familiarity.   The explanation for the affinity of social species lies in the attraction of familiar neighbors for each other. This is intrinsic to the hypothesis of the social gene. It offers a better justification for group or herd formation than the rigid formulae of kin selection; it extends beyond the immediate family to unrelated pairs and large herds.   The discussion can be extended to social interactions of humans which animal evolutionists in general unaccountably decline to discuss. Humans form friendships from a very wide range of acquaintances including immediate family, playground friends, schools, colleges and universities, workplace associates and colleagues with similar interests. It would be inconceivable that close relatives were the only source of mutual exchanges.     Read the full article