The Survival of the Fittest?

Does Might make Right?
www.patreon.co...

[@ProtagonistOfficial]

Just stopping by to say that I appreciate how much effort goes into these videos. From the research to the scripting, recording, and editing.

[@randomcat781]

Hi

[@keelanmaclear4492]

yes

[@victoriaandrews4547]

Protagonist ii

[@isrealistheauthor1489]

Protagonist Survival of the fittest: The Prisoners Bible. By Chief Shuaib Y. Israel. Get the book! FACE THE Music!!

[@isrealistheauthor1489]

Kittens For some reason Survival of the fittest: The Prisoners Bible. Google The Book! Or Face The Music!!

[@altansirin5830]

Survival of the ''Fit enough''

[@henfinzim]

Altan Şirin Thats actually a better description.

[@isrealistheauthor1489]

Altan Şirin Survival of the fittest: The Prisoners Bible. By Chief Shuaib Y. Israel. Get the book! Or Face The Music!!

[@virtxual6761]

Allah akbar allah akbar la ilah illa allah

[@enderpup9289]

Altan Şirin Listen to the mandalorians and pre vizla: ONLY THE STRONGEST SHALL RULE!

[@altansirin5830]

@@enderpup9289 Strong will rule ofcourse but that doesn't mean the meek can't exist. No man rules alone. They need people to do their bidding. Those who are strong enough will continue to exist and procreate.

[@MrAntieMatter]

I love this channel because the way he presents seems so relaxed and casual even with the silliness that's actually happening in the video.

[@MrAntieMatter]

Had to repost this, because my other commented disappeared?

[@MrAntieMatter]

I'll be sure to become a patron when I get my next paycheck, or at least if I remember.

[@evenasgrimplass9411]

noot noot

[@virtxual6761]

Allah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila Allah

[@virtxual6761]

Allah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila Allah

[@Eutrofication]

I feel almost tempted to go get a job at a sperm bank...

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

It would certainly takes the masturbatory element out of masturbation

[@96unicorns]

I strongly recommend you do not :D

[@FirefoxisredExplorerisblueGoog]

I want Sally to stop.

[@thedarkmagicianofthecrew6574]

Firefox is red, Explorer is blue. Google+ sucks and Chrome does too. No Sally must kill.

[@bojan01010]

I want to get off of Ms. Sally's wild ride.

[@blank0s162]

Bojan T. Ms. Sally says: "The ride never ends"

[@UnusuallyLargeCrab]

God damnit Sally.

[@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820]

Go on Sally. I'm sure he deserves it.

[@Deathnotefan97]

I always thought of "Survival of the Fittest" as the opposite of what people usually mean Species don't survive because they're fit, they are fit because they survive The problem comes from the _definition_ of fitness

[@katherinel6980]

Helloooo I dolphinately missed you and your videos

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

Dolphins!!! i.imgur.com/bByt9q1.gifv I'm pretty sure this is from Planet Earth 2 or something. Luminescent plankton

[@katherinel6980]

THat has to be where they got the idea for patronuses/patronusi (??)

[@1MrShiny]

this gif goes great with the outro music.

[@sk8rdman]

At first I thought that might have been a typo, but it seems you spelled it that way on porpoise.

[@katherinel6980]

I sea you caught my drift

[@symbioticcoherence8435]

youtube ought to be a better place because of you.

[@emberisk]

Symbiotic Coherence it ought to happen

[@Viscidsquare040]

Symbiotic Coherence “This place” ought to be a better place because of you

[@virtxual6761]

Allah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila Allah

[@ScienceAsylum]

Nailed it again, Jesse. Well done!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Favorite Line: "The phrase only makes sense if you know what Darwinian fitness is... and, if you know what that is, you're never going to use the phrase, because it makes no goddamn sense."

[@EXHellfire]

"and replaced aaaall the DNA with his own"... jesus there goes my idea of donating sperm and not having to deal with children

[@ancsuther]

ik it's 4 years but, he didn't replace all of it, and you shouldn't expect it to be replaced

[@DrTomatoSpaghetti]

Reminds me of the "moral foundations" theory, basically saying that humans tend to share a set of ethical values across cultures because they're evolutionary useful, and those foundations go on to inform political and ethical preferences/choices. From the little website the theory has, the moral foundations are: 1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. 3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. 5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

[@feizon]

Interesting

[@hedgehog3180]

I see a few huge issues with this. One it frames everything in dualistic terms which is actually a very uniquely western cultural idea, it is not universal and we've just gotten so used to it that we don't even realize it's an idea, in Chinese culture for example usually the focus is instead on harmonies, the idea that instead of having things oppose each other everything exists as part of a whole and when everything is in balance relative to each other you have a harmonious state and this is good. So the whole idea of the foundation kinda inherently fails because it's based on a western idea. Two the last three points just have little basis in historical facts, power structures have certainly shifted but throughout history the thing people have always primarily been loyal to is their friends and family above all. Until the invention of nationalism it was only in the upper class that you saw any kind of identification with some kind of overarching group and it was also only really the upper class where you actually saw any kind of real betrayal where people completely jumped to the other side, otherwise in war peasants usually just deserted to go back to their home because those were the people they cared about and they really did not give a shit about some far away king or nation. That's also why most armies were made up of mercenaries because no one wanted to risk their lives unless they were getting payed very well, and most of the time they became mercenaries because they were on the run. There's not any evidence of a "long primate history of hierarchical social interactions" the earliest evidence is stuff like burials where someone might have gotten a lot of stuff in their burial but it's simply impossible to know whether they were given a lot of stuff because they were the chieftain or just because they were really well respected and liked. After all the people who we tend to care the most about dying nowadays are not those who held any kind of power but celebrities and those who were really selfless and helped others a lot. Not only that but if you go further back it completely breaks down, one of the closest relatives to humans is Bonobos and they basically have no strict hierarchies. The point here isn't that humans are naturally anti-hierarchical the point is that the evidence doesn't clearly point towards anything. Some human relatives were hierarchical, some weren't, and some archeological evidence might point towards hierarchy but a lot also doesn't and in general it's just hard to interpret stuff that's many thousands years old. The idea that the body is a temple is not very widespread, the idea that it is special is but that is not the same as it being a temple that must be kept clean. Buddhism for example would contend that the body is a complete illusion and whether or not it's clean is an unreal idea that keeps you attached to the world and prevents you from reaching nirvana. And the idea of living in some sort of morally pure way is also not at all universal, a lot of religions don't place any kind of importance on that and instead place importance on great skill in battle or hunting or being able to communicate with spirits. A lot of these things are just common in organized religions, but you can perhaps see why an organized religion might say that a specific way of living that's out of the reach of common people is somehow better and benefits the group as a whole, it's kinda needed for you to even have a priest class at all.

[@dylandreisbach1986]

How old is the earth? "Like real long"

[@hcn6708]

;)

[@bananafone1414]

It's about 2000000000 years old or more

[@immortalsun]

“Long” isn’t an age, lol.

[@virtxual6761]

Allah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila Allah

[@brazni]

Bold, but quite essential to make a video on how science relates to philosophy, ethics and other fields of humanities. This is a dimension that I've noticed is lacking in a lot of great educational channels. It fosters unnecessary division between people with different interests and just generally makes people miss out on how intimately and useful different ways of looking at the same thing can be. Thanks for making great videos.

[@KillerOfU33]

Holy shit less than 20 seconds and already hit with the abortion question. I commend your balls and bluntness.

[@kiro9291]

this episode is brought to you by... Patreon! and deer poison.

[@jamesgrey13]

As a professional junk rubber, I have to say that your junk rubbing animation was spot on! :D

[@asj3419]

Good lord, pepole pay for strange things nowdays.

[@kevinneuf8143]

Can you say, "Survival of the adequate?" You just have to be good enough to be alive at any given moment.

[@immanuelt613]

Survival of the fit enough

[@SpektralJo]

Yeay, new video!

[@SpektralJo]

An a very good one!

[@sino_diogenes]

arent they all

[@WheatleyOS]

I know something you could say that is "bad" but doesn't affect anyone or anything we know.. The death of the universe >an irrational fear

[@Quasarbooster]

WheatleyOS I know you're probably joking but I don't see anything inherently "bad" about the end of the universe.

[@bekzadbeknasirakhunov7787]

It's going to be the next Kutzegast

[@bobbobson2061]

Kurzgesagt

[@bekzadbeknasirakhunov7787]

Bob Bobson Yeah that's what I meant ))

[@ihebammar6568]

Gastrukast

[@PyroMancer2k]

"Survival of Fittest" is a term coined by people who were trying to put a spin on why some people end up rich while others end up poor. It was never used in Darwin's Book on Evolution. It's just become associated with it due to political spin and trying to reframe it with "biological fitness" means is gonna fail. Funny thing is Darwin actually says in his book that it's not the Fittest that Survive, but rather those most responsive to change. Another words being more adaptable is better than being "fittest" which usually refers to the best as in fastest, strongest, and etc. And it's this common misconception and reference to "Survival of Fittest" which leads people to faulty conclusions and surprising results in studies. Because the implications of the phase is usually that it's best to be the best in the most selfish way looking out only for yourself. Which turns out no to be true as those with experience in game theory can tell you.

[@MrAntieMatter]

Hell yes, love this channel! I probably like this channel because the way he presents seems so relaxed and casual even with the silliness that's actually happening in the video.

[@MrAntieMatter]

You have a Patreon? When I get my next paycheck I'll be sure to become a patron, or at least if I remember!

[@Wnivre]

And also because every character is Rayman.

[@SinisterSi718113]

"If a is true, then a is true. Thus, a is true."

[@jasscat7645]

If a is false, then a is false. Thus, a is false.

[@kyesol]

Sounds like a student trying to hit that 2,000 word mark on an essay.

[@onixz100]

It's worth noting, though, that many professional philosophers (those doing philosophical research today in meta-ethics) think that moral truths are objective (i.e., their truth values do not vary according to our attitudes about them)-a view called "moral realism"-and that there are first-order normative ethical theories (e.g., Kantian deontology) that can generate particular "oughts" without reference to, or being conditional upon, particular desires or any other "empirical determining ground." Robust moral realists would dispute the claim that "goodness" and "badness" are moral properties that only subsist in minds. They would say that "goodness" and "badness" (and perhaps other moral properties) actually exist in the world just like any other objective properties do, perhaps because they are reducible to certain natural properties. There are a handful of theories that explain the "reduction relation" that obtains between moral properties and natural properties. (For example, analytic reductionism says that moral properties are identical to some natural properties; synthetic reductionism says that moral properties stand in some other relation to natural properties: e.g., that moral properties supervene on natural ones, etc.) There are a handful of theoretical virtues to these kinds of views, like how they explain our moral epistemology (i.e., how we come to know moral facts). Of course, there are also some cons. These pros and cons are what constitute the contemporary debate in metaethics among professional philosophers. That said, not all moral realists are robust realists. Yet, that doesn't threaten the objectivity of morality for them. And again, on the first-order level, it's a good exercise to think about how we can generate unconditional/categorical oughts (cf. Kantian deontology).

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

Ah. Stay tuned for "Part 2" This was a 30 minute video. All my "beta testers" agreed it was disorganized and confusing so I’ve been splitting it up. But the ideas you talk about were the inspiration for the video

[@stephenparker234]

Veritas most would argue that deontological arguments just like kantian ethics are flawed in the sense that making something a categorical imperative takes consequential reasoning (usually utilising emotion-good vs bad within the mind) and therefor even these arguments are not exempt from good vs bad thinking.

[@JimmyJthe4th]

+

[@AuroCords]

I am definitely a robust moral realist, I think morality is inherent to intelligent life, and that it's real even beyond what we know as intelligent life.

[@beegum1]

I've seen many times, you just state a definition for term. Typically, they just say something like, "it's hard to argue that the killing of the rabbit isn't doing evil to the rabbit." What, then, is a reasonable way to assess our wants versus the needs of another? And this is where from you get derivatives of thought that expand the definitions of things like sentience to include all manner of animals, often without considering them in relation to our own sentience, but as an absolute. Thus, with regards to the first question, it does not seem that in our civilization the paucity of resources with any linkage to a developed world country has anything to do with abortion, indeed, one may obtain additional resources simply by placing the child for adoption. Thus, we are lead to a place where morality of abortion is nigh absolute in terms of doing evil to the child, and the validity of doing it for the civilization seems unlikely as well. Although some philosophers I've seen point out some remote cases, however, they do not center the need for abortion on these unlikely circumstances. I think this is what you're asking? Indeed, in most of the developed world the rights of the child are acknowledged after 12 weeks, or several weeks later, and the woman is then expected to take responsibility for it. One could argue they were more or less obligated to "take care of it" before that point. Although, it seems if one really wants a work around it is sometimes available. Nonetheless, in the design of the system, this is relevant. I suspect you're form the US, in the US the SCOTUS decided that the child's rights were undetermined and the woman was given the right to privacy. A very odd finding, lol, to make killing a human something the state cannot be concerned with, and I fairly certain it's an anomaly in law, not just US law, but abortion law internationally. That makes it trickier in the US to assert the rights of the child or the medical good of the abortion itself. Very late term abortions aren't safer for the female and seem to result in negative life outcomes for the woman as well. Indeed, from a statistical standpoint women are better if they give live birth, in general, and women with a deceased fetus recover more quickly if they give birth and grieve rather than have it ripped up, although, I believe, inducing labor is fine. The point is that the grieving process seems to work better if birth is given. SO, what you have even after abortions in many countries where they are legal is that the socialized medical system packages the abortion around these types of care which improve outcomes, often, these include what in the US is considered obstacle, but just health care, in the rest of the world. Certainly, that first baby takes a toll on the body, and there is some normally quite minor risk to health, in the developed world. Also, there is certainly a social aspect... regardless of the choice you make. I don't mean to be misconstrued, as is often done by pro-choice persons... Indeed, pro-life persons often do counseling in the US for post abortive women who seek such service, apparently much often than noted by PP, perhaps for plausible deniability reasons. It seems a bit serious, but perhaps it's amusing to note that religious beliefs are blamed for the pain caused to women by having their unborn child killed. Rather perverse thing. We see a similar behaviour in the media, wherein they do not like to discuss abortion to remind people of what is, lest they become devasted unnecessarily, especially because of widespread lies about a mass of cells or some such nonsense not present in the reality of looking it up online, perhaps the most notable reason, other than unity fighting among religions... it is quite easy to research abortion on line, and look at the product, which appears to be dead human beings, and, indeed it is. And this is why the decision of the SCOTUS using pragmatic reasoning to yield abortion to the feminists has not aged well.

[@Praxiszooms]

Very interesting video. I - as a homosexual often get this viewpoint from other people that humans have to do something and that it is against ome kind of "natural order"...but I think - with making your point clear it is easier for them to accept, that it is their system of feeling or wanting something "creates" their "order" something ought to be. V€ry nice illustrations - very cute. Also the voice over again ;).

[@nuadathesilverhand3563]

Man you complain about the term "survival of the fittest" alot. Ive met small children who understand it fairly well, so obviously its not as confusing as you say. It gets the majority of the idea across, and thats all its meant to do.

[@Nom2421]

I feel like we are dismissing the idea of survival of the fittest by talking in similar terms to how the days of the week are not real outside of human consciousness. Not that it is not true, but I do not feel like it pushes the needle anywhere. No idea is real outside of human consciousness, but I do not see how that challenges an idea's merit when that applies to everything we think about. Personally, I feel that we can not live the survival of the fittest way because we are morally obligated to see human life as valuable after we are born in most cultures.

[@marcusrodgers9759]

Am I wrong to see this as a very hedonistic view point?? I am not the most knowledgeable in the area, but it sounds like we are only going for what brings us happiness, not for what should be done whether we like it or not.

[@RedrunLoL]

it's always a nice surprise to see one of your videos on my feed

[@SkyreeXScalabar]

Original quote was "Survival of the Most Adaptable to Change"

[@chloewebster5669]

Makes you think so much I love it

[@SurrogateActivities]

How "fittest" doesn't make sense? Being fit to the environment, like a peg in a hole...

[@AphidKirby]

This is such good content!!! It reminds me of the incredible potential internet media such as youtube has to illustrate and spread ideas.This vid is prime example of this in its highest capacity.

[@ThePwnedProduction]

I think of it as "survival of the fittest" as in which ones fit into the eviroment better survivals

[@philiphockenbury6563]

Survival of the adequate.

[@Crick1952]

One could call this A MODEST PROPOSAL...

[@highcc]

references, i luv when ppl do it. Luv u

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

♥

[@diarminator]

survival of the good enough

[@drdramatik]

It really saddens me this channel died

[@richtigmann1]

Why has it 'died'?

[@drdramatik]

@@richtigmann1 It seemed so since last time I checked their last video was like over a year ago

[@scptime1188]

@@drdramatik This comment is old but he posted a new video.

[@Felik18]

What are your thoughts on owners who feed their dogs only vegetarian food?

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

The fact that dogs have been eating meat forever can't tell us whether it is good or bad automatically, right? It's not good or bad because its natural. The important thing is the effect on the dog. Is it healthy/tasty? (I can't imagine it's either health nor tasty. But I don't know anything about it) But also your pet is likely the single greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in your house, even compared to your car, because it's a carnivore. I think a medium sized dog contributes more to climate change than an SUV. Have to weigh the two issues.

[@Felik18]

This Place Wow thanks for responding to my comment! I just had an argument with my family member about that. Basically my stance was that unless that there's scientific evidence that lack of meat makes your dog become unhealthy (like apparently it does that for cats) there's no reason to believe it's wrong. And his arguments were either 1. Well it's natural for the dog to eat meat so it's wrong to feed the dog only vegetables. or (and it's my favorite one) 2. The dog can't make cautious decision to only eat food so it's cruelty (as if dog being an animal driven mostly by instincts can make any cautious decision at all and if it could it certainly wouldn't choose to spend most of it's time in captivity or being neutered or deprived of sexual interactions at will)

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

Actually, dogs are no more driven by instinct than humans are. They can and do choose to side with the humans who mutilate their genitals. They overlook such minor things in light of much more important factors that add up to determine how pleasurable their life is overall. We even have an advantage here because we usually have them neutered before they get the chance to find out how great sex is, and the best thing they ever know is companionship with us, so they don't want to get rid of that. Just the same, most dogs who have had sex are still much more loyal to their owners than they are to potential mates. Part of that is probably that we humans hold ultimate control over their ability to mate, so appeasing us is really the best way for them to have their genes passed on.

[@Felik18]

TheReaverOfDarkness I wouldn't be so sure about that. By saying "they can't make a cautious decision" I mean that they don't have the brain capacity to see the bigger picture. They don't simply choose to overlook neutering. They don't even understand that we, the owner, made the decision to remove those genitals for our convenience. This concept is simply too complex for them. Also even if the owner is really shitty, beats the dog and feeds poorly they still chose to stay with him cause that's simply how dogs evolved aka they do that cause they are driven by instinct.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

Felik18 They do have the brain capacity to understand these things. They are unaware of these things because nobody is explaining these things to them. We humans aren't more intelligent than dogs, we are wiser only because our communication skills enable us to share information with each other that we wouldn't have discovered on our own. Dogs being willing to stay with owners who beat them are no different from humans who choose to stay with parents who beat them. One of the best ways to change their mind is to show them that there is a better world out beyond their abusive guardian. Before they know about it, most believe the unknown world to be even scarier and more dangerous than the abusive home.

[@michaelabdoofficial]

Dang. Gonna have to watch this one a few times

[@catkook543]

6:10 are you trying to make us sexist?

[@ThisPlaceChannel]

lol, so with thought experiments its good to use a guy and a girl so you can say "he" and "she" rather than using their names constantly which can feel stilted. Then I had her keep hitting Frank because I like hurt Frank.

[@catkook543]

This Place ok I'm surprised you replied Popular KZbinrs don't normally reply to comments

[@komolunanole8697]

Alice and Bob?

[@catkook543]

Komoluna nole 😛

[@ReasonMakes]

cat kook I imagine he replied because he cares more about the quality of discussion than he does about looking cool.

[@ediskey]

"Survival of the good enough!"

[@KETimiko]

While I agree that this is how most people deal with morality and while I understand that the aim of the video was to explore the "survival of the fittest" idea, I'd like to interject some nuance. Let's accept the premise that moral is what benefits "us and the people we empathize with", by extension society at large (maybe). To achieve this goal there are correct and incorrect actions one can take; regardless of how you feel. Let's take an absurd example to make the point perfectly clear: You care about you, the apples on your apple tree and the rest of the world be damned. So, when a nice lady comes by and asks you to donate some money to a campaign aimed at stopping pesticide use that kills bees, you say: "I don't give a shit about bees, I have no moral obligation to help you.". So you don't, the bees die out, there's nothing to pollinate your apple tree, the tree doesn't produce fruit, you starve, end of story. It's dangerous to rely on our feelings to inform us about what is "right" in the world because our feelings are short sighted and impulsive. While objective morality is self-evidently non-existent it doesn't mean we can't make moral judgments based on rationality by taking into account our end-goal, value system and the best ways to make the two compatible.

[@KuraIthys]

I usually respond to people abusing 'survival of the fittest' in two ways. The first is just that 'fittest' is contextual. It's not any literal statement in regards to what would generally be considered fitness. Really, a but more wordy way of putting it is 'survival of those best suited to the current environment'. That could mean being smart, strong, domineering, aggressive... In the right context it could also mean stupid, slow, and extremely passive. Rather depends on what the tradeoffs are, and what kind of environment is involved. The second point is... Even ignoring what, exactly 'survival of the fittest' even means... It's an observation. Not an ideal. It isn't a goal to be strived for; An ideal to be met. It's an OBSERVATION of what is, NOT an ideal to strive for... Such a mess sometimes...

[@warpedreality7988]

Good video, keep it up Jesse.

[@jackbowis6650]

So how do we govern? What "oughts" can we agree on? If we don't produce any, our governments won't pursue any. Any attempts to be *truly* objective will inevitably fail, so maybe we can propose a postulation, a claim of certain values which, if taken as true, can help us build a set of oughts and policies to meet them that we can be confident have a basis in philosophy. A short list: *Liberty*: All other things being equal, a society where each person has the ability to control their own experience is better than one where environmental factors or other people control each person's experience. We ought to maximize liberty. *Happiness*: All other things being equal, the society where conscious minds suffer (are aware of loss) less is better than one where conscious minds suffer more. We ought to maximize happiness, which is to say we ought to minimize suffering. End of list. Here's the best set of core oughts I've ever heard, it should sound familiar to anyone who's read the Declaration of Independence. Since we have to accept a philosophical basis upon which to build policy (or govern without an underlying philosophy), I nominate this one. I'll listen to any arguments over what else should be on the list or what shouldn't be taken off, or alternate definitions of particular words. (Notable absentees from the list of core oughts: "Preserving traditions", and "obeying God".)

[@ViableJourneys]

I think my brain broke

[@hazukifujiwara6023]

Might makes Right is not an argument for the use of force nor does it say that power is "good" in any sense it is rather a point from the nature vs nurture debate. the idea is that our "morals" come mostly from the strong, our conquerors as the saying goes - "the natural law is tooth and claw, all else is error" I find it quite silly that you start the video debunking lies pertaining to the phrase "survival of the fittest" and then go on to use "Might makes Right" incorrectly although I hardly blame you as how can one attain all knowledge at all times If you wish to know more upon the subject then I suggest the book "Might is Right" by Ragnar Redbeard just remember 2 things. 1. this book was made during 1896- a different time, one where antisemitism and racism were common place 2. you don't have to agree or disagree with everything from the book.

Seems like you assume that something don't exist, with no proof there sire. How do you know that good and bad don't exist? Can you prove that they don't exist? On what ground you assume it? IE all this is baseless assumption with no proof. If you say that something don't exist, it is an assumption. If you don't claim something exist, then you don't make a claim. But if you make a claim, it is burden of proof on your side.

[@SoFly2H2D]

I think that this viewpoint, although interesting and clever, doesn't cover an obvious topic. Humans are one of the most unique animals on the planet who have evolved to an astronomical level compared to the rest. We have created medicine that helps the weak survive and choose to reproduce not based on survival, but for our own personal interests or by accident. We and one other species are the only ones who have sex for pleasure, we are the only species to commit intentional suicide, and are the only ones not really surviving. We don't have natural predators (even though we can still be killed by just about anything). We have empathy for each other because its a primal emotion for the survival of our species. Humans are the ONE AND ONLY area of the world where survival of the fittest doesn't apply.

[@kartonrad]

Natural selection.

[@aum1040]

Yes human beings and systems tend to presume that the way things are is the way things ought to be. And yes, this can be mistaken. But there is a reason for this presumption, which you have seemingly ignored: it is overwhelmingly correct. Over the course of human history behaviors that produce bad outcomes have been shunned, and behaviors that produce good outcomes have been copied. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't always be trying to make things better. But it does mean that there is vast wisdom in respecting the way things are, and asking "why are they that way" before effecting a change. Changes have unintended and often surprising consequences when applied to something as complex as human civilization. At a meta-level, the presumption that "the way things are is the way things ought to be" is an example of this. If it didn't consistently produce good decisions, it would not longer be part of our culture. But it does, and it is.

[@Xpegasu]

That sperm bank joke caught me off guard lmao

[@azizmukadam1122]

The idea of survival of the fittest comes from evolutionary change due to natural and sexual selection, which applies to adaptations which are, or genes which help in creating mechanisms which solve an adaptive problem, which leads to the increase in the frequency of those genes being represented in the population. But adaptations aren't the only products of evolution, there are by products and noise too. Unless a property like the skin colour which is a result of a mechanism which results in production of melanin as a reaction to the sun provides benefit to the organism, the way dark skin in hot climates provide protection from sun's ultraviolet rays, or improves fitness in any other way, i.e. the fit between the organism and the environment so that "the key fits the lock to open it" or solve a problem to help find a way to survive and reproduce (given limited resources exist, so one must do something better than the other --may it be intraspecie or interspecie-- to be able to acquire it), it's not an adaptation. In colder climates, the suns ultraviolet rays aren't very harsh and hence don't pose an adaptive problem, and hence genes to solve a problem by creating melanin wouldn't get selected for because there is no problem to solve. So when a mechanism isn't an adaptation, it could be a by product or noise. For example, an umbilical cord is an adaptation, a belly button is a by product, and the shape of the belly button is noise. In the example in the video involving good and bad based on like and dislike, the good and bad don't just exist, they exist because they're good or bad for us "on average" where this average is what most people constitute a part of. It was because we liked sweet foods and disliked bitter foods, that chances of us poisoning ourselves reduced as bitter was associated with toxic and thereby incurring a cost on our survival. If a mutation comes about where the poisonous things don't affect us, the presence or absence of detecting bitter taste in that food won't matter, and hence it won't be good or bad for us, and hence the need to differentiate between good and bad would no longer be there and we'd stop detecting badness or "bitterness" in it. But when the environment change, and there's no particular lock and key fit, because we have changed the lock to fit any key or gotten keys that can fit any lock, the keys (genes) which fit the lock (environment) previously continue to persist, albeit with variance of those genes reducing in proportion, and eventually the variance in the population becoming homogeneous, or to put it in perspective, there would exist both those who detect bitterness and those who don't. Evolutionary change also occurs through "genetic drift" where, through mutations, founder effects, and genetic bottlenecks, can change in the genetic makeup of a population occur, and thereby make the latter part of the above paragraph possible, which is not evolution by natural and sexual selection.

[@miro.georgiev97]

Anyone else feeling confused over what his conclusion was? I have no idea what it is. Feel free to explain to explain to me, including you, +ThisPlaceChannel.

[@brendancoulter5761]

Having just watched your intro, maybe the rest of the video gets better but you questioned weather or not abortion and infanticide are ok because they happen in nature. This is a stupid point. Incest, rape, kidnapping, murder, cannibalism, and thievery are all common place in nature. Just because a rat would do it doesnt mean its ok for a human to do it. Humans are the only animals on the planet who have developed morality, so why would you look to other species to evaluate morality?

[@sinomirneja771]

I say this because I see the hints of subjects I enjoy arguing about, but there is lost potential I think: I'm confused, why is there no narrative to this videos(where are premises and conclusion)? Also I must add, you jump from survival of the fittest to relativism, and touch random corners of relativistic perspective and then you conclude there is no natural order. While relativism is based on the idea that there is not a natural order not a proof against it.

[@drboogienobama4999]

Subliminal argument for abortion? An awful lot of assumptions go into few conclusions in this presentation and the comparison of animals to humans is the biggest logical flaw. Plus what about allowances for the unforeseen? The accident? The willful interfering? Be careful what you believe to be factual truth, ie: where does God fit into this scenario? We will never have perfection in this world. Others have tried to the horror of the rest of us watching.

[@georgecataloni4720]

If value comes from minds, and minds have no value without differing to a mind, then morality is subjective, right? What if every mind agreed, would it then be, at least in practice, objective? What if the only people who disagreed with the majority believed that the proposed punishment was not punishment, but just an OK act that everyone should do? Well... if a person believed murder is ok, then being executed for murder would be ok, therefore everyone agrees what _should_ happen. If the murderer makes up special rules for themself without facts to differentiate them, then they've denounced reason, and everyone agrees what should happen, because the murderer's illogical belief is treated illogically. Objective morality confirmed.

[@KohuGaly]

"What if every mind agreed, would it then be, at least in practice, objective?" No... objective is (by definition) independent of the subjects. When everybody agrees, it's still just subjective opinion. Morality is always subjective because it's meaningless without subjects which could implement it. Without the subjects, morality is just interesting "what if" scenario without actual substance. Equating "objective" with "agreed upon by everyone" just redefines the word "objective" to mean exactly opposite of what it does. For example, at one point in old greek mathematics it was believed that all numbers are fractions and then it was objectively proven the opposite.

[@georgecataloni4720]

KohuGaly Words change over time. Literally.

[@sirquestgiver8550]

Your comment cut out : (

[@KohuGaly]

George Cataloni words do, but concepts don't. I could redefine "pink" to mean the smallest prime and then show it equals 2, but that does not mean what you mean by "pink" equals 2. Words are just placeholders for concepts. In logical arguments it is essential that we agree on usage of the words (aka what given word means in this given context), otherwise we are no longer talking about the same thing, which trumps the point of communication and arguing.

[@georgecataloni4720]

KohuGaly Then I guess you can say I'm arguing for a morality that is universally accepted. While it may not be objective, it fits the criteria that people who believe objective morality is needed to have morality at all put forth.

[@ijjsqts]

...what was the point of this video? Why did you feel the need to explain morality in order to say that arguments from nature are fallacious? How high were you when you wrote a script this pointlessly rambling?

[@purpurwax9303]

8:22 "The is-ought distinction can draw attention to the idea that goodness and badness, and better and worse don't exist outside our minds" :D

[@Donglator]

i can't watch anime

[@tcironbear21]

You can argue that the desire to use contraceptive an outgrowth of the advantageous desire to shirk parenting requirements in males and reduce the number of competing children in females. Our ancestors were desired sex for a long time before the were aware of the results. So in the case the models would still predict that a sentient mind would pick to use contraceptive because the genes behind that mind are just the result of successful strategies in prior generations. It is kind of like how one camouflage in one generation was advantageous, but is disadvantageous after a forest fire or a soot spewing factory is built near by. The same applies here. Before the advent of modern contraceptives. If an organism loved sex but hated babies, it might be able to shirk its parenting duties onto those in the community with overdeveloped sense parental responsibility. The end result is that organism might be able to reproduce more than other genes.

[@sethapex9670]

the problem with the idea that morality is something within yourself and not out in the world is that it leads to the presumption that ethics cannot be tested. In reality, you can actually do ethics experiments, using the full scientific method. Suppose you see some children setting a cat on fire, you immediately think "this is wrong", you think this because your ethical theory says that abject cruelty is wrong. That "the act of lighting a cat on fire is wrong" is your hypothesis. and you can test it by asking the children why they did that, they could say it was done to watch it burn, which confirms your hypothesis. Or they could say that they were told there was a demon possessing the cat and setting it on fire was the only or best way to exorcise it. This disconfirms your hypothesis because the act of setting fire to the cat was not one of abject cruelty in this case. However, lying to the children on how to exorcise a demon from a cat was wrong and the person who told them that is now responsible.

[@isrealistheauthor1489]

Survival of the fittest: The Prisoners Bible. By Chief Shuaib Y. Israel. Google the book! Or FACE THE MUSIC!!

[@BFDT-4]

Nope. It's "The survival of the fit, as it provides another node for the clade that follows it."

[@temeweckis]

Brb, getting a job at a sperm bank. In a matter of time, everyone will be a descendent of me! [Evil laugh]!

[@Ms10000123]

Doesn't fittest mean most fitting to its environment? (which includes traits like cooperation and such) Might is right is a strawman version of survival of the fittest as far as I know.

[@caityreads8070]

I take issue with the 'bad thing that affects nothing' case, perhaps it is because I do not understand it. As I see it, something cannot be bad without affecting anything because badness is in itself an effect- an adjective, rather than a noun. If something is bad but does not affect anything, then it is neither good nor bad, it is nothing, an impossible phenomenon.

[@FrankHarrison12]

"Frank has 2 peaches".. looking down at my peach cobbler I am genuinely disturbed...

[@timh.2137]

No it most certainly is not okay! Why would you even ask such a horrible and immoral question?

[@kpunkt.klaviermusik]

Why do people kill other people? Are people who have killed others good or bad? The bad people survive, the good ones die!

[@strawberrylemonade8907]

(My Idea OF Survival of The Fittest) Being the best and fucking everyone over and trying to survive as long as he can and later he dies then the cycle goes on and on and on

[@BuddyDixon]

6:41 Just a minor nitpick, but the chloride ion should be larger than the sodium ion because it has more repulsive forces between electrons, whereas the sodium ion has more attractive forces between the nucleus and electrons

[@CraftyF0X]

And this is why religious apologists are ridiculous with their "objective morality" claims.

[@sylvainthibeault3447]

The problem is that when u obsess this much about reproduction, it robs u of precious time to become healthier, richer and funnier, especially the third, I hear women love men who have a huge one.

[@bennemann]

I didn't like this video, unlike other videos of your channel. Confusing to follow, with way too many rhetorical questions. If you're gonna ask those to the audience, you have to give them time to reflect on them, which is not given.

[@sprazz8668]

4:01 I don't always show up in KZbin videos, but when I do I make sure I look like a popular meme so that some idiot in the comments can joke about it.

[@xx0124xx]

I love yoru videos, but this one was too long and it covered way too many topics, so it was harder to follow. I still liked it and you can understand it if you try, but it was way too heavy on info.

[@echonoir5455]

why is genetics favoring stupidity over intelligence in humans?it's like that movie idiocracy

[@d0tz_]

interesting how this video kinda links to the minute physics video that came out 2 hr prior about how models we use to look at the world isn't nesssarily reality

[@otadota8256]

Since there should be some universal moral standards in a country, because that's what we base our laws on. On what should we base them ?

[@iamGed7]

You can't derive an "ought" from an "is". Hello fellow Humean. :)

[@eduardowada358]

You can define what IS good and what IS bad if you give those words an objective definition.

[@chrisli7358]

Hey man! I absolutely love your videos and I have shared your videos with everyone every time you release one. Your content is amazing and I sincerely hope that you grow as a channel.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Can you explain why darwinian evolutionary theories are so widely repeated over others despite the massive holes in the theories?

[@timh.2137]

It truly sounds like your parents made the wrong decision!

[@Metyhel]

I fucking knew that Nietzsche was involved in this video, love ya for it.

[@Zappyguy111]

funny, it took me 15 years to relearn this, now it's taken me 2 years to learn how to enforce it.

[@mynamejake]

IM SO HAPPY YOU MADE ANOTHER VIDEO!!!!!!!

[@JimGiant]

Hitting him is rather sally and frankly I think she should stop before she gets herself in to a sticky situation.

[@limweimin3250]

So being gay isn't wrong or right? RIGHT? So.... stop

[@saifsterosman]

Fantastic topic and presentation. May I know what the end credits music is?

[@ashleydah27]

how the hell do you not have over a million subscribers! that's unfair

[@MananagKiVato]

wtf that's magenta skin, not purple skin. >:(

[@silversheep4605]

Fittest Is Evil, It’s a good thing that we’re modern dayers

[@christophertomes6777]

well i ought to want peaches to ought to be delicious or else i wont want them..

[@siamiam]

frank stank because he bathed in sallys fish tank so she was quick to hit him with a stick because he as being a ....

[@imienazwisko6527]

There is no survival of the fittest. It's survival of the fit enough.