I’m sure it was better than Darwin

What about my understanding of evolution is incorrect, and how do you see natural selection working in present humans? Very possible that Dunning-Kruger is at play, but we may have to agree to disagree as to where…

My point is not that previous people haven’t done significant things, it’s that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.

If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn’t have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren’t working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.

That’s why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.

And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don’t understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it’s an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.

Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.

I think that’s pure conjecture about how having kids affects the world. And the nature, worthiness, or value of those 12 people has nothing to do with whether or not you happen to personally be their ancestor. There’s nothing different or more special about one person’s progeny than another, so who cares if it’s your kids or 8 billion other people. The idea that that is important in the future is all about making yourself important in the present.

Why does it matter if they’re your descendants or others’? My 16 great great grandparents are as much strangers to me as any other 16 people walking around 100 years ago. And everyone here now is in the same place, whoever they came from. Not like I’ll be alive to (or would do so in any case) take pride in saying 'ooh those 12 people have something to do with me if you go back far enough"

Why is it essential for our genes to live on?

What a radical take

Many apologies!

I thought the question was more theoretical/conversational, so I just answered with how I felt about the idea of bonding with friends over porn, not how I think you do it. It doesn’t appeal to me personally, and the title of the post is “do you ever want to?” So I was just offering my answer.

This is how we enter the simulacrum.

Now I see, comrade. All hail mother Russia.

No, and people come off as pretty weird when porn is such a significant part of their life and so frequently on their mind that it’s their chosen pastime and conversation topic. It suggests an imbalance in how much porn is a part of one’s life, when it’s totally fine for it to play a large role, but not so large that you feel a strong urge to bring it up even when it makes most people uncomfortable.

I would never shame someone for consuming (large amounts of) porn, but if someone thinks about it so much that they are frequently bringing it up in average settings even though it makes many people uncomfortable, that’s honestly pretty rude. And if someone knows that’s the case and still feels a strong urge to do so, I think that demonstrates an issue with how and how much they are thinking about it.

If you find someone or some online community that intentionally welcomes that, lean into it and enjoy. Outside of that, exposing others to conversation they’d rather not have is not cool, likely to put distance between you, and pretty selfish. If you can’t resist, that’s a whole other issue.

Agreed History.com has some wacky articles, but these numbers come from Richard Overy, a respected and well-researched historian. But feel free to do some pleasure reading on these:

https://notevenpast.org/order-no-227-stalinist-methods-and-victory-eastern-front/#:~:text=How many Soviet soldiers were,a couple weeks in Stalingrad. (Numbers pulled from Russian sources)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion#:~:text=Their family members were subjected,executed 158%2C000 troops for desertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Before anyone asks for a source:

July 1942’s famous “Order No. 227,” better known as the “Not One Step Backward!” rule, which decreed that cowards were to be “liquidated on the spot.” Under this order, any troops who retreated were to be shelled or gunned down by so-called “blocking detachments”—special units who were positioned behind their own lines and charged with shooting any soldier who tried to flee. Stalin’s draconian orders were designed to increase the Red Army’s fighting spirit, but they weren’t empty threats. According to some estimates, Soviet barrier troops may have killed as many as 150,000 of their own men over the course of the war…

Aaaand over 150,000 of their own soldiers for retreating

This is absolutely not every city. I’ve lived in several and not a single one compared to LA in these regards. I don’t know what you’re basing this claim on but it’s simply inaccurate.

Neighborhoods have their own identities, but in most places, what makes something a neighborhood rather than its own town is the fact that it is surrounded by other neighborhoods that are immediately accessible. That’s why Lincoln Park in Chicago and Soho NY are neighborhoods, but they use a whole different term to identify Manhattan from Long Island and so on. Those are properly boroughs rather than neighborhoods, as they are big, physically separated, and it’s not that easy to get between them, which leads to each almost being considered its own city. And it’s still harder to get between LA neighborhoods than it is to literally cross the (admittedly very thin) stretch of ocean between Manhattan and Brooklyn.

And I don’t think there’s any similarity between your second example, looking at how someone interacts with the whole of a country, and this question of how someone interacts with their local community. Countries are of course big enough that folks might see less than 50% of their own and still love it. But it’s much harder to consider someone an expert or proud local of a “city” they don’t visit 90% of. You can be a countryman and see only 30% of your country, but you can’t really be a local and see only 10% of your city.

I mean more that it’s crazy to call them “neighborhoods” when any two have nothing in common and are completely inaccessible to each other unless you have your own car and get on the highway for an hour.

And when that’s the case, how does one even say they like “LA” (as in the whole city) when you’re more likely to travel out of state from Long Beach than to Westwood.

Ok but LA sucks for reasons that have nothing to do with what I want from a city and everything to do with what everyone wants from a city: walkability, affordability, good roads/traffic and infrastructure, good vibes, authenticity, public transit, and people who don’t suck.

Even people who are from LA and say “we have all that and I love LA” only mean “I love my neighborhood in LA, which is a 90 minute drive from the 7 other malignancies of highway sprawl that also call themselves LA.”

For those concerned and yet to click the link: he’s expected to be back on stage by Wednesday and has received scans, so it appears to be no major concern, though of course not quite minor either.