So much for the tolerant left!111!!

[clearspira]

Human beings are animals as much as we like to forget that. We evolved with the base instinct for power because power means food, water, shelter, and a strong mate. And those who are too weak to gain power automatically gravitate towards those that do for the exact same reasons. These traits became obsolete only after these things became easily available, which I would argue was the 19th century minimum.

You need to talk with more biologists and less evo psych theorists.

Strong mate is not an inbuilt human drive, and our idea of what makes an acceptable partner for couple is informed by current cultural norms.

Current cultural norms? No, that simply is not true. A strong mate is determined by the ability to reproduce, both in health and in the ability to protect. That has always been true. That is why the majority do not find old age and bones and injuries beautiful. That's why women with full breasts and smooth skin get more attention than doughy, plain women and men with masculine features get more attention than nerds as these are traits that indicate that this man/woman will be ideal to produce and raise children. That is how it has always been, the only thing that has changed this SLIGHTLY nowadays is that our comfortable lives have begun to obsolete our evolved drives. Women can afford weaker men and men can afford weaker women because we now have the police and medical services a phone call away.
It is called survival of the fittest.

[Riedquat]

Current cultural norms? No, that simply is not true. A strong mate is determined by the ability to reproduce, both in health and in the ability to protect. That has always been true. That is why the majority do not find old age and bones and injuries beautiful. That's why women with full breasts and smooth skin get more attention than doughy, plain women and men with masculine features get more attention than nerds as these are traits that indicate that this man/woman will be ideal to produce and raise children. That is how it has always been, the only thing that has changed this SLIGHTLY nowadays is that our comfortable lives have begun to obsolete our evolved drives. Women can afford weaker men and men can afford weaker women because we now have the police and medical services a phone call away.
It is called survival of the fittest.

I'd temper that slightly because "fittest" doesn't always mean strongest, and that's always been the case. The advantage humans have always had over other species is intelligence. Strength has a value in a harsh environment but so does the ability to put aside differences and co-operate, and to think your way out of trouble.

Also "fittest" just means "most appealing to the opposite gender". Certainly nature is full of species with rather bizarre mating rituals that appear to be pushing it to believe they closely parallel useful survival traits. Are people still arguing about peacocks' tails?

[Admiral X]

"Fittest" simply means whoever survives long enough to produce offspring, thus passing on their genes.

[Riedquat]

"Fittest" simply means whoever survives long enough to produce offspring, thus passing on their genes.

Need to survive and be successful at mating.

[Worffan101]

"Fittest" simply means whoever survives long enough to produce offspring, thus passing on their genes.

This.

If you're barely able to walk but have a kid who reaches adulthood you're more biologically fit than a genetically-engineered superman who's sterile.

[Riedquat]

"Fittest" simply means whoever survives long enough to produce offspring, thus passing on their genes.

This.

If you're barely able to walk but have a kid who reaches adulthood you're more biologically fit than a genetically-engineered superman who's sterile.

For the sake of propagation, sure. Not fit for the purposes of getting on with life, at least throughout most of human history. "Fit" is "fitness for a purpose" rather than any sort of absolute.

[Worffan101]

"Fittest" simply means whoever survives long enough to produce offspring, thus passing on their genes.

This.

If you're barely able to walk but have a kid who reaches adulthood you're more biologically fit than a genetically-engineered superman who's sterile.

For the sake of propagation, sure. Not fit for the purposes of getting on with life, at least throughout most of human history. "Fit" is "fitness for a purpose" rather than any sort of absolute.

I'm aware, I'm just illustrating how ridiculous those arguments about mate fitness are in these kinds of discussions.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That's why women with full breasts and smooth skin get more attention than doughy, plain women and men with masculine features get more attention than nerds as these are traits that indicate that this man/woman will be ideal to produce and raise children.

You are Dead Forking Wrong.

Doughy women have been the NORM for most of human history AND prehistory. "Masculine" is an idea that is being constantly revised, and used to include things like powdered wigs and high heels. And how do you define the biological fitness of "nerds"?

[LittleRaven]

It seems to be working OK in Rojava

That's...kind of hard to say, isn't it? I mean, Rojava was only established in 2015. There are kindergarten children that are older than this 'nation.' It's literally in the middle of a war zone, and whoever ends up winning that war is almost certainly going to attempt to bring it "back into the fold."

I can't help but think that we're looking at another Revolutionary Eastern Cameroon here. (that was the favorite example of the college communists back when I was in school...like, 2 million years ago)

and the Zapatistas make anarchism work (tho pure anarchism doesn't work so well at a higher level).

Uh...the Zapatistas I know are a rebel movement within Mexico. I realize that they do hold a certain amount of territory in a semi-autonomous fashion...but the population of that area is something like 370,000. That's barely a city....Austin, where I live, has nearly 10 times that number of people. And on top of that, they only perform a tiny portion of the functions that a modern state is expected to do. They hold no borders, control no air space, make no treaties, administer no territory. As you say, that doesn't exactly scale up well.

But hey, you've put more thought into this than most. I may not personally find your examples compelling, but I appreciate you bringing them to the table. It's certainly more than some other groups manage.

And honestly? The Internet makes it a lot EASIER. A federation of labor syndicates controlling the economy would be able to run internal elections through secure websites the same way we run things like government websites and transaction sites.

Oh god. Look, I'm a programmer by trade, so maybe this resonates more with me than with other people, but....

But no more so than OTL.

In my opinion, much, much, MUCH more so. 'Secure' websites aren't secure...goodness knows hardly a week goes by without some major financial institution announcing some kind of data hack. They are merely secure enough...the massive amount of money they can generate makes up for the risk of the occasional hack...after all, the worst that can usually happen is that people lose money, and there's always insurance for that. But when the stakes are "control of enough nuclear weapons to literally end the species" the actuarial tables get more complicated.

Regular old voting is certainly vulnerable to all kinds of attack, and Stalin wasn't wrong in his possibly apocryphal quote. Electronic voting is even more vulnerable. But cyber voting is a system that currently has no safeguards at all.

I dunno, I think that putting power and responsibility in the hands of the people is better than putting power but no responsibility in the hands of an arbitrary elite (whether they call themselves "businessmen" or the Politburo).

I feel you. People in power tend to go bad, regardless of how they got there. But people need government, and history has yet to produce an example of an anarcho-syndicalist system that I find compelling. But history isn't over yet, I suppose.

[Antiboyscout]

That's why women with full breasts and smooth skin get more attention than doughy, plain women and men with masculine features get more attention than nerds as these are traits that indicate that this man/woman will be ideal to produce and raise children.

You are Dead Forking Wrong.

Doughy women have been the NORM for most of human history AND prehistory. "Masculine" is an idea that is being constantly revised, and used to include things like powdered wigs and high heels. And how do you define the biological fitness of "nerds"?

SKINNY women have been the norm for most of human history. Doughiness was a sign of wealth and there for NOT the norm. Being doughy is now a sign of poverty in the west so it's now longer attractive. Soft symmetrical facial features and an hourglass waistline ARE constants that transcend time and culture.

Powdered wigs are a pragmatic fashion choice do to lice. Like staining your teeth black to to improper dental care. Women adopting high-heels, like the color pink, says more about women than it does about men; especially now with modern feminists complaining about how both are "forced" on women.

Square jaw lines and an upside-down triangular shaped torso are consistent masculine traits. Body hair is another and is the reason women shave. Body hair is a sign of high testosterone. This is a sign of fertility in men and infertility in women. A lot of makeup and grooming is to place women and men at a more equal footing to those with natural beauty.