OP: “Some examples to illustrate the absurdity of this logic: Mammals live outdoors; therefore, homelessness is good.”
A positive statement would be that, it may be an evolutionary ‘good’ even if distasteful. An example might be that homelessness people may have more partners than a high IQ autist that has a mansion. Or we can say, all else being equal, it is healthier for humans to be outside more, much more than in the modern world. Designed housing and modern urban systems need to take this into account.
OP: “Animals are illiterate; therefore, illiteracy is good.”
It may be distasteful, but many studies show that years of education means lower fertility; and that sexual selection TODAY actually does select for genes that are less-intelligent* (ADHD or even bad habits like alcohol and smoking.) Nature works in mysterious ways. A good way is that we need to think quite hard about underlying behaviors. Why are literacy rates so low? And persistently so?
I appreciate this. My phrasing of these is unnecessarily negative.
I was trying to exemplify patterns that human shouldn’t push towards. To backup my claim that “biological does not mean good”
“Animals live outside” is the pattern. If I had one button that keeps everything the same and another that made all people live outside, I wouldn’t push the button. Lots of people would die from exposure.
As you point out, the fact that animals live outside does contain some biological truth. Outside is healthy in a lot of ways. But living outside isn’t “good” for humans because it’s what our biological similars do.
Well-said.
To add to comment:
OP: “Some examples to illustrate the absurdity of this logic: Mammals live outdoors; therefore, homelessness is good.”
A positive statement would be that, it may be an evolutionary ‘good’ even if distasteful. An example might be that homelessness people may have more partners than a high IQ autist that has a mansion. Or we can say, all else being equal, it is healthier for humans to be outside more, much more than in the modern world. Designed housing and modern urban systems need to take this into account.
OP: “Animals are illiterate; therefore, illiteracy is good.”
It may be distasteful, but many studies show that years of education means lower fertility; and that sexual selection TODAY actually does select for genes that are less-intelligent* (ADHD or even bad habits like alcohol and smoking.) Nature works in mysterious ways. A good way is that we need to think quite hard about underlying behaviors. Why are literacy rates so low? And persistently so?
*See: Life without sex: Large-scale study links sexlessness to physical, cognitive, and personality traits, socioecological factors, and DNA: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.24.24310943v1.full
I appreciate this. My phrasing of these is unnecessarily negative.
I was trying to exemplify patterns that human shouldn’t push towards. To backup my claim that “biological does not mean good”
“Animals live outside” is the pattern. If I had one button that keeps everything the same and another that made all people live outside, I wouldn’t push the button. Lots of people would die from exposure.
As you point out, the fact that animals live outside does contain some biological truth. Outside is healthy in a lot of ways. But living outside isn’t “good” for humans because it’s what our biological similars do.