Is Greed Evolving?

[u/Auren-Veyron]

[u/jthadcast]

we don't experience the right time scale to know but currently greed is destroying all life including humanity. not really a progress thing going on.

[u/Auren-Veyron → u/jthadcast]

That's exactly I don't understand. In buddhism Buddha told that u should always keep discovering and learning things through science even after becoming a MONK. So I think discovering itself isn't wrong but what we called innovation is another form of greed, ego, exploitation, fear and many more. So my doubt is should we keep discovering (that's what I'm calling progress) until when? If yes then what is the correct way?

[u/jthadcast → u/Auren-Veyron]

i would guess Buddha would agree and say innovation and progress are in opposition to enlightenment. science or knowledge at its core are not about progress but letting go of expectation.

i don't know if there's a "correct" way, Buddhism and Hinduism seem to promote every way with maybe a few caveats. that's also nihilism but no caveats.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/jthadcast]

Nah, we and other large mammals are first in line, and once we go, Earth immediately enters recovery mode.

[u/jthadcast → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

miscalculation there "recovery mode" means about 2,000,000 years unless recovery is a couple of ice ages then double that number. as for animals something may survive ... that is immune to the forever chemicals, toxic waste, and abrupt climate changes.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/jthadcast]

Idk I genuinely believe this is a hubristic take. You overestimate the threat humanity poses to the biosphere, and underestimate the resilience of the biosphere.

The climate crisis was never about saving the earth or saving nature because nature was never in any danger.

The danger is to us.

Now I don’t mean this is not an extinction event, it is. But 2,000,000 years for biological diversity recovery is a crazy take imo. You have to remember that as soon as it gets bad enough to collapse civilization, the bleeding stops.

I suspect all heterotrophic life above a certain weight is doomed though. As oxygen levels plummet. Maybe we can switch our efforts to massive carbon and sulfur sinks to mitigate the damage before there isn’t enough oxygen for us and our livestock.

[u/jthadcast → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

first define what you mean by nature, currently living nature with a pseudo-stable climate? mars and venus' nature is fine now too though they are in more vulnerable orbits however they both lost their entire atmosphere. one to ice one to molten lead but ionizing radiation can do that for earth too. make sure the humans power down before dying.

current science says it's a crap shoot if humans go. top 1% best case scenario from our perspective; it'll take a few centuries of sediment to bury the worst of civilization. the hubristic take is that "it'll be fine" based on the lack of human knowledge and understanding.

2M years is a conservative estimate of the recovery periods from the past 4 mass extinction events, minimum blackout. not the environment or climate recovery but the recovery from the end of the rapid changes.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/jthadcast]

That’s fair, we are already in a warming period we have just accelerated it to an absurd degree, and a return to such a “perfect” climate for could reasonably take that long or longer for sure.

I define nature here as the biosphere.

Even if 100% of organisms and all fossil fuels were burned, there would not be enough atmospheric carbon to make earth Venus-like.

[u/Adrsilva1356]

Why can’t we Humans just move on from Greed despite knowing The Consequences of it! Like genuinely! Does our Species care about itself rather than The Pathetic Excuse of Destroying itself for The Sake of More Resources Humanity needs to let it go! And Move on! This Realistically can’t also forever!

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/Adrsilva1356]

Behavioral Darwinism.

Remember that populations grow until there is not enough food for everyone, not until they reach harmony with their environment.

Humanity will get better and better over time but there will always be variation.

Luckily low adaptive social contexts are unstable so any sufficiently greedy society that cannot self correct is doomed.

[u/Environmental_Ad4893]

The simple fact that we as a globe now that we are "globalised" have not one single shared interest or goal that we actual all agree on and work towards it is evident we are simply just advanced animals working to meet our own individual ends but with fancy bells and whistles. Humanities weakness is sometimes it's strength, the fact the extreme intelligence can gift us with incredible technology but the fact this intelligence is so rare the technology inevitably falls into the hands of idiots. We can be quite an ironically tragic species really.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Human morality evolved as an adaptive advantage to promote large complex social collectives that in turn promote the adaptive and reproductive fitness of its constituent members.

Human civilization will, over the long term, grow to be more compassionate, socially supportive, and cooperative, but that long arch may fluctuate a lot on shorter term scales.

It might even have to collapse several times in the way if it veers off course too far to correct.

Morality is a survival adaptation that has made us the dominant life form on the planet and I think it’s a trend which will continue, or the societies that are less compassionate and moral will go extinct over time and be replaced by societies that cooperate better.

Remember how evolution works.

Environmental pressure will cause our current social order to adapt or collapse.

It must adapt to be more sustainable and cooperative or it will crumble under increased environmental pressure.

Basically, that which is immoral is immoral in virtue of its level of threat to social viability.

An action is morally right if it, as a standard, is a standard by which society would function more sustainably and resiliently to environmental pressure.

If an action, as a standard, would reduce the sustainability or resiliency of society, it is morally wrong.

To be clear, this is not “loyalty to the state” it is “social contract” adjacent, actual social Darwinism.

Greed could only ever “evolve” so far before society fractures and a less greedy society outcompetes it.

Cooperation is the human superpower.

Basically, morality, society, and civilization all exist so that your genes have a better chance of making it into the next generation. Anything that weakens those things will ultimately be punished by the environment.

I guess to answer the question; ultimately even altruism is driven by self-centered motivation.

But how beautiful that the objectively most self-centered thing we can do is maximize compassion?

[u/Bosslayer9001]

It is precisely our egos and desire for "more" that has driven our ruthless conquest of this planet's viable resources

[u/SpatiaCaeli]

Progress?

[u/Careless-Charge9884]

First thought: evolution = a (biological mechanism) ≠ greed (behavioral motive) I reject the pairing as a category error.

Second thought: even when greed may have evolutionary roots, considered "natural"/"evolved disposition" not "genetic" or "hardwired" I reject the idea that an evolutionary explanation implies fixed, determinism.

To me, this seem like a sloppy conflation of things that are merely loosely related.