REVEALED: The bourgeousie's shocking MASTER PLAN to turn us ALL into LICHEN

Humans are effectively well on the pathway to becoming lichens and its only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie breed us into lichen-like superstructures.

Consider this, lichens are fungi that have discovered agriculture – seem familiar?

Lichens involve the use of slaves – fucking hell!

Lichens go to war against each other – holy shit!

Let me explain this, prepare to have your minds blown.

Some lichens work in capturing free living photosynthesis capable cyanobacteria or algae, just like the slave catchers of old, installing them into a nest where they will toil away until they die, with the majority of the surplus value they produce in the form of sugars stolen away by the ruling fungi caste. Other lichen work by breeding their own captive algae which are incapable of existence outside of the lichen system, a true example of reproductive division of labour. These enslaved algae have now become incapable of free living existence, dependant on their slave masters, the fungi to survive. Hell, sometimes the fungi capture two different types algae in a tripartate structure, one to photosynthesise and one to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, both farming and chemical industry.

Regardless of whether the slave breeding or slave capture system is used the installed slaves become entirely dependant on their fungal overlords for access to water and shelter from the elements and predation, if they fail to give up significant surplus value to feed the fungi they will be killed.

And get this, while many of the cyanobacteria and algae are perfectly capable of living free from exploitation and domination in the lichen, all of the fungal bourgeoisie, regardless of species, are incapable of a free living existence, they are entirely dependant on their slaves for sustenance

Lichens go to war against each other just like humans, when one lichen colony expands and meets another a vicious bio-chemical warfare ensues, while humans have prohibitions on the use of chemical and biological weapons, the fungal bourgeoisie has no such compunctions and millions of innocent algal slaves are caught in the crossfire.

Think of this, every time you see a lichen you are seeing a micro slave plantation directly comparable to human social organisation.

Humans class society already demonstrates most of the traits found in lichens – overlapping generations in the same colony/nest, and cooperative care of and raising of young (bacteria or algal slaves in the case of lichens), only the lack of reproductive division of labour in humans stands between us and locking class society in as lichen society and plenty of members of the ruling class salivate about turning human society into lichen society.

It is imperative that we understand the lichen slave-system if we are to prevent this happening to us.

Discussion of REVEALED: The bourgeousie's shocking MASTER PLAN to turn us ALL into LICHEN on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
tears please return this gif to its rightful place in a stickied thread atop the forum
#2
i will do this for you
#3

tears posted:

Humans are effectively well on the pathway to becoming lichens and its only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie breed us into lichen-like superstructures.



roseweird if anything from this crazy thread ends up frontpage it's this post

my bus is leaving in like an hour and with it my internet for a week, can't respond to everything sorry. but feudal humans already were forming closed reproductive groups along class lines, right? hereditary monarchies were independently invented in all(?) civilizations (not sure about coast salish). in amerika the class prison system just-so-happens to lock kids up age 18-30++ during family-making years but i get a trickle of news reports where judges offer sterilization in exchange for reduced sentences. don't got some extensive prison gene flow study tho sorry, just a thought.

i don't really have confidence in any evolutionary model i've read about for non-human eusociality development... intrinsic fitness rested on haplodiploidy, but that isn't true in even half the creatures. wilson (sorry sorry) has a new theoretical model where if i understand it the reproductive gradually breeds itself by selectively killing worker-daughters, but 1) wilson and 2) it's new and untested and controversial since the last 50 years people assumed it was a solved problem. the model to me is less important/interesting than the very strange end-adaptation and the material pressures that birthed it across the animal kingdom (maintaining food stores).

there are major human differences obviously (patriarchy) to arrive at the adaptation of class society... gotta go bye merry xmas etc

#4
[account deactivated]
#5

toyotathon posted:

roseweird if anything from this crazy thread ends up frontpage it's this post



yeah well done tears

#6

toyotathon posted:

wilson (sorry sorry) has a new theoretical model where if i understand it the reproductive gradually breeds itself by selectively killing worker-daughters



oh, just like humans 🐱‍🐉

#7
- You'll finally see.
- What, that I've been right this whole time?

He thought he'd cared but now he wasn't sure. They'd been following the termite trail for 6 hours through sweat-forest and bramble. No, he was sure: he wanted to be wrong, and learn an extra lesson to never do this again.

- I think I see it.
- But how would you know?
- It's a termite mound.

He picked up two squirming workers, which confused everybody.

- Look, both these workers--
- They aren't workers.
- Okay. Both these termites are returning to the nest with food. Other animals don't do this, see? Other animals eat then gather then eat then hunt. These social insects (he ignored her frown) collect food and store it for long-term survival.

He knew her silence meant disapproval. So he pressed.

- Watch.

Blue latex glove out of pocket, blue latex glove on left hand, left hand into mound, hoping he'd get lucky. And, yes.

- Look in there.
- What am I looking at?
- The queen.
...
- That isn't a termite.
- What?
- Look at it. It's not a termite.
- It's a termite. It's their mother.
- THOSE are termites, THAT looks totally different.

He was going to fucking lose it.

- Look at those things by it. Why are so many different insects living in this mound?
- The LARVAE?
- They aren't even termites.

This wasn't going to work, but he started to fantasize he was having a conversation with somebody completely different, who'd recognize the sense of the point he was about to make.

- Look over here, this is an ant trail --
- I mean, it's a trail, I wouldn't call it an ant trail.
- ...
- This one is carrying a leaf, this one is carrying a different color leaf. And look (she grabbed a handful) they're all acting different, running different directions! They don't even all look the same. Maybe a couple of these are ants, but they can't all be ants. Ow!

Either the humidity did it or an honest moment of clarity. The bugs would listen! They would understand his point, even better than he did.

- If we follow those ants to their nest, we will find what we found in this termite mound. Many workers, carrying food instead of eating it, to store it near the queen and larvae. These animals don't talk to each other, but they developed these same social systems independently, in response to the same food pressures.
- Look at how naive you are. Those aren't ants. There is no such thing as 'ants'. How do you know what's at the end of this bug trail? You don't. And how do you know the bugs didn't talk to each other? This is all just a bunch of bugs in the forest. In fact, now that I think about it, I wouldn't even call this a forest. All I see is a bunch of trees. Why did you even bring me out here?
#8

toyotathon posted:

He was going to fucking lose it.

This wasn't going to work, but he started to fantasize he was having a conversation with somebody completely different, who'd recognize the sense of the point he was about to make.



this is a sick own and i will include it in the summary for sure but for my part i really don't think i understand the deeper connection between social insects and social mammals that you seem to see.

i think you are trying to argue that humans are moving down the path of social insects, solidifying social classes into biological castes, and that by drawing analogies to social insects and their development you can demonstrate that human society is somewhere along that path. so we can learn about ourselves by studying insects, and we can draw conclusions about our future development by doing this.

i hope i got that right.

i understand the various connections you've made between social insects and mammals, but i don't understand the basis for extending what we know (or anyway what you know) about social insects to a general theory of the development of social animals. i don't think points like "bugs are matriarchal" and "even mold has slaves" are trivial either.

#9

toyotathon posted:


this post owns toyotathon, and i think that in some alternate timeline i would have been happy to study eusocial insects with you. I'm pretty sure that i understand the point you are trying to make about social control and its potential to be developed into even more fixed structures, in-fact i have made the same sort of linkage, though not as overt and from a completly different perspective when i am talking about MK-ULTRA and mind control. Where we differ is in you extrapolating from eusocial insects which i dont think i will ever see as anything but projective natural history, but you have made me think very deeply about this and rekindled my interest in something that i thought was well in my past, so thank you, anyway, i hope you have a nice christmas, i might use this thread to poke fun at sociobiology and its even more idiotic child gene centric evolutionary theories some more since thats something we can both agree on and maybe people are interested in, maybe

#10
cool i hope ny post was not mean... if i can be indulgent i tried to made this insane pedant D&D man wandering 6 hrs in the sweaty forest with a latex glove in his pocket, the lady determined to humor him, to be not sympathetic, because internet debates are silly and bourgeois and liberal and are entertainment not a way to learn... i hope when she told him she literally would not see the forest for the trees that he (i) Got It and like died, have a good xmas, greyhounds have wifi when they stop by subways and mcdonalds, goodBye

Edited by toyotathon ()

#11
damn we neeed another spinoff thhread already to talk about tears' past as a nazi scientist O_O
#12
[account deactivated]
#13

tpaine posted:

answer for your crimes, tears


i mod an unpopular web forum

#14
[account deactivated]
#15
Tears aka Raskalnikov, finding happiness through suffering after immense tribulations.
#16
#17
#18
[account deactivated]
#19
#20

roseweird posted:

i don't think points like "bugs are matriarchal" and "even mold has slaves" are trivial either.



yah i don't either. but has there been any slam-dunk historical-material explanation, from any discipline, for human patriarchy esp post-class society? i've only read caliban, and the martha mies that swampman posted... maybe it's out there and i'm just ignorant. there's engels development of the gens and i've read scattershot anthro about bridewealth.

cookin up a post about the {other} class mammals, the two african naked mole rats. we and the mole rats are related equally to the insect eusocials like wasps and bees, sharing the same distant chordate ancestor.

Edited by toyotathon ()

#21

toyotathon posted:

we and the mole rats are related equally to the insect eusocials like wasps and bees, sharing the same distant chordate ancestor.


we are also just as equally related to tapeworms as we are to bees, the split is way back in cambrian explosion - 500MY time frames, so im unsure what the relevance of drawing attention to the evolutionary link between chordates and members of the prostostome clade is in relation to eusociality; we're far more related to starfish & sea cucumbers - unless you're trying to highlight how unrelated we are to eusocial insects?

#22
i thought he meant that we and the molerats are both the same evolutionary distance from insects? although im not really sure what that means. kind of an unclear sentence all around
#23
but since all extant deuterostomes (which includes all chordates) are of the same evolutionary distance from all the extant protostomes (which includes all insects) in not seeing the relevance, - its the same evolutionary distace from your dog to your dogs roundworm infestation as from a molerat to a wasp, or from a human to a clam, or an eel to a spider, because the first lot are deuterostomes and the second protostomes...
#24
didn't mean much except that it is not a social adaptation unique to insects (or close insect relatives like the eusocial sponge-dwelling shrimp), it is widely and thinly spread over the animals

the eusocial mole-rats are interesting b/c their ranges border non-eusocial cousins. and so they make a nice test case about what food situations lead to class societies (but if you're reading this thread you already know )
#25

toyotathon posted:

roseweird posted:

i don't think points like "bugs are matriarchal" and "even mold has slaves" are trivial either.

yah i don't either. but has there been any slam-dunk historical-material explanation, from any discipline, for human patriarchy esp post-class society? i've only read caliban, and the martha mies that swampman posted... maybe it's out there and i'm just ignorant. there's engels development of the gens and i've read scattershot anthro about bridewealth.

cookin up a post about the {other} class mammals, the two african naked mole rats. we and the mole rats are related equally to the insect eusocials like wasps and bees, sharing the same distant chordate ancestor.



If you havn't read Maria Mies' Patriarchy and Primitive Accumulation on a World Scale, that book has an interesting explanation for the origin of patriarchy. Originally men were dependent on women for subsistence since hunting couldn't produce consistent results. Thus the original society was matriarchal and most of its technology (agricultural implements, storage of surplus) was invented by women. It was only when men discovered domesticating animals that they became able to subsist independently, which eventually allowed them to enslave women and establish patriarchal civilization.

From this, though this isn't Mies' argument, one could extrapolate that patriarchy has been a process of domesticating humanity though an increasingly coercive breeding program. It seems this would apply to all humans though, I don't really see how it's possible that classes would become biological stratified except in some future nightmare cybernetic society.

#26
huh okay it shot up my reading list then, thank you. from swampman's posts the depth of research looked really awesome.

the human breeding stuff, if it comes out of this mountain of genetics we've got, would be one of the predictions of one theory about how eusociality forms. but yeah clearly it's not sufficient to explain how basically the whole of humanity's been proletarianized in like 200 years. genes and caste-differentiation appear to be the last stop on the eusocial train, locking it in, so, it's maybe a slow current that i stressed about, out of proportion. also we probably don't need to do caste-differentiation in our eusociality when we pass behavior culturally, through ideology, school-sorting and training- not that eugenics is dead yet.

Edited by toyotathon ()

#27
one animal adopted a social system which has halved the biomass of the planet's plants https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25138 and the animal isn't stopping there
#28

toyotathon posted:

we probably don't need to do caste-differentiation in our eusociality when we pass behavior culturally, through ideology, school-sorting and training



unnnmmmhhh keep going daddy, backtrack ur argument out of existence some more, im nearly there

#29
humans are turning into bitcoins
#30

this image now belongs in every thread
#31

littlegreenpills posted:

unnnmmmhhh keep going daddy, backtrack ur argument out of existence some more, im nearly there



our species has two means to pass down complex social systems, all the rest have one

two rivers combine because they were already flowing in the same direction

Edited by toyotathon ()

#32

toyotathon posted:

two rivers combine because they were already flowing in the same direction


*cranking out another extremely humourless post* evolution is not like a river, its a bad teleological metaphor

#33
wait you want science instead of teleological metaphors? in the sociobiology thread?!
#34
sorry it sounded like littlegreenpills wanted something deep
#35
feature request to self-crit / self-downvote

tears posted:

*cranking out another extremely humourless post* evolution is not like a river, its a bad teleological metaphor



*not learning any lessons, extreme pedant voice* nothing about rivers is teleological, each micro-volume of water responds to the immediate surrounding kinetics and pressures per N-S, and over time they whip and re-path and split and combine and stop and go

Edited by toyotathon ()

#36
#37

http://stephenjaygould.org/reviews/consilience.html posted:

Cornets and Consilience

by Niles Eldredge

The millennium draws nigh, and, predictably, the silly season has already begun. I am thinking, though, not of the "end is near" types, but rather of the prophecies of an increasingly strident group of gene-entranced evolutionary biologists who insist that everything human—our bodies, our behaviors, our cultural norms—devolves down to the competitive propensities of our genes to represent themselves in the coming generation.

So we find "evolutionary psychologists" like Stephen Pinker telling us that it matters not to the end result how parents rear their children—even though everyone who has ever been a kid knows otherwise. And Richard Dawkins, of "selfish gene" fame, recently appeared in a BBC Horizon film, Darwin's Legacy, telling his viewers that Hitler gave eugenics a bad name. (Though his face held the trace of a sly smile, Dawkins appeared to be serious.) These themes, of course, are not new. Evolutionary biologists have been looking anxiously over their shoulders since the '50s and '60s, when the triumphs of molecular biology began rapidly accumulating. Back then, the Nobel aura of DNA and RNA clearly threatened to take center stage away from the traditional and far less sexy field of population genetics, where mathematically trained geneticists had for decades been specifying the fates of genes in groups of organisms under various experimental, field, and purely theoretical conditions.

Thus evolutionary rhetoric—epitomized by Dawkins's selfish genes, but fashioned into a virtual academic industry with the rise of sociobiology in the 1970s—was forced to confront and somehow embrace the new genetic knowledge. Sociobiologists did so by inventing a brilliant, if skewed, theory that described the biological world as an epiphenomenon of a mad race between genes jockeying for position in the world.

The American playwright Robert Ardrey actually got the ball rolling in 1961, when, in his African Genesis, he reinterpreted paleoanthropologist Raymond Dart's analysis of the cultural and physical remains of the three-million-year-old species Australopithecus africanus as proof of our killer instincts: We murder and wage war, Ardrey believed, because our ancestors did—and such propensities live on in our genes. Likewise, we have been hearing for years that the male desire to rape and philander is purely a vestige of the ineluctable urge to leave as many offspring as possible to the next generation—an urge, of course, that itself reduces to our genes' desire to survive long after we ourselves are dead.

But the most recent hype has centered around the latest book by a man I generally admire very much: Edward O. Wilson. The "father" of sociobiology, Wilson has contributed much to such disparate fields as biogeography, systematics and ecology. My admiration for him stems especially from his diligent passion as a Paul Revere-like spokesman for the earth's vanishing ecosystems and species.

It is thus with something of a heavy heart I confront Wilson's "consilience." Wilson, of course, is well known for his ontological claim that in every conceivable sense and aspect of their being, humans are epiphenomena of the competitive behavior of their genes. What is new with his consilience is the epistemological claim that all ways of knowing the human condition—not just physiology and psychology, but philosophy (especially ethics), theology, economics… indeed, the entire gamut of what we traditionally call "social sciences" and "the humanities"—are in a real and formal sense inadequate insofar as they have not been "reduced"—distilled—to the deeper truths of the genetic shell game.

Consilience, Wilson tells us, means "jumping together"—and his ostensible task is to integrate biology with the humanities to form some grand new synthesis. But in several recent interviews I have seen, Wilson readily admits that what he really has in mind is something quite different: the "reduction" of the humanistic fields into the ontology of evolutionary genetics. The word "consilience" seems an odd choice—not least for its haunting similarity to a favorite word of one of Wilson's chief rivals at Harvard. Stephen Jay Gould uses "conflation" to mean the inappropriate juxtaposition of concepts. Conflation, in essence, means "confusion." So, to my mind, does Wilson's "consilience."

What to make of this word "reduce"? What does it really mean to "reduce" one area of human thought into another? Wilson, for example, claims that human ethical systems do not derive from philosophical first principles, but instead reflect the evolutionary status of human beings as social organisms who simply need sets of rules to get along—and to enable them to leave their genes behind before they die. That both the positive and the negative interactions among social organisms are in part heritable should come to none of us as a complete surprise. We humans have known seemingly forever that we are a form of animal life—albeit a peculiar form whose approach to the exigencies of life has become heavily shaped by something called "culture."

So what I find (so) disturbing about Wilson's thesis is not really the ontological claim that evolutionary biological history—as determined by our genes—has something to do with the human condition. Rape and philandering may indeed have less to do with making babies than with the expression of symbolic issues of power in males—but that simply means that nature does not completely override nurture. It does not follow, though, that there is no biological component at all to human behavior.

Rather, it is the epistemological side of Wilson's consilience gambit that strikes me as almost incomprehensibly silly. The philosopher Ernest Nagel was known for his formal analysis of "reduction" in the sciences. According to Nagel, any exercise in reduction must involve a formal translation of the language of one field into that of another: of chemistry, say, into physics. To reduce the description of a chemical reaction to pure physics would entail describing, say, the equation "2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O" purely in terms of electrons, protons and neutrons. There's nothing wrong with this enterprise in principle—except that what we're left with doesn't tell us anything about either the quantitative or qualitative properties of water molecules. Moreover, why stop at electrons, protons and neutrons, since they themselves are composed of smaller bits of interactive matter?

Complex systems clearly do exist. They clearly have properties of their own—properties that intrinsically cannot be addressed by the reductionist enterprise no matter how clever. Richard Dawkins, for example, has claimed that ecosystems will ultimately be understood in terms of competition among genes. Ecologists, in contrast, seem distinctly underwhelmed by this prospect, preferring to describe such systems in terms of patterns of matter—energy flow among local populations of microbes, fungi, plants, animals—and in terms of their physical location. Sure, fungal species have evolved physiological adaptations for the adsorption of various forms of dead organic material. But the basic fact that there is an evolutionary history to all of an ecosystem's adaptations is of no direct, immediate relevance to the task of specifying what those internal dynamics are. It is only trivially true that information stored in the genes of each of an ecosystem's organisms underlies those organisms' anatomies and physiologies; there is simply no meaningful way to describe the ecosystem itself through a translation into the genetic "language" of its component organisms.

And so this business of "consilience"—Wilson's raid on the humanities. What, for example, can the evolutionary history of the human gene have to do with human culture? I am writing these thoughts in a room that is bedecked with the best examples from my extensive collection of Victorian and Edwardian cornets. I collect these horns for a variety of reasons, some deeply personal—every time I find one at a flea market, for example, I experience once again the thrill of getting my first horn in grammar school. Other reasons are more analytic: Cornets were invented, and their designs had "evolutionary" histories. They became virtually extinct when radios were invented—all but killing town bands—and when Louis Armstrong switched to the more brilliant sound of the trumpet. So, in my array of cornets I see intriguing parallels with my professional career as an evolutionary-minded paleontologist. My cornets can also be reduced to their value as investments. And then there is the rich emotional enjoyment of making music with my friends on these dear old things.

Am I, like every other organism on the face of the earth, leading an "economic" existence? Meaning, do I do the sorts of things required in our society to make a living, to provide bread for the table to sustain not only my own body but those of my immediate family as well? Sure. Is caring for my children going to help some of my genes make it to the next generation? Sure—possibly. But has the emotional and economic well- being that I can directly identify with my cornet-collecting mania become any the more explicable by acknowledging that I am a living primate mammal who eats and has already reproduced? I don't think so. Economics—an impenetrable maze to me—is the description and analysis of complex systems, subsets of our social organization. Do we compete in the marketplace because, at base, we are animals that need to eat? Sure. Is knowing something about genes going to help economists understand their systems? Wilson sure thinks so—yet in a recent issue of Structural Change and Economic Dynamics devoted to evolutionary models in economic theory, the point was repeatedly made that evolution's relation to economics depends very much on which version of evolutionary theory is chosen. Theories of evolution that try to get by with reducing the process simply to natural selection generation by generation ignore the nature and internal dynamics of large-scale biological systems. Indeed, such notions ignore the very existence of such systems. In contrast, I am of the firm opinion that the course of evolutionary history is changed only when ecosystems are disrupted by physical causes: The greater the destructive event—the global mass extinctions of the geological past, as when the dinosaurs and many other forms of life disappeared abruptly more than 65 million years ago, for example—the greater the eventual evolutionary response. No perturbation, no evolution.

My evolutionary worldview is thus very different from those of Wilson and Dawkins. I take seriously the existence of large-scale systems. Though smaller-scale systems with their own internal dynamics (like natural selection working within populations) do exist as component parts of larger-scale systems, the internal dynamics of the smaller-scale components never yield a usable description of the nature of the larger-scale systems. On the other hand, if we pursue this reductionistic bent, why stop at the level of the gene? Why not reduce all evolutionary biology to chemistry, and then down to physics? When we can describe ecosystems and species in terms of quarks and leptons, we will have the ultimate reductio ad absurdum!

I simply cannot take the epistemological side of consilience seriously at all. And I shudder when I hear Darwin's beautiful and simple idea of natural selection mangled when it is applied simplistically as a moral of how we do and should behave. I feel the same way when I read the gentlemanly E. O. Wilson admonishing us to recast our ethical systems in light of his version of evolutionary biology. He is really not so very far away from the darker side—as when Richard Dawkins tells us on television that Hitler gave eugenics a bad name.



Behead those who promote the gene as the unit of selection

#38
did everyone understand what me and toyotathon were arguing about? did anyone? does anyone care?

if you were struggling to play along at home you could do much worse than read mayr's Speciational Evolution or Punctuated Equilibria for an introduction to arguments in evolutionary biology

and Lewontin's lecture Biology as a Social Weapon (pdf)
#39
also im finally getting round to reading some soviet biology stuff, maybe i will report back itt
#40