![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gravityeyelidsvia https://ift.tt/2Ij3ybO
pervocracy:
vampireapologist:
it’s so common for “being straight & cis is normal” people to get hung up on what’s most evolutionarily “efficient” like they come at you with “if Men and Women didn’t have sex and continue the species we wouldn’t have made it this far so it doesn’t make sense to be anything but Straight and Cis,” and I really want to ask them when humans have Ever Ever Ever picked the most efficient route. Why did we ever leave the equator then in the first place, to willfully live on tundras and freezing islands where not much grows?
Why did people move to mountains where future generations needed to be born with bigger lungs to breathe right?
Why have humans historically, for tens of thousands of years, cared for the sick and the disabled and the injured even thought that wouldn’t be an “efficient” use of resources? Why did we ever develop a sense of compassion at all?
Why did any human ever leave home to cross an ocean, or a desert, or a jungle, hoping to find a way to live whether they ended up?
We have never followed the rule of “efficiency.” In fact, read any reputable paper on human evolution and success, and you’ll see it argue that our refusal to follow the “efficient” road is what actually made the human species so successful–that our unrivaled adaptability and unprecedented resilience in an ever-changing world is what put us on top for so long.
So if you can’t keep up with “all these new genders and sexualities,” it seems like you’re the inefficient one, the weak link, and you’re going to get picked out and left behind.
My backyard is a fairly wild and untended little patch of woods, and there’s more than one kind of tree there. There’s maples, oaks, beech, birch, and a couple pines. Which is interesting, because a really naive approach to ecology would suggest that a single Best Tree would exist for the conditions of my backyard, and the woods would optimize themselves to be entirely made up of whatever the Best Tree is.
But more often in the real world, the optimal solution is an equilibrium of multiple species. Asking “which is stronger: oaks or maples?” misses the point that a diverse forest is stronger than a solid block of any one tree. It’s also more true to the history of the land, and more likely to produce a sustainable future.
So you see.
(Your picture was not posted)
pervocracy:
vampireapologist:
it’s so common for “being straight & cis is normal” people to get hung up on what’s most evolutionarily “efficient” like they come at you with “if Men and Women didn’t have sex and continue the species we wouldn’t have made it this far so it doesn’t make sense to be anything but Straight and Cis,” and I really want to ask them when humans have Ever Ever Ever picked the most efficient route. Why did we ever leave the equator then in the first place, to willfully live on tundras and freezing islands where not much grows?
Why did people move to mountains where future generations needed to be born with bigger lungs to breathe right?
Why have humans historically, for tens of thousands of years, cared for the sick and the disabled and the injured even thought that wouldn’t be an “efficient” use of resources? Why did we ever develop a sense of compassion at all?
Why did any human ever leave home to cross an ocean, or a desert, or a jungle, hoping to find a way to live whether they ended up?
We have never followed the rule of “efficiency.” In fact, read any reputable paper on human evolution and success, and you’ll see it argue that our refusal to follow the “efficient” road is what actually made the human species so successful–that our unrivaled adaptability and unprecedented resilience in an ever-changing world is what put us on top for so long.
So if you can’t keep up with “all these new genders and sexualities,” it seems like you’re the inefficient one, the weak link, and you’re going to get picked out and left behind.
My backyard is a fairly wild and untended little patch of woods, and there’s more than one kind of tree there. There’s maples, oaks, beech, birch, and a couple pines. Which is interesting, because a really naive approach to ecology would suggest that a single Best Tree would exist for the conditions of my backyard, and the woods would optimize themselves to be entirely made up of whatever the Best Tree is.
But more often in the real world, the optimal solution is an equilibrium of multiple species. Asking “which is stronger: oaks or maples?” misses the point that a diverse forest is stronger than a solid block of any one tree. It’s also more true to the history of the land, and more likely to produce a sustainable future.
So you see.
(Your picture was not posted)
