this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1266 readers
44 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
35
How could I have defended the "human nature" argument better? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by znsh@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Got into a discussion with a friend who is a biologist about the "human nature" argument against communism. My best shot was saying that we used to live in a sort of proto communism so the evidence of it working are there. He didn't accept that argument and basicly said that due to natural selection, competition etc. and that all social structures eventually disolve.

I didn't have good ideas on how to respond after that.

EDIT: Forgot the question, how could I have defended this argument more?

EDIT2: I read each and every comment anyone posts, I just can't respond to all of you, thanks so much for the explanations it really goes to show how awesome this community is.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Even if this were true from a biological point of view, and even if we claim humans have been beholden to Darwinian natural selection after the dawn of civilization, we have to define what "strong" means in this context. Put simply, it means an organism survived long enough to reach sexual maturity. For humans, let's be generous and say that's 20 years old. Everything that happens after that is irrelevant. Humans have a 50% lifetime chance of developing cancer. Pretty shitty odds if you ask me, maybe evolution should have sorted that out. But it can't, because most cancers develop well after our reproductive years.