Meanwhile my ecology professor is literally teaching that survival of the fittest is about genetic superiority and that evolution is about working towards that 'goal'. This is incorrect and bad science that is rooted in right-wing ideology that was disproven decades ago.

This is not what survival of the fittest means by the way. There is no such thing as a genetically superior being, as 'fitness' is totally subjective, as well as dependent on your environment. A lifeform that reproduces well in the ocean will still die if you put in the vacuum of space, no matter how 'fit' it was for ocean life. Not to mention the idea that nature has some sort of conscious goal is anthropomorthising a concept and again, bad science.

I really want to do something about this, but I feel like complaining will get me failed or known as a shit stirrer.

I fucking hate capitalist education.

On the plus side, our next lecture is on mutualism

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What fucking kind of ecologist says that? Anyone I know who knows ecology beyond an undergrad level is extremely critical of malthusian/darwinist forms of thought.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Depending on what part of Burgerland, quite a few technically qualified people may very well teach college courses while bringing their special blends of brainworms with them, especially if such are pleasing to their bosses anyway.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's like they let anyone have a PhD these days. And here I am, considering whether I should get one or not.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago

It's easier to get a job in a place ran by vampires that like to have buildings named after themselves if you promise and intend to lick boots, that's for sure.

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Malthusian and Darwinist thought are very popular in biology departments, generally speaking.

A popular Malthusia idea is carrying capaciry, which describes an equilibrium of the environment relative to a species. It doesn't apply well to humans because we can modify our carrying capacity massively via technology and social change (e.g. overthrow capitalism). Modern Malthusian political reasoning is based on the false idea that capitalism is natural and permanent and all the problems we see are a result of an environmental incapacity, ignoring how much is based on social relations.

Re: Darwinism, this is an essential school of thought for understanding evolution in general, particularly adaptation. Is it possible you're thinking of Social Darwinism?

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah my bad. In my hurry to post I wasn't clear about what I meant. I meant that most Ecologists I know don't apply these ideas to social matters, and furthermore, don't fall prey to the oversimplification of ecological networks that is needed to apply Darwin or Malthus to human realities.

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Makes sense!

I would bet money that this prof is terrible to their grad students. The STEM reactionaries are notoriously terrible bosses. Even abusive.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Even the cool ones are exploitative, so I can imagine how worse they are.

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

I have heard so many stories of verbal abuse, rugpulls on funding, and sexual harassment..