this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
124 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13541 readers
784 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Universities are turning our youths into Marxists!"

Insofar as debt peonage turns people into Marxists.

[–] hello_hello@hexbear.net 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

One of my Spanish professors called Cuba a communist dictatorship ran by authoritarians in a class about Cinema in Spain.

I went to her office hours and ranted for half and hour about AES and China and she told me she had a lot to think about (it helped that she liked me as a student). I do this with all my professors lmao. I have a professor whose an anarcho-communist (he specializes in Latin American indigenous activism and culture) whose sus about China so I hope to convince him not to be.

I'm the one who has to radicalize people smh.

[–] Sulvor@hexbear.net 52 points 2 months ago

geordi-no Getting radicalized at university

geordi-yes Radicalizing the university

[–] ProletarianDictator@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago

everything reactionary is the same; IF YOU DO NOT HIT IT, IT WILL NOT FALL

mao-wave

[–] Chump@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago

Hey, someone has to

[–] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

that's the first time I've ever heard of a reactionary biological-supremacist ecologist. usually they are shit libs politically with like weird desperation turning into fatalism, a surrendering to political expediency and a narrowing of concern. it has been called the "subversive science" for longer than I've been alive, because it does not lend itself easily to reductionist paradigms like many disciplines do.

usually they are, at least in the discipline, pretty averse towards maximalist suprrmacism, because it gets drilled in constantly that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the system is supreme and it's emergent properties of many networks of species working in concert are what produce benefits. it is webs and cycles, not competitors and victors. competition has costly consequences, while cooperation has elegant rewards.

anyway, so that guy sounds an idiot deluxe. ecologically speaking. at least he's making turds for bacteria to enjoy.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

I came here to say something very similar. Ecologists are at least anticapitalist in my experience, and are (understandably) suspicious of any kind of central authority, however misguided that can be.

[–] Angel@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago

I actually had a sociology professor, elderly Italian-American guy, who was a self-proclaimed Marxist.

He was a based as fuck professor, but at the time, I was still quite libby, so I didn't see it the way I see it now when I look back.

[–] CommunistCuddlefish@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Comrade, when I was in college I didn't have the self awareness not to publicly argue with professors either being dicks or straight up saying factually incorrect things. Arguing got me the respect of classmates and professors. Also some enmity but I say go for it, arguing with power is a useful skill and there will never be a better time to hone that skill than now

[–] Poogona@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biology disciplines that focus on evolutionary study really do have rightoid enclaves, it feels very much like a microcosm of the ideological side of being right wing since studying evolution is ultimately systemic study and these people instead boil down the rich and fascinating narrative of evolutionary history into a series of great man narratives except it's Great Gene Theory instead.

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

AFAIK evolutionary psychology has been completely taken over by "race realists," instead of trying to understand how mental illness evolved in humans or what mental illness looks like in other species.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago

I was an art major in a very "progressive" place. One of my painting professors got reported for criticizing Bush in class. We all looked around and were like "Who the fuck picks painting for a major in a town with more gay bars than churches and supports Bush? And why didnt the department head just laugh them out of the room?"

Completely dispelled the notion that universities were Marxist indoctrination camps.

[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I had a mandatory class for my masters called “biomedical research ethics” and most of the class was to convince us it’s okay that research done by public universities gets given to private companies to make money off of

The other notable part of the class was just promoting class infighting between PhDs and non-PhD staff and saying that just doing large amounts of labor for a paper doesn’t mean you should get authorship

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

Even Richard Dawkins, who started this whole shit, opposed this. Send your ecology professor his documentary.

Dawkins is a fuck now but it's useful to have the person who literally wrote the book your ecology professor is mis-teaching (The Selfish Gene) call him out on it.

The doc: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7n0igh

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

I'm not a biologist so I don't know how well it holds up as actual science, but I found the concept of "the selfish gene" fascinating. The idea that individual genes are "trying" to reproduce as another form of selection in addition to entire strands of DNA "trying" to reproduce is pretty fucking wild.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

It's certainly interesting stuff, completely misinterpreted and abused by assholes.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

And then they went even further and invented some shit about evolution of consciousness that just 4000 years ago our ancestors were collectivist like animals and now we are properly egoist humans. Even then i was like "wait a sec sis, that's some calipers levels of pseudoscience".

[–] peeonyou@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

that's funny.. i'm fairly certain in the 5 years i was in college there wasn't a single goddamned professor on campus that knew anything about Marx, including my sociology professor who constantly railed on the state of the US and had then had us read Weber as if protestantism explained it all.

college was the most disillusioning thing ever. i truly thought it was where you go to learn real true things that you just won't find outside of that setting, but it was just more horseshit shoveled by clueless gluttons who just want tenure.

[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

The consequence of privatisation of education.

There's a reason the west is falling behind.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I had one bold teacher that dared to teach Marxist analysis of literature as part of the coursework. Even saying the fucking name got some very brave trust fund kids clicking their tongues and other catty reactions, but she assured the class that it's just about finding the class relations (and almost inevitably, struggles) in any given piece of literature. Still made them pissy and petulant, especially the petite bourgeoisie faildaughters that just wanted to re-read Pride and Prejudice, again, and submit the same paper about it to a new teacher. Again.

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

faildaughters that just wanted to re-read Pride and Prejudice, again

No need to call out the entire English department like that lmao

I had one closeted marxist professor in 1990's but she mostly did not tell anything because being openly marxist in Polish university after 1989 might easily led to abrupt end of being university employee. A lot of her colleagues were also professional opportunists former "marxists" that turned to be most insufferable christoliberals the moment the eagle got a crown.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaywalker@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago

I'm pretty sure "fit" is about how an organism fits into an environment and a lot of people definitely think it means physical fitness or strength

[–] MaeBorowski@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago

my ecology professor is literally teaching that survival of the fittest is about genetic superiority and that evolution is about working towards that 'goal'.

That demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is a common misconception in the general public (partly because it is beneficial to right-wing ideology for it to be perpetuated, as you mentioned), but a misconception that even a kinda competent biology layman would know better than to believe. It's nothing short of shameful that an ecology professor is repeating such a thing. To do that as a supposed authority on the subject is actively misleading students, it's worse to teach a falsehood than it is just to leave them ignorant.

I obviously don't know your situation specifically or how things like this work in Australia, but if I were still a student and my prof was saying those things, I would definitely complain about it to the department chair or someone who has the power to intervene. I don't know if your professor is just woefully uninformed/misinformed on the subject they're teaching, or if they're repeating this misconception because they have a reactionary political agenda. But either way it's horrible and shouldn't be allowed to stand imo.

[–] 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 brainworms 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 (4 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?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sulvor@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

Exposing our children to different points of views and cultures makes them empathetic and open minded people, oh no!

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

I literally went through a poli sci program and there were no actual leftists, mostly liberals. Granted, my professors knew their stuff and I genuinely respect them as people, but we talked about really only the basics of what Marx believed but only to further contextualize the Soviet Union.

Granted, my professors did tolerate some of my pushback on defending some of the achievements of the Soviet Union, and how even far-right capitalists like Putin still invoke Lenin as a folk hero despite Dugin’s explicitly fascist intentions.

[–] buh@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

it's been a while since I graduated college but the wokest it ever got was an into linguistics class that was like "different native american nations have different languages, they're not a monolith" and an english class where we read Fun Home. everything else was non-political like math or programming (and usually taught by people who would sneak in conservative politics in their lectures) or espoused conventional "moderate" ideals.

oh yeah and I remembered companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin had offices in the main engineering building for some reaspn

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I recently suffered through the literal DEI staff having kids proclaim how it's okay to have open fascists talk on campus so long as they have trigger warnings

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

Fuckin Voltaire idealist bullshit is so goddamn pernicious.

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

Serious social science departments are ok tho, you must be idiotic and a failed academic to learn about history and support the status quo for “objectivity”

Business/stems/design departments tho..

[–] lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 months ago

Measurehead

[–] miz@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

unlimited genocide on the first world took-restraint

[–] Sator_is_Tense@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i remember reading here about an alternative theory of evolution that was pretty compelling, where they state that organisms evolve rapidly over a very short time inbetween incredibly long periods of stagnation, and how thats contrary too the bourgeois narrative of slow gradual change (ie reformism). if someone could link that author I'd appreciate it shy

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

I sorta remember something like that but it may have been in anthropology where I heard it. Technology emerges and spreads rapidly and dramatically alters the previous equilibrium and then settles down into the "new normal" instead of some slow plodding advancement.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The theory is between punctuated equilibrium v.s. gradual evolution. Sometimes it is refered to as 'step v.s. slope' depending on the professor.

Ultimately both of them are scientifically correct, as most ecosystems exist within a punctuated equilibrium, not having large changes within them overtime, but usually evolving rapidly if there is a catastrophic change that completely alters the ecosystem within 100-500 years. If it is faster than that then it can lead to mass extinction events, which are the true punctuations. However, species also undergo gradual mutations that lead to speciation overtime as well, humans being a prime example of that. However, the emergence of homo sapian led to a catastrophic collapse of all other hominids, for reasons that are still not known, but possibly environmental or social, and humans have essentially been in punctuated equilibrium since then, with only minor genetic variations. One of the big things we are taught in anthro is that it is unlikely we are statistically smarter than humans even as long as 200000 years ago. There just hasn't been enough provable anatomical changes to support that 'humans are smarter now'. Our cultures and technologies are more complex, but the ape is basically still the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] determinism2@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't believe for an instant that you aren't already known as a shit stirrer.

[–] QueerCommie@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My impulsive ass would just debate the teacher lol. I’ve done it before.

[–] hello_hello@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Hell yeah, oh I wish I could just debate the prof right in the middle of class. Probably regret it though afterward.

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Famously all chemistry professors are communists.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, your university sounds like shit. I mean, the professor in my mandatory humanities class (in a stem college), smack dab in the middle of neoliblandia, was basically just teaching us marxist historical materialism. I literally passed the exam of that course by studying "the origin of private property, family and the state".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›