*Just to be fully accurate, there is intent involved when people do selective breeding. Such as with pets or other domesticated animals. But usually that's separated out and not considered evolution, though ironically enough, it actually still is evolution.
I posted this as a reply to another comment from a user on another instance, but your instance doesn't allow you to see hexbear, so I'll reply here too.
Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate using the word design that way. However, it's not completely wrong, it's almost more a problem of the baggage that the word design carries, obviously "intelligent design" as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can't separate the concept of "design" from intent then you're still just as wrong. All that said, I think it's fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any "thought" at all from the designer. A species is "designed" entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.
Making this comment because I'm seeing some of these issues crop up in the comments, and in comments from different instances that can't see each other, so rather than reply individually, I'll just make a separate standalone comment.
It bugs me a little whenever people talk about how old a species is. There are different levels to how wrong it is possible to be about this. The worst level is where people think that it's the individuals that are somehow ancient. No. The individuals from those times are as long gone as all the other individuals from that time. Most people don't think that, but it happens. Another level is a bit less wrong, but still is. That the species itself is ancient because it somehow avoided evolution. Nah, it's just retained a lot of characteristics. Theses species still underwent evolution, it's literally unavoidable. It's just that the way they adapted to an ancient environment still works as adaptation to the current (and intervening) environments. They haven't gone through as many drastic visible changes because the way their ancestors lived still works for their modern iterations.
So it is definitely fair to say a species is old, but it's important to realize that that doesn't mean it's literally old in that it hasn't evolved. If they are impressed by species that haven't gone through a lot of apparent changes over the eons, they should check out stromatolites.
Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate. However, it's not completely wrong to use the word design, it's almost more a problem of the baggage that the word "design" carries. obviously "intelligent design" as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can't separate the concept of "design" from intent then you're still just as wrong. All that said, I think it's fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any "thought" at all from the designer. A species is "designed" entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.
you: "That's unscientific"
get shown that it is in fact scientific
you again: "I disagree."
You don't seem to understand how science or reality works.
Personally, I for one would really appreciate it if you provided the archive link in the OP especially if you're posting paywalled articles. When the OP is the one who does it, then all the readers who want to follow the link that the OP posted won't have to, and the people who don't even know about archive sites will still get to read it when they wouldn't have otherwise (and maybe even learn about what archive sites are as a result). In that sense, it's not about entitlement, it's about one person doing it one time rather than (for example) 30 people all having to do it while others may not even be aware they can do it.
Another thing is that while it may be ultimately just a drop in the bucket, it does help cut down on the amount of traffic that mainstream western media sites will get, which I think you would agree is better than helping increase it for them. It's for that reason that just as a reader browsing, I almost always archive any MSM news articles I read, including the ones I see in posts here. On the occasion I do post, I always make a point to link the archive or frontend (like piped/invidious for youtube, redlib for reddit, used to do nitter for twitter, etc.) It's a very minor annoyance to have to do, as either the reader or as the poster, but I'm all the more appreciative of posters who do do it and wish that more would.
It's not like you have to, but it would be courteous and considerate if you did.
Wow. Unironically spouting nazi propaganda in a thread about the nazis being evil. What a load of ahistorical bullshit.
Yes, and it is booming. It keeps outperforming the sputtering western economies by leaps and bounds.
If all countries under discussion ramped up to full war time economies, like Russia is already doing, the West would outproduce Russia by at least an order of magnitude, maybe even two.
Well, sure. But you may as well say "if all countries under discussion magically whisked an army of robot supersoldiers into existence, they'd outpace Russia's fighting ability by an order of magnitude." It's just a pipe dream that ignores the material reality of the entire situation. The countries under discussion can't ramp up to "full war time economies" because they've long ago outsourced nearly all of their production capacity. If right now, they dropped everything else in order to rebuild their productive forces (that they willingly and knowingly dismantled for the sake of finance capital profits and honestly to also prevent domestic labor from having the kind of leverage it used to have) then it would take well more than a decade to get back to the kind of productive capacity necessary to outproduce Russia the way you're talking about. And that's if we're being extremely generous. That's simply not going to happen for numerous reasons ranging from the greed of finance capital to plain old logistics.
This is the economic imbalance that "Putin knows." He has known it all along and never needed to undercut western support of Ukraine because of it. The waning support from the west is due to the fact that they're now realizing what a lost cause Ukraine truly is and that no NATO Wunderwaffen or boomeranging giga-sanctions are going to save them.
subversion of the political process via corrupt politicians, keeping the US and others in a state of hand-wringing and infighting
This is just silly. Putin does not have that kind of ability.
believed any of his own propaganda, he would already actually be at war with NATO (instead of just claiming to be and not actually touching any NATO territory), and the West would coalesce around the clear immediate threat and begin the war time economic ramp up.
Fantasy land. Cloud cuckoo. Complete failure to understand how geopolitics even begins to work in the age of nuclear powers, or even the meaning of the term proxy war, let alone the material circumstances of the countries you're talking about.
I personally feel these are the end days of what’s left of the freedom internet.
I hope you're wrong. I guess that should go without saying. But I don't know, it seems like they've been trying to crack down and been consistently failing at it, which is hopeful. Like youtube's attempt to make adblockers not work anymore ending up just strengthening uBlock Origin and making it work even better than it did before. lol.
Obviously, google et al have all the power, but even so, they mostly keep losing battles, which is both hilarious and hopeful. I agree that we're seeing the further enshitification of all the big social media giants and they're corralling and enclosing the commons more all the time. But I haven't given up on all the little things that spring up to address that enshitification, like the frontends, like searx, and hell, even lemmy. You were 100% right, we need to evolve, but I would say these things are good mutations that are part of the process of that necessary evolution.
I don't know, I'm too high rn not to go off on tangents.
The only people I know of who don't know what the word "liberal" means, especially in the context the person above was using it, are very ignorant Americans. To be clear, even though I don't like most Americans, I'm not blaming them for being ignorant in this particular case because they have been subjected to decades of mostly uncontested propaganda deliberately obfuscating the term. But most of the rest of the world knows what everyone is talking about when saying "liberal" and knows it's a right wing ideology. And everyone shouldn't have to hold up the conversation to preemptively explain what the word means to those who don't already know. People are generally expected to pick up the gist of a sentence or point via the context of what's being said. The context was perfectly clear and it just sounds like concern trolling to go on about needing to hand-hold and dumb down the terminology being used for "the average person."
Did you just look at the pictures or did you actually read the text? It's not about who gets cheered for and who doesn't. The issue is people (in the US) saying it's not possible that a Chinese athlete did that and that he somehow cheated, which is not only childish and cringe, but extremely hypocritical given the context.