34
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by znsh@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

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
[-] Rogelio_Marciano@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Great post.

All I can add for now is that Biology is not Anthropology. This is a basic distinction I learnt years ago in Philosophy.

The fundamental question of Anthropology is "what are human beings?". Biology's basic question rather is "what is life?".

So be careful. Insects and plants are life. So are humans. If one equates everything, we're leaving out of Biology only rocks.

Someone who is very, very technical (and tech-bro minded) will answer humans beings "a collection of organic molecules in human form". Which does not answer the question. Wtf is then "human form"?

Then they fall into the idealistic rabbit hole and spout social-darwinistic stuff, which is Malthusian economics plus protofash shit. At the end of the day, rightist biologists will not treat a cockroach differently from a human. Unless said cockroach is worth a billion dollars.

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

Ask Lemmygrad

1235 readers
28 users here now

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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS