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

  • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    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.