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

  • Barx [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    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?