/lit/ - Literature

>>15750813
Darwinian evolution is highly expressive of the differences of organisms, within and between groups some are superior to others in a given environment and so succeed, others fail. More importantly it rejects the idea of a species as being non-arbitrary (species as a real unit of biology only truly works under creationism), Darwin considered the species concepts useful to make biological work practical (This is still something that biology students have to learn at university, the complexity that leads to impracticality without compromise), but that any point of differentiation of species is arbitrary due to the extremely gradual nature of change, obviously this makes the title of Darwin’s most famous work quite ironic (as modern biologists such as E.O. Wilson comment on in their own works), but I believe that was intentional, Darwin himself was more than just a scientist, he had a touch of the poet to him as anyone who has read otOoS can tell you. This obviously challenges the notion central to the humanistic and liberal principles on which intersectionality is founded, that humans are all the same despite differences (as by that logic we could extend it to all life on Earth which shares common ancestry, making it at least all plants animals and fungi, probably prokaryotes as well), and that these differences should be supported, when they would generate conflict.
Extrapolating out from Darwinism to politics, interracial differences would bring about instability from competition within a society, this is not only theoretically true but also demonstrable in the modern world, now more than ever.
I want a photo to make people more interested in this long post so here’s a photo of a Raccoon, my favourite (Non-human) animal because if it’s display of how greatly humans affect the biosphere, in more complex ways than pure negativity.