Science writers and understanding of science.pic.twitter.com/0Z7p3EWJbE
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
A nod to you and Dawkin's work. It explains why the idea of 'egalitarian pre-modern utopia' is nonsense, and why morality is often misunderstood.https://medium.com/@johnkirbow/the-case-for-modernity-science-and-progress-7c11220216e1 …
The science is less settled than you seem to think. "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals." - E. O. Wilson.
Hard to define “good" when the very same definition is a result of evolutionary processes. I mean you cannot detach from evolution and be a neutral observer, how you observe has been determined by evolution too
Exactly right. What is good? What is moral? What is human flourishing? I love these questions but the answers are not obvious or easy. Maybe Enlightenment values are the best path to prosperity, but really it's a shot in the dark. These same values could be our destruction.
But then what is destruction, and is it really bad? We have fundemental intuitions that we take for granted even to get the most rigid science off the ground.
Destruction seems fairly easy to define. To disorder, deform, and disintegrate that which was ordered, formed, and integrated. That's just off the top of my head. Whether it is good or bad must be answered by the subjective individual experiencing it. Nature doesn't give a rip.
What if destruction is merely removing that which was deformed already to make room for order?
Right. I feel if we play this language game we'll find difficulty saying anything really means anything. Sometimes we have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.
I'd say we'd find that words that we typically understand to be "negative" or even "positive" are really serving other functions, greater functions, and so it's our level of analysis, of focus that has to change, not the definitions. You should watch Jordan Peterson.
Oh I do. Lol but I watch Sam Harris more. 
Its too frightening a concept that we evolved out of random "necessity" for survival, which makes us question all of our features with our judgemental superego's, leading people to defend against such notions that we may be accidentally flawed and accidentally gifted.
Natural selection doesn't even act for the good of the individual, but instead for the good of the gene. Genes can make copies by increasing reproductive success, but also by copying themselves to other parts of the genome, by causing cancer, by killing non-carrier embryos, etc.
So, EXACTLY WHY do living things act so as to continue living and to reproduce? Non-living things don't seem to do this. Why do biological things seem to have a "will to survive"? Darwin even implied (perhaps accidentally) purpose/intention with his phrase "Natural SELECTION."
I’d love to hear you, @RichardDawkins and @JonHaidt discuss his findings on group selection. Seems like he has some evidence our psychological tribal nature has influenced our evolution, but only in humans I believe.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.