Humans evolved to pay close attention to danger, but today that instinct is being overwhelmed by an endless supply of bad news from around the world. Researchers say the answer isn’t to stop following current events—it’s to build healthier habits around how, when, and where we get our news.

      • sniggleboots@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I just took issue with the very literal interpretation of the phrase “not designed for” and I couldn’t hold my tongue

        well, my fingers, I guess

        • MohamedMoney@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Is it? I’d guess ‘to evolve to do smth’ doesn’t necessarily need to be teleological. IIRC the verb ‘evolve’ means the fittest getting randomly selected, no?

          I think I understand where you’re coming from but I think it’s fundamentally different to ‘being designed with a specific goal in mind’

          • higgsboson@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Don’t mind me, I had a prof who was uptight about it. I am sure it would only matter for formal or technical writing, like a scientific paper.

            • MohamedMoney@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Oh I don’t mind. I just thought it an interesting question. I would like to know your prof’s reasoning for his insistence.

              Because that would mean that ‘evolve’ can also be used teleologically, imho.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Evolved into or evolved with may reduce the implication of an intention.

            • Our brains evolved into structures capable of supporting complex language.
            • Our brains evolved with the capacity for complex language.
    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah I dunno about design as much as iterative adaptations over incomprehensibly large periods of time.

    • 0xDREADBEEF@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Evolution did as much design as my socks design themselves to stay in their drawer. Evolution doesn’t design, it works with what it has and nothing else. It doesn’t even optimize because optimization requires choosing between options with intent. Evolution has zero intentions. Evolution creates un-“optimized” things that go extinct all the time, but it’s not because it “failed” at designing because that implies it “tried” to design, but because it’s not a designer, it can’t design. No design made fish have legs. No design gave elephants their tusks and no design gave flies their wings. Evolution won’t ‘design’ new vertebrae segments, but they still might happen—it just won’t be because of any design.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Natural selection is actually technically an optimisation algorithm. Its just a kind of crappy one that only ever finds local maximas because it can’t traverse valleys (the thing just dies). So we end up with optical receptors on the wrong side of our retina. Ooof.