To be fair, I don't know exactly what is meant.

But my mind went to meat consumption, which is higher in the developed world, is considered indicative of a high standard of living, and, in my opinion, is best addressed not by lab-grown meat (or other technological solutions), but by reduced consumption (the reduced living standard).

I never said that. What I meant is that a behaviour, which benefits a species as a whole but reduces one individual's fitness, is not evolutionary competitive. It's evolutionary game theory, like the prisoners dilemma from normal game theory.

And to determine if some behaviour is such a dilemma, you have to consider costs and benefits of it, which is not at all clear in natural situations. That's why I said it needs to be studied.

But I must concede, I sort of assumed what exactly you called an evolutionary advantage. Common homosexuality in penguins or not discriminating against homosexual individuals in penguins have very different analysis here.

I'd be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.

I don't believe the "Gay Uncle hypothesis" any more than the somewhat debunked "Grandmother Hypothesis", which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn't mean it's advantageous for an individuals fitness.

Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we'd only know with more free, uncensored research.

Yes.

We humans are very well adapted to tell humans apart, penguins are very well adapted to tell penguins apart. They have gender specific mating calls for example.

Contrary to popular belief, Emperor Penguins do not mate for life. They are serially monogamous, only having 1 mate per year, but between years fidelity is at around 15%.

I think this means that they only choose last years partner 15% of the time. Still higher than random chance, but in no way dependant on their partner.

Was looking up something else on Wikipedia and stumbled onto this fact. I know this is not exactly related to the point you wanted to make, but I might as well share it.

From the penguin documentaries I watched as a kid, I feel like the "leaving eggs behind" might involve relentless bullying.

The left-leaning parties disappointed me with their posters this election. There was 1 that said "Set a mark against fascists" and showed an anti-afd protest, and another with a similar message.

I know they are the nazi party, I want to know what YOU stand for. I'll have to guess political scientist found out nobody really changes their mind from a poster, so the only thing they do is remind people of their party that they need to go out and vote.

If that's the case, the poster may be better than I give it credit for. Still, doesn't seem to have worked.

You want it? It's yours my friend, as long as you have enough rubies.

I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.

Barely anyone gets to have "convicted felon" in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. "Convicted of falsifying business records" is just so much more specific, and can later be added with "and election interference".

In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. ~~If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying "Support due to being established fact".~~

xkcd

I have this cool Isekai idea called:

"I bought a faulty map, got hired by the Queen of Spain and landed in a new World?"

Fairer Wahlkampf ist, wenn nur CDU Wähler an unseren Umfragen teilnehmen.