#if it exists it has survived millions of years of evolution to exist!!!! isn't that enough!!!!!!!!!!

[whale-fallin]

how many times do we have to say that nobody gets to "decide" what species of animal "deserves" to exist because it's frankly very pretentious to act like you're the arbiter of what evolution has created

#if it exists it has survived millions of years of evolution to exist!!!! isn't that enough!!!!!!!!!! #speaking from the depths #marine biology #biology #discourse #<- tagging jic

[headspace-hotel]

This isn't related to anything you've posted recently, I'm just interested in your answer. Species go extinct, but how are we supposed to determine which ones we should let go extinct and which ones we shouldn't? Isn't there a point where we're trying to pause time on evolution? I know it's probably impossible to tell rn which species would've gone extinct without human interference and which ones would've survived, but it seems like a situation I've never seen adressed.

(I'm not trying to be inflammatory or anything, it's a question I'm genuinely interested in.)

This is an incredibly complicated question, but I think the simplest answer comes down to this: We're doing damage control for a disaster we don't understand well enough for a better solution.

Extinction is part of life, but when lots of extinctions start happening at once, the overall ecosystem is threatened, and you might end up with a mass extinction.

Even a mass extinction isn't—in the really large scale of things—bad. However, it usually involves a radical reshuffling of the life forms and their places and proportional representation in the ecosystem overall.

The current ecosystem of Earth has, to some extent, co-evolved with us. We have optimized food plants to support our species all over the globe. We are dependent on trees for wood, temperature regulation, clean air, and the basic materials of our lives. We are dependent on freshwater organisms for clean water. We are dependent on detritivores like millipedes and fungi for our soil. We have figured out how to participate in ecosystems.

A mass extinction means all of that goes to shit.

Will we end life on Earth? No. Will we end ourselves? It's possible. But most likely, we're looking at mass death of humans worldwide followed by the survivors eking out an unbelievably shitty existence in a world that is much more hostile to them than Earth ever was to their ancestors.

We don't want that. But we're not there yet.

By stopping species from going extinct, we're preserving the possibility of an ecosystem that can function like the one we currently have, and buffering it against mass extinction.

This does not halt evolution. The history of life on Earth is long. We are really incapable of intuitively understanding how much time "millions of years" really is, let alone hundreds of millions of years. Human efforts can only noticeably alter the extinction rate in one direction, and this is only because if a creature goes extinct, it remains extinct for all the rest of the foreseeable future.

There are tons of edge cases where we have to make hard decisions about preserving a past state of the ecosystem vs. preserving a future state.

I admit that a little question mark arose in my head when I read about red wolf conservation and how it had involved separating out those wolves that were hybrids of coyotes from the "pure" wolf population. Species separating and merging together is not, on the grand scale of things, a bad thing, it just happens.

But the researchers made the decision that it was good to have wolves lying around for future ecosystem building, instead of an unforeseen coywolf species with unknown impacts.

Living bison mostly have some domestic cattle genes. Elk reintroduced to the Appalachian Mountains are of a western genotype. The Florida cougar was saved by introducing western cougar to the gene pool. This kind of thing has happened and we have to deal with it. Of course, a disease outbreak or volcanic eruption could have an effect that looks mostly the same in the long run. Populations get bottlenecked. It happens. The difficulty is that we (humans) won't get to see the long run—at least, current humans won't.

#ecology #conservation

[cosmica-galaxy]

I just had a hilarious idea. Player explaining the animals of their world to the main 4 (or Audi/Phob, that’d be hilarious too) You’d tell them about the basic animals and they’re like “Ok, I guess I could see that.” And then on the other hand you tell them about giraffes and platypuses and elephants and shit and they’re like “No way, you’re making that shit up.”

Also I just know Deimos would instantly be a reptile enthusiast, I just do. And sharks too.

And imagine the player draws some of the animals so they can get a better visual. (I guess it kinda depends on their drawing skills though.)

And this would be funnier if they came to the players world and like they took them to a zoo or something. They’d be like standing at each exhibit for at least an hour lmao.

Thoughts?

That would be hilarious. This isn't even factoring in that Nevada has only existed for around 4 "generations" of grunts, which means that they would probably find it surprising that all the creatures in Player's world would have MILLIONS of years of evolution under their belts. Upon explaining to...well...ANY grunt that your beings have survived and existed for over millions of years, it would pretty much make them far more impressive if you think about it. You may demonstrate it with drawings and pictures you pull up from your "UI" and display how animal ancestors looked like before they turned into the modern day creatures the humans have much more well documented. You not only show them animals, you show them fossils, dinosaurs, extinct variations of species, and the stages of your world's timeline. It doesn’t even matter WHO you're talking to, they'll all be floored by just the sheer HISTORY that your world contains and the fact that your world already went through numerous near-wipe out calamities. One that was so catastrophic it changed the entire world's climate, wiped out the dominant species, and turned its' axis rotation. You would have to give them all a brief history, biology, and geology class just for them to grasp how even such strange beings came into existence in the first place. Since Nevada is literally infantile and is already going through it's own purge while the Player's world is practically ancient and survived several various attempts at total annihilation. Each bouncing back every time. So it wouldn't be just the animals that would blow their minds, it's literally EVERYTHING ELSE TOO. Hehehee!

#moonamite #my asks #hax speaks #haxorus imp #cosmica galaxy #self aware m:pn au #madness combat self aware au #self aware au #madcom self aware au #human!reader x madcom #madcom x reader #y/n x madness combat #madness combat x reader #madcom tag

[dragonflightsoffantasy]

Various Notes Upon Dragonkind: Biology, Society, and More

Warning: Vague mentions of infant mortality and reproduction

On Dragons In General:

Dragons of some sort occupy almost every continent on Earth- even the poles! They've naturally evolved over millions of years along with every other species on the planet, having originated in a third branch of amniote between synapsida and sauropsida, dubbed "arcansida"- an unknown vertebrate ancestor bearing traits of mammals, reptiles, and birds, but belonging to a class all of their own, whos talent laid in a ability of "intentional mutation" which hastened their overall evolution.

Highly adaptable as a species- they can occupy almost any environment.

Two main branches exist: "Western" and "Eastern", the classification depending upon which hemisphere the breed inhabits.

Dragons have sapience- but only relatively recently evolved this in comparison to humans and other species. As such, there are still areas in which they steer more towards their instinct rather than reason.

Have their own cultures and languages, varying based on breed; languages which are impossible for human beings to learn how to speak, due to biological limitations (aka lack of a forked tongue).

All dragons have the same vulnerable areas, regardless of breed, where their scales are thinnest: under their chins, on their armpits, their underbelly, etc.

Dragons are capable of manipulating objects with usage of their opposable thumbs- however, since their sharp claws tend to get in the way of using their finger pads, they tend to instead use their knuckles for most things (meaning, basically, that they can use touch-screen technology without scratching it to oblivion).

Dragons have no true gender roles, as males and females both care for the young and hunt: there is no discrimination based on gender. 

They also have very little concept of masculine and feminine- at least, in the way humans define the terms; male and female dragons are very similar, save that females are larger and males tend to develop brightly colored patches of skin under their chin/wings/vulnerable areas during the breeding season- varies between species. 

Dragons have immense lifespans, varying amongst breeds- the longest lived of which are the Chinese Longs, which live to be 5,000 years old; the shortest lived are the English Knuckers (or wyrms) living only 200 years on average.

All dragons lay eggs, and tend to pair off as mates for life; though there are cases of more polygamous groupings of up to three or more, exemplified in various breeds.

Dragons, regardless of breed, have an extreme paternal instinct which will drive them to care for any young they find, regardless of species- adoption is very common, and it isn't unheard of for dragon parents to adopt hatchlings of other breeds- or even humans.

This instinct evolved as a prevention measure due to the species' incredibly high infant mortality rate. Baby dragons are highly vulnerable to innumerable dangers when first born, and sadly only a few dragon infants will survive after hatching. 

Hatchlings, when endangered, have evolved to make a sound eerily similar to a human baby's wails. If a grown dragon hears it, they will go into a frenzy in an attempt to locate both baby and danger (and obliterate the latter); this has become a bit of an inconvenience in modern society, where a human baby wailing in a public space may cause any nearby dragons to go into an instinctual panic.

Dragons have a wide variety of emotions much like humans- however, their psychology and ways of expression are much different than human methods.

Dragons communicate more with body language than actual words; a head tilt can mean several different things depending on which direction the chin goes and how the ears are bent, or even how far you spread your wings (in wing-bearing breeds). As such, mute and deaf dragons tend to still fare well. 

Dragons have their own version of sign language based on body movement rather than hand signs. 

A dragon has two names: the name they were born with, and then the name they give to humans as an alias- a rough translation of their true name into human tongue.

Dragons- both Western and Eastern- have domesticated bears and tigers- these domesticated breeds are smaller and much more docile than their wild counterparts, and are used for companionship, much like humans with cats or dogs.

Dragons can shape-shift, a gift mainly exemplified in the Eastern breeds, and barely understood by either human or dragon biologists; the most that can be said is that it comes from some sort of innate magic usage, and may have evolved as an extreme means of mimicry, allowing them to survive, either via camouflage or passing on their genes (a strange magical ability allowing them to interbreed with other species, which is also barely understood, even with modern science).

Fire breathing breeds unhinge their jaws (not literally: like snakes, they simply have very stretchy ligaments in their mandibles and no chin bone, allowing their jaws to open wide) before breathing fire to avoid burning their tongues, though most of their esophagus is coated in a fire proof mucus.

Most dragon breeds have a nictitating membrane underneath their outer eyelids meant to keep water out- much like birds or alligators. They may use these to express emotion, in some cases (ex: fluttering to show confusion).

******

Author's Note: This is my first post on this blog, and is only a vague, generalized (but enthusiastic) collection of even more generalized headcanons I have thus far amassed and titled "worldbuilding"- I have more, but to get them all out I'll need questions to be able to concentrate and further elaborate on any single subject, because there is a lot of material to discuss. Unfortunately, I have a surplus of only half-baked ideas, due to my very limited knowledge on subjects I want to explore in this world, but am only just beginning to study (ex: linguistics, sociology, speculative biology, etc.). If there are inaccuracies, discrepancies, or discordances, please understand that it is not out of willful malignancy but genuine ignorance, and I am always open to (gentle) critique and correction. However, even with my limited ability I hope that you're able to still glean some enjoyment out of what I present, and even add on to it with your questions and advice! Thank you for reading, and may your wings always spread wide on your own flights of fantasy!

~ Draco S.

#original worldbuilding #speculative biology #original fiction #dragons #dragonflightsoffantasy #my writing #writing #original series

[jpegcompressor]

so ophiocordyceps unilateralis, right? the fungus more commonly known as the zombie-ant fungus? it takes control of its prey, a variety of species that it evolved alongside, by taking over its brain over the course of a few hours before finally weakening its muscles enough to make it go places. it makes the ant then fall close to the forest floor- since those ants are normally up in the canopy- and crawl onto the underside of a leaf. when it's there, the fungus then causes the ant's body to seize and clamp down on the main stem of the leaf, so hard that even in death, the ant cannot detach itself from the leaf. that's when the fungus sprouts from the exoskeleton and releases its spores, in the perfect conditions for its continued existence. now, you see, scientists have tried injecting ophiocordyceps unilateralis into the brains of other kinds of ants, but the ants are able to fully resist the effect. this proves (depending on if you consider that enough proof) that ophiocordyceps unilateralis is only capable of affecting those species that it co-evolved with, and that its existence is entirely contingent on said species as those are its only possible hosts. it can only infect those species of ants, and poses no threat to humans. after all- when speaking only on ophiocordyceps unilateralis and not other forms of cordyceps, some of which can infect larger insects- they are not living and thinking creatures, but a fungus with the main prerogative to survive, which it can only do in ants. it would have no reason to jump to such a significantly larger host, especially not one without an exoskeleton. since it works by weakening the muscles, it would basically just turn humans into putty; and if it didn't adapt its methods from the ants (assuming this was a very fast jump and not a slow evolution over time), then barring the muscles thing, it just means the infected would do the worm until they reached a leaf close to the forest floor, bite it, and then die. but even that's a wild hypothetical as such evolution would take many, many years to do, like probably millions, as the species can't even jump to other kinds of ants at present.

now, i don't think this detracts from TLOU (the show)'s base concept- it's fiction, and it's discussing a what-if scenario. fiction involves the suspension of disbelief and understanding that it's a fantastical world that may have ties to ours, but isn't ours. this is a scenario that wouldn't occur in ours, but it's an interesting world and something to be entertained and scared by. however, i've seen some people getting freaked out by the premise and that cordyceps might, somehow, jump to humans or be a threat to us in any way. the reality is that it's not a beast lying in wait, it's a fungus that only has the function of surviving on a handful of ant species in a certain climate. you don't have anything to worry about in real life, as we have no indicators that ophiocordyceps unilateralis has even the circumstances to start co-evolving with humans in order to control them. the closest one i can think of is actually cordyceps sinensis, which is harvested for eating- but it's not parasitic and there's no concern about parasitic evolution.

all in all, if TLOU scared you because of the possibility a cordyceps revolution could happen, it's either entirely impossible or so minutely likely that you'd be more likely to split an atom while cutting a sandwich. don't worry about it, enjoy the show and get hyped for season two.

#untitled.txt #!! I AM NOT A SCIENTIST I JUST READ A LOT OF PAPERS ON THIS FUNGUS !! don't @ me for being wrong #if i made an error in any of my facts

[boundforwarp]

Variety

It is as if many different voices call for control, the differing thoughts of action colliding and creating chaos. This element of human nature becomes an issue with everyday life, the shifting society that calls for convenience has turned the convenience into inconvenience, and inconvenience into total madness. There is no shortage of the kaleidoscope of personality that exists within the one true self, as it may be portrayed that the true self is a collaborative effort between our memories as a species, and the reaction into those memories from other memories. It is hard to pinpoint the psychology behind such things, the slew of disorders that are beginning to engulf this digital age is in a cause and effect relationship with the minds of young people everywhere as it seems, an interesting phenomenon that one could say is in tandem with the illusion of grounded reality. What is reality? Is it a collective perception? Is it information that will be agreed upon in a fashion similar to instinctual movement? How do we define what is and what isn't? It is believed that human boundaries cannot answer these questions, but as an ant to its colony, we may be able to follow a trail of sorts in order to make sense of things. Is modern reality something that is no longer tangible? It seems as if the personal spaces that coexist alongside physical spaces will blend together as time goes on. In some dystopian future, could we see humanity's end not on terms of war, but on terms of peace? As the human psyche tends to drift into the absurd as boredom becomes dominant, it is in question that as a species, would humans simply choose to remove themselves from this world? To what events could transpire such a thing, what is there beyond instinctual survival that could hold a value that isn't ethereal to humanity. Maybe some day humanity will summit the convenience towards its natural peak, only then can we wonder if this arbitration of convenience will inevitably cost our demise. It is an interesting notion that intelligence could reach a limit that is so insanely high, that a natural commitment to halt progression would be agreed upon. It would be as if humanity would simply turn to stone after an evolution that has lead to a nihilism that has evolved only after millions of years, in short, turning our very alive species into a functionally dead one. To what does the edges of human ability serve to us other than this stark realization that it would be like comparing the speeds of differing rain drops. Is there any hope for the information age?

[0zzysaurus]

in relation to the fossil post, im so tired of people thinking Megalodon has ANY possibility of still being alive. It's not. It's extinct. There is no evidence for it's continued existence, and if it WAS still alive, we would have found evidence of it years ago.

To be fair, most of the current misinformation has actually been perpetuated by the likes of Discovery Channel, so I don't blame people believing in the bullshit they stir up about Megalodon. And I really do mean total bullshit.

We would see it constantly due to the shallow, warrm, coastal habitat it preferred. They even had coastal nursing grounds where juveniles would grow. Funnily enough, I wanted to make a joke saying you'd see Megalodon constantly in Florida, but there actually is tons of evidence for a Megalodon nursing ground in East Florida.

Megalodon's would not be able to survive in a trench or in deep sea caves like where coelacanths were discovered. Just because one thought-to-be-extinct animal has been discovered, doesn't mean another completely unrelated animal has the same chances of discovery. They weren't particularly rare or elusive at the time of their existance either, they were pretty common. Plus, we'd have observed attacks and aftermaths many many times by now. They'd be a regular sighting. I know people like to spout that saying that we've only explored 15% of our oceans, but... you guys do know that most of that unexplored water is completely fucking empty, right? It's just the pacific desert. There's NOTHING there. That's why we haven't extended any effort in exploring it. It's fucking dead out there. There's hardly any nutrients for anything to live on, it's barren. A Megalodon could not survive in the pacific desert, nor could most animals - hence why it's completely goddamn empty.

It simply would not have enough to feed on in our modern oceans, as the smaller to medium sized whales it fed on are extinct, and the ones we have today are simply not as neumerous enough to be reliable or sustainable prey.

Megalodon has not shown up in the fossil record for over 3 million years. As with the teeth, we should be finding more recent fossils or remains if this animal was still alive. Some people seem to think Megalodon could have adapted into a deep sea predator, but once again, this just simply isn't the case. The fossil record for the evolution of Megalodon is actually practically complete, and we have a pretty solid evolutionary lineage for this animal dating from the Cretaceous up to the Pliocene. There are no modern, non-fossilized Megalodon teeth washing up on our shores. We would have MANY of these by now if they were being shed by currently living animals, as they would wash up regularly.

During the time Megalodon is thought to have gone extinct, there was a dramatic and intense change in climate. The warm waters Megalodon, it's prey, and the nutrients it's prey fed on thrived in cooled off dramatically, and tropical ocean currents were cut off. Essentially, there was a near total collapse of the marine ecosystem. In fact, this nutrient rich environment never fully recovered even to this day. The environment Megalodon inhabited is gone, and the niche it filled is no longer viable for ANY animal in our waters today.

Megalodon is fuckin' dead, and it's not coming back. I'm so so so bored of people thinking it will. Please just pay attention to the animals we do have like orcas and great whites, animals that actually kind of NEED our attention right now before they die out, too.

#joey talkin' #rant #megalodon #im so sick of yall

[concupiscience]

I believe there are multiple paths to God. The fact that religion has sprung up independently in so many places over so vast a distance is incredible. Jesus and Buddha weren't so different in their teachings.

Some got it more right than others, obviously.

So there is actually very compelling evidence that early Christianity was heavily influenced by similar savior-centered religious sects such as Mithraism, Orphism and the veneration of Dionysus (they all belong to the subset of Rising-and-dying gods). We know for certain that in Alexandria, an extremely important centre for early Christianity, Buddhist monks taught at the library of Alexandria around the time of jesus.

Wine was central to the rituals of Dionysus, who was believed to have died and been resurrected.

The real importance is that Jesus and Buddha were real historical figures that established schools of thought that endured for millennia.

They both preached the importance of virtue and morality, sympathy for the suffering and acceptance of the transitory nature of the material world.

The library itself was mostly intact until the 260s AD when it was burned by Aurelian.

There is ample evidence of eastern thought circulating in the near east around the time of christ. Statues of hindu gods were found in Pompeii, in Alexandria itself a tombstone with the Wheel of Dharma was discovered, in the port city of myos hormos in Egypt a sail cloth of Indian manufacturing was discovered. The trade routes between judea and the east were active until the 4th century AD.

Theres a Christian tradition that the apostle Thomas died in India where the church he established still exists.

Paganism is an umbrella term for anything that isn't Christianity, or more accurately the animistic traditions that predate monotheism.

Judaism is fascinating because we have proof it originally was polytheistic. It's totally Canaanite in origin but over time yahweh was promoted to the status of one true god. The painted pottery from Kuntillet Ajrud Shows yahweh and Asherah (later ishtar, aphrodite) as his consort.

Religions dont appear from nowhere. They're the product of thousands of years of tradition, thought, and self reflection.

Do you believe the bible refutes evolution?

I dont think it does either. Those seven days of creation are metaphorical. The bible says our lives are like a single breath of god. Which implies he operates on a much longer timescale than humans. So the space between the first and last days of creation could have been billions of years for all we know.

Because the second to last thing he did was to create humans. Evolutionarily, anatomically modern humans first emerged in east Africa around 100,000 years ago. The first stirrings of human culture were around 20,000 years ago. The pyramids were only built 4000 years ago. Rome was only 2000 years ago. We can't even comprehend how early on in our journey thru the universe we are.

A mere blip in the cosmic timescale. We might not even survive another million years.

#x

[loominggaia]

You say that each of the people where created by Gaia but how exactly WHERE they created? Did they just materialize out of nowhere creationism style? Or did Gaia gift souls and intelligence to certain animals, uplifting them to evolve into the peoples? Also I’m gonna guess each of the peoples having a very human anatomy has to do with Gaia’s influence, over convergent evolution?

Great question! Unfortunately I don't have a great answer for you, because no one really knows.

World Athenaeum researchers have been trying to solve this mystery for ages, and all they really have to work with is hearsay from ancient nymphs.

It's theorized that Gaia "forged" peoples similar to the way that divines forge monsters, by using parts of her own body (plants, stone, water, beasts, etc.) to create each individual. Hence why many peoples have animal-like features, because they were literally made from parts of animals. This theory is supported by researchers, who discovered that humans of Looming Gaia share a lot of genetic code with apes, while centaurs share a lot of genetic code with equines, and so on.

All peoples were believed to have been forged roughly 6,000 years ago. That really isn't enough time for them to evolve, so it's likely that their oldest ancestors didn't look much different than they do. They were equipped with instinctual wisdom that guided their survival on Gaia's body.

Exactly how many species Gaia created is also unknown. The remains of a few extinct ones were unearthed, but some theorize that there may have been even more that just haven't been discovered yet.

Now, all this doesn't even touch upon the subject of the Ancient Ones: the sapient species that existed on Gaia before peoples. Did they evolve from bacteria? Were they around for millions of years? Were they even native to the planet? No one knows that either, but they're sure trying to figure it out.

*

Questions/Comments?

Lore Masterpost

#ask #askhistory #askgaia

[iibislintu]

Can I do a little bit of cultural deconstruction?

Because I've been reading a lot of aro/ace Tumblrs and all the time there's a question pounding in my brain, namely,

is there something called romantic love at all?

Now this comes from being 31 and living with a partner of soon eight years, the happiest period of my life, but for the longest time I've been thinking this question and my answer as of today would be:

There is no such thing, or at least there needn't be.

And here's where I'll start to do the cultural deconstruction part, please bear with me.

I'd like to propose an alternative framework for thinking about love. This theory has a set of parameters that are independent of each other, instead of all-encompassing terms like "romantic love", "friendship" etc.

This framework is based on empirical research, during which I have studied endless reruns of Friends, Gilmore Girls and of course my life.

Okay, here goes.

In this theory of love, there are the following parameters you can tweak independently of each other. (Future research, that is _you_, may add or edit parameters to its liking.) You'll see that there isn't a slider for love, because that's what I'm deconstructing here.

care

trust

closeness, physical

closeness, emotional

closeness, intellectual

sexuality

infatuation

Hollywood compatibility

Okay, so.

Care is the primary component of parental love. It comes from our evolution biology and is a key for survival. Without care, a new human being dies. On the other hand, a friendship may be low on care if all the parties involved are reasonably happy with their lives. What people call "romantic love" often includes a component of care.

Trust is a key component of love between friends. I included it as a separate parameter from closeness, because trust may lead to either physical, emotional, intellectual or other forms of closeness.

Closeness, physical can be found in any type of relationship. If performed in a safe way, it may help our brain extract pleasure hormones which create a feeling of emotional closeness. Physical closeness is also a survival necessity: according to medical research, a baby may die because of lack of physical contact. That's why something called "kangaroo care" is a growing thing.

Closeness, emotional often also rises from trust. It can take so many forms too that I won't go deeper into it here.

Closeness, intellectual is very often another part of relationships. A sense of humour or shared interests may be forms of this kind of closeness.

Sexuality is often closely related to closeness, physical, but is a separate thing from it. There are many forms of sexuality, many of which don't have a component of physical contact. There are many people and relationships with the sexuality slider set at 0.

Infatuation is a key component of new relationships of any kind. It's a storm of brain chemistry that is also based in human evolution. It usually lasts for some months and then fades away.

Hollywood compatibility is a fantasy creation that many of us are led to believe actually equals romantic love, when in actuality, it's a capitalist tool to make us consume "romantic" products.

--

This is why I would argue that romantic love doesn't exist as a separate phenomenon. And more importantly, I want to encourage everyone to find relationships (friendships, companions, comrades, sparring partners, chaverim...) that suit their needs. Some will look for infatuation, physical closeness and sexuality; others for trust, emotional closeness or care; in general, everyone will have a unique set of needs, each of them as valid as anyone else's.

--

And also whether you identify as ace, aro, or any of a thousand million possible identities, your experience is valid, it's not "less than", it's not "weird" or "funny" - it's you being you, and that's what really matters.

#asexual #aromantic #aroace #what is love #anti capitalism #cultural criticism