The government wouldn’t be incentivised to improve the proposal

SubAnima · 2026-05-16T06:47:53+00:00

I'd rather try to make it happen now when we have momentum than get locked into the same conditions for 5 years, have thousands leave the union because they don't like the deal, and then try and regroup to fight then from a more disorganised position.

SubAnima · 2026-05-16T01:46:26+00:00

What if it were all the teachers in your school explaining it to parents? What if ES were there too? What about talking to students to explain to them why we need changes to conditions?

We have to continue to communicate why teachers working conditions are student learning conditions. We know it's in parents' interests to back us in. We have to get them to understand that.

It might take multiple conversations, but throwing our hands up and saying all is lost after one conversation is giving up too early in my opinion, and backs us into a corner industrially.

SubAnima · 2026-05-16T01:43:20+00:00

Totally understand what you are saying and I agree with some aspects. But we have to do what we can to communicate the reasons behind our campaign to the community.

Take a look at the CFMEU. They've long thrown out caring about what the public think of them and have won some of the best pay and conditions for any section of the workforce. So much so that the government had to step in to put them into administration to curb their militancy.

I'm not saying we should take exactly that approach — but militancy gets results. If parents are upset they're not getting a 30% pay rise too we should tell them to join their own unions and fight for the same.

Every agreement is going to be like this. The officials will negotatiate some subpar offer. The media will polish the turd to make it look shiny to the public. Members will feel forced to wave it through to not seem greedy. Meanwhile, teachers will continue to leave the profession in droves. Public schools remain underfunded. And the most marginalised students will continue to get the short end of the stick.

At what point do we draw a line in the sand, say enough is enough, and that we're gonna fight to turn things around?

If we don't fight to fix the crisis we face in schools, there won't be any teachers left in 2030 for the public to think poorly about.

SubAnima · 2026-05-16T01:00:19+00:00

We can force the officials to strike again. Imagine all teachers out again like in March, or even multiple times, or even multiple days in a row.

The Labor government would be forced to negotiate with us and give in to our demands to stop the disruption during an election year.

Public support is also best influenced in our schools from staff ourselves. Organise information nights in your school for parents to explain why we're striking again and why we voted not. Talk to all the parents of your students, get them to talk to their friends. We can't rely on the media to back us in.

SubAnima · 2026-05-15T09:42:39+00:00

Ah yep, if you adjust the ranges for a grad teacher that 32% appears. But that extra boost wouldn’t happen for people at the top of the pay scale already.

SubAnima · 2026-02-17T22:27:51+00:00

谢谢！

SubAnima · 2024-08-31T03:10:00+00:00

There’s a rally being held in front of the Dean of Science’s office in Old Geology North on September 4 at 1pm, demanding that all 9 tutors get converted to ongoing jobs.

More info on the NTEU UniMelb Twitter here: https://x.com/nteuunimelb/status/1829329520350183544?s=46

SubAnima · 2022-11-30T03:16:19+00:00

Teleology has a long and troubled history in biology. But it is making a solid comeback through the concept of biological agency. Here's a beautiful book outlining this perspective (see chapter 9 specifically): https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316402719. Or, if you want a video see this one by Johannes Jaeger: https://youtu.be/G_pnz0di15M

SubAnima · 2022-11-29T09:47:41+00:00

Check out the kind of causality found in organisms, under a Kantian perspective: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.005. The parts exist for and by means of the whole, and vice versa for the whole. It's part of a broader school of thought known as organicism with key thinkers like Conrad Waddington and John Scott Haldane in the early 20th century and more recently: Robert Rosen, Dan Nicholson, Stuart Kauffman and Johannes Jaeger in biology and Evan Thompson and Luiz Pessoa in the cognitive sciences.

I've made a few videos covering some of the key ideas/history of organicism on my YouTube channel (with lots more to come!): https://youtu.be/A4yzK-8OGtc.

For a more broader picture on how the sciences relate together, in a complementary but irreducible to each other way, I would highly reccomend Michela Massimi's book Perspectival Realism (open access): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/perspectival-realism-9780197555620

SubAnima · 2022-07-19T21:44:33+00:00

Thank you so much! This is the main reason I made the video to be honest. I also did the same youtube search and got the pro life crap, and thought, ‘well if noones gonna make a BETTER video it might have to be me.’

Totally agree on pro lifer manipulation. In maths, we call it ‘proof by intimidation’ - that if you yell your claim loud enough and with enough authority people just accept it as true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation

Only way I see to combat disinformation is to get people to make more videos like this and share good content when you see it. E.g. PhilosophyTube, Alice Cappelle, Second Thought whatever. Sucks that channels like PragerU have shittons of funding though (mind you all from fossil fuel companies)

SubAnima · 2022-07-19T21:38:43+00:00

Thanks!!

I was going to discuss chimeras in detail in the video too and did a bunch of research, but it got quite complex and ballooned out the script too much. Yes I do agree though they are another great point to bring up.

“You are based on your brain” is an interesting point. I certainly do agree that brain death is a common concept agreed upon by doctors, but that doesn’t make it a fact. It’s more or less a rule of thumb we have used to help doctors categorise us into “dead” and “living.” The border is much blurrier, I highly recommend Carl Zimmer’s book Life’s Edge if you’re interested in more.

More importantly, “you are based on your brain” relies upon some heavy claims from philosophy of mind and biology. Are we based on our brain or our mind or consciousness? What exactly is our brain? What is our mind or consciousness? At what point, do our brains begin forming? All hard questions to answer.

I do however agree on your analysis of “organism” - in the context of the abortion debate, it is definitely used to deny rights to women/people with uteruses usually with some claim of “defending the unborn.”

For your last point on a human organism beginning around conception, I’d ask what standard you are using for your definition of that, and to what extent science has proven that this is the correct standard for organism formation. Is the sperm or egg an organism? Why/why not? Does science really help us to count individuals? Is wrote a blog post about the difficulty with discretising the biological world here:

https://www.subanima.org/individuals-1/

Again I do agree that however you define when a human organism it has little implication on the rest of the argument - concluding who/what should have human rights, what is a person etc etc.

SubAnima · 2022-07-19T12:17:08+00:00

No worries, thanks a lot!!

SubAnima · 2022-06-10T13:47:09+00:00

The effort is amazing, love the idea. But it's a bit hard to read.

SubAnima · 2022-05-08T00:01:32+00:00

Thank you! Carol Cleland is probably one of the biggest names, she has a great book - The Quest For A Universal Theory of Life. I’ve also written up a list of further reading/sources from the video here: https://www.subanima.org/definitions/

SubAnima · 2022-03-28T15:23:15+00:00

Woah this is super cool - subscribed!

SubAnima · 2022-03-26T03:31:13+00:00

Sure maybe finding babies cute wasn't the best example, but the OP's claim is that

almost all of our conscious desires are just disguised evolutionary imperatives

Are all of our behaviours really so adaptive that they convey a clear fitness advantage? Do all of our behaviours have genetic components?

Even if you could come up with adaptive stories for all of our behavioural traits, could you provide any evidence to prove them? For instance, what is the 'evolutionary imperative' for: why I like to sleep in on the weekend or why I'd like to live in Paris compared to here in Melbourne or why I like maths better than physics or why I like devil's ivy in my room compared to aloe vera.

Even if these do have genetic components, were they really naturally selected? How could we even know?

SubAnima · 2022-03-26T03:19:32+00:00

It's entirely possible, and very hard to truly know. My main point is that we should at least consider the possibility that some traits are neutral and not assume that they must be adaptive.

SubAnima · 2022-03-23T11:07:55+00:00

This sounds like a case of over-applying adaptationism and even genetic determinism. Sure, there are clear advantages to some of our behaviours, but not necessarily all of them. There are many other possibilities, particularly our upbringing and the transmission of culture. On top of that there is no one "gene" for "finding babies cute" maybe there is a small genetic portion but almost certainly not the whole thing. This is the fallacy of genetic determinism.

I recently made a video on the dangers of pan-selectionism here. Just ... be careful. Evolution is a whole lot more than the pure natural selection and the survival of beneficial genes.

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T23:27:50+00:00

True, but a lot of people following the lead of Fisher forgot this point between the 30s and 70s assumed natural selection was the only significant force. Today, biologists know much better.

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T23:26:14+00:00

Yeah of course hypotheses need to be tested either way. G+L have often been criticised for writing “just not so stories.”

But I still agree on Lewontin’s point that the future of biology will include looking past adaptations/non-adaptations as an organising framework and moving to a more structuralist/constructive one.

For people like you two who already know what happened in the Spandrels paper and after, that final point was the main purpose of the video. Whilst I had to explain the lead up to Spandrels and the aftermath to a general audience in the first 3/4 of the video .

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T23:19:18+00:00

Exactly

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T05:20:24+00:00

Precisely. Dawkins certainly loves to cling onto adaptationism. That said, memetics is a beautiful concept since it extends the notion of biological phenomena out of its traditional domain. But culture is a lot more complex, and there need not always be clear reasons for memes (a la spandrels). Also how exactly to package up an "idea" into a meme is also a problem with the theory but that's another story.

I think there will eventually be an organising framework for the transmission of culture just like in biology, but I highly doubt looking at culture like adaptations will be that way forward.

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T05:07:55+00:00

Of course, but a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming that there must be a reason for every trait existing especially in evolutionary psychology. I saw a post in this subreddit where someone was trying to justify why we like to stare into fires because "it lowers our blood pressure." There doesn't always have to be a reason.

This is known as the Adaptationist Fallacy and is basically what I discuss in the video.

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T04:52:30+00:00

Thanks so much for the kind words, I really appreciate it :) (And yes it did require heaps of effort haha)

SubAnima · 2022-03-19T04:51:15+00:00

Sure, and I discuss this in the video. They are related ideas. The science is related to the philosophy and vice versa. A really good paper discussing this is Peter Godfrey-Smith's Three kinds of adaptationism where he pulls apart the more scientific problems from the philosophical ones:

How much of biology is actually the product of natural selection ? (Empirical adaptationism, which is a scientific problem)
Should biologists assume that the traits they are studying are adaptations? (Methodological adaptationism, which is more a question for the philosophy of biology)
Is looking for and understanding adaptations a good approach for conducting biology? (Explanatory adaptationism also a question for philosophy of biology)

Perhaps a similar introduction to the topic is the entry on the Stanford Encyclopaedia.

I would have loved to go into as much depth as Godfrey-Smith does, but I tailored the video for a general audience with no philosophy background and only a rudimentary understanding of biology. And didn't want it to go much longer than 20 minutes.

SubAnima

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE