Evolution (Modern Human).

[Chewy509]

Started from: http://www.storageforum.net/forum/showthread.php/10725-Tesla-doomed?p=196716&viewfull=1#post196716

This has been studied quite a bit recently...

Here's a blog post about this very issue. http://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evolution-does-not-apply-to-modern-human-beings

Maybe we should start a different thread on the subject of evolution? But I wonder if the blogger would have time/inspiration to write that post if he had reproduced?

What mubs mentioned actually reminded me of this youtube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

 

[Mercutio]

I might have read this, but here's the thing: I recognize author's name. He's very active in the Pickup Artist scene, which is a particular brand of manipulative misogyny that leads to a particular brand of entitlement mentality common to Reddit/Voat MRAs, Gamergate Dickwads and my older brother. I wouldn't read anything this dude has to say on any subject for the same reason I don't want to hear what's wrong with men from Andrea Dworkin.

 

[LunarMist]

Started from: http://www.storageforum.net/forum/showthread.php/10725-Tesla-doomed?p=196716&viewfull=1#post196716

It seems like a lot of horseshit from a 35-year old. How to get laid, really?

 

[CougTek]

Without having any particular opinion on the author of the article and focusing solely on the topic that the level of skills/intellectuals of an individual has little effect on his chances to precreate in our modern society, I can say that I agree with that view. Just look at the number of kids in poor areas compared with weathier ones and the answer is obvious.

In many ways, nowadays, being dumb, uneducated and poor is an advantage regarding your chances to procreate. Dumb, uneducated and poor individuals often lack the skills to plan for the birth of a child and often place the desire to mate well above the consequences of doing it in their list of priorities.

It's much harder to have kids when your list of requirements include finding a decent person you want to spend a good chuck of your life with, earning enough money to properly raise the child, planning to move in a house or safer appartment for a kid, etc. When your list of requirements is limited to "doe!" and "meh" and your planning is only to get drunk and laid for the evening, then your probability to become a parent suddently sky rocket.

 

[jtr1962]

I didn't read the entire article. It was way too long and rambling, plus the author was making me violently ill talking about guys who had over 100 sex partners (seriously, unless you're willing to sleep with anything with a vagina, I'm not seeing how you can get laid with that many people). Anyway, he overlooked one thing-war. Dumb, uneducated, poor individuals may well have an advantage procreating, but these were also the individuals who get sent off to war first. Throughout history large numbers of these people were killed in battle before they even had a change to procreate. Those who already did obviously couldn't procreate again if they were dead. That left the more intellectual individuals whose skills were needed off the front to screw the partners of these dead soldiers and pass their traits on. Overall, war kept some kind of balance which kept the dumb from out reproducing the smart. As a result, on the whole the human race was probably more intelligent than it is now. That dumb as a post jackass who sings the praises of low taxes on the rich even as he works in Walmart in the comments sections of Yahoo news articles probably would have been spread four ways to the wind by an antipersonnel mine 50 years ago, before he had a chance to pass his genes along.

I used to think war served no purpose, but now I realize it does. It culls the idiots from the human race before large numbers have a chance to reproduce. Given that war is out of fashion, we may just need to have skills tests in school and sterilize those who don't measure up. They could still screw all they want, which seems to be all they're interested in anyway, but at least they won't pass their genes along.

 

[CougTek]

Not enough people die in wars or gang-related violence to counter-bablance the reproductive rate of scums. Not by a wide margin. The number of people dying of violence is a blimp compared to other fatalities.

 

[jtr1962]

Today no but look at the percentage of the population killed in WWI and WWII in the countries where the war was fought.

 

[Chewy509]

Unfortunately large scale conflicts will no longer be factors in reduction of population, as most modern militaries are staffed by well educated volunteer based forces.

 

[Chewy509]

Sorry for posting that article, I only scanned through it to see that it was mostly on topic...

But the point remains, human evolution may have reached a point of stagnation due to our own ability to control our immediate environment, improvements in food supply and improvements in health services.

But looking at the future, at what point does the human race reach a point that a mass extinction will take place due to exhausted resources, and a global conflict occurs over access to resources. (by resources, I mean clean water, land that can be used to grow crops, etc).

However depending on your views, the New World Order and it's plan for global control isn't that far off...
http://beforeitsnews.com/self-suffi...opulate-humanity-dr-robert-gallo-2507878.html

 

[mubs]

What mubs mentioned actually reminded me of this youtube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

That video was good. That seems to be what's happening now.

 

[Stereodude]

Haven't you guys seen Idiocracy?

 

[LunarMist]

Yes I did. The one made by the Judge.

 

[jtr1962]

But the point remains, human evolution may have reached a point of stagnation due to our own ability to control our immediate environment, improvements in food supply and improvements in health services.

We will soon have the ability to improve ourselves via genetics. We already can do so via selective breeding and/or selective sterilization. Whether or not we choose to use these tools could well determine the survival of the human race. We can't afford to have a large percentage of the population which consumes resources but is unable to perform any function in society.

But looking at the future, at what point does the human race reach a point that a mass extinction will take place due to exhausted resources, and a global conflict occurs over access to resources. (by resources, I mean clean water, land that can be used to grow crops, etc).

That horse already left the barn when we passed about 1 billion people. More than that isn't sustainable long-term under present lifestyles. We would need to recycle virtually everything, live in much denser living arrangements, and use sustainable energy sources to support much larger numbers of people. However, that begs the question if we can eventually automate a lot of functions of society, and do all these things anyway, why do we even need a large population? What purpose would it serve other than making things more crowded? So again you're back to the concept of preventing those unable to perform any function from breeding.

The problem here is human beings are adapted for an environment and lifestyle which largely no longer exists thanks to our own ingenuity at eliminating a daily struggle for survival. To some extent we've done the same for domestic animals, with the end result of those species becoming progressively weaker as well.

 

[LunarMist]

We will soon have the ability to improve ourselves via genetics. We already can do so via selective breeding and/or selective sterilization. Whether or not we choose to use these tools could well determine the survival of the human race. We can't afford to have a large percentage of the population which consumes resources but is unable to perform any function in society.

I think the Germans tried that shit and it didn't work out.

Diversity of genes, including some that confer lower survivability under ordinary conditions, are beneficial or even necessary for long term survival of a species under challenging conditions.

 

[Mercutio]

Eugenics projects were tried all over the place in the 19th century. We'd sterilize criminals, poor people, persons of certain races or nationalities, the mentally ill et al. You don't have to bring up Germans in WWII. We did plenty of it here in the US, too. It never worked out the way people thought it would.

 

[jtr1962]

I think the Germans tried that shit and it didn't work out.

Perhaps because they were focusing on superficial traits like blond hair and blue eyes? The Germans basically scapegoated an entire group for their problems, then invented pseudoscientific reasons to justify the mass extermination of this group. In the process they also happened to eliminate the best educated segment of their population, and one which arguably might have turned the tide of WWII in their favor. Can we say Hitler was monumentally stupid in more ways than one with his singular obsession with killing Jews?

Diversity of genes, including some that confer lower survivability under ordinary conditions, are beneficial or even necessary for long term survival of a species under challenging conditions.

The problems happen when lower survivability is eliminated by advances in human society. At that point these genes become mostly a liability, particularly if those who carry them have a greater propensity to reproduce than those with traits more useful to society. And that brings us to another problem. Society has evolved faster than man. Some of the traits which are mostly liabilities now were useful even 100 years ago when you needed large numbers of not so intelligent people in factories or to fight wars. Nowadays intelligence seems to be a major asset for society, along with adaptability to change, ability to cooperate, and a reduced propensity towards violence. I've probably just described the classic nerd. Unfortunately, nerds don't seem to have much success reproducing, even with each other.