As far as adapting goes, my girlfriend is allergic to latex and birth control pills fuck up her metabolism, making her moody and gain weight. This leaves us no other birth control method than pulling out. Maybe latex allergy will be a deadly one in the future. Maybe we will gain immunity to birth control pills over time. I mean, I doubt that women 1000 years ago would show allergic reaction if you exposed them to latex. Even vasectomy can undo itself in rare cases. The efficiency of morning after pills vary from 95 to 65%. There are many signs that suggest that we are already adapting to birth control.
Roosh's "Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply..." Discussion
Quote: (06-04-2015 07:55 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Everyone seems to have a personal definition of evolution, but the modern take is clear that the individual organism has evolved for the reason of gene replication.
Yes but of course, not every individual organism in a population reproduces, and of course many species go extinct entirely. Not that humanity has a problem reproducing, our population is growing at a drastic rate, but not every little subgroup of humanity is growing at that rate.
Having different genes and expressing different phenotypes, some individuals end up being more or less evolutionarily fit in a given environment.
At RVF we have a certain morality that includes not getting women pregnant. It is sometimes framed as self-interest, ie. "Who wants a kid? It will just make your life lame." That idea in itself is maladaptive reproductively.
People have put in tons of time and effort to attract the most fertile women. Every physical characteristic we call "attractive" or "hot" is just a proxy for fertility. Many people don't want to use condoms with these girls, feeling the pleasure that has evolved to make us want sex. Blasting inside a girl feels great, especially when you are used to pulling out. All this seems to be designed to get us to blast inside of girls and have kids.
Yet we at RVF have such willpower that despite fucking dozens or hundreds of hot girls in the prime of their fertility, not using condoms, and being in a perfect position to reproduce with exactly the kind of girl you would want, we have this incredible self control to pull out. And it seems like almost everyone here is successful at this, or if anything has had one or two kids by accident.
It is amazing to me that no one here has twenty or thirty kids. We've certainly all had the chance. We could each have more kids than Charlemagne or Genghis Khan. Yet we don't.
There are people out there with less moral compunctions about having kids, or less forethought to even care about preventing it, who do have sex with lots of different girls and have lots of kids. Whatever it is in our heads that makes us decide against this is not helping us reproduce or spread our genes.
And so the kind of guy who spends years of his life perfecting his game to get tons of hot girls only to responsibly pull out and perhaps ends up with one kid as a rare mistake his nowhere near as fit as the reckless guy who blasts off inside whoever he feels like and ends up with god knows how many kids.
This guy is beating each and every one of us, I suspect:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/40-ch...ss-5436761
Quote:Quote:
"A shameless dad today boasted that he has fathered 40 children by 20 women, and insisted: “God says go forth and multiply.”
Jobless Mike Holpin, 56, said he had his first sexual experience aged nine and when he eventually became a dad he used one of his babies to “pick up birds”.
The recovering alcoholic confessed he would not recognise all of his children – aged between three and 37 – but he is adamant he still wants more.
He said: “Oh god yes, of course I do. I’m only 56. I’d never stop, I’d never stop."
The man is an alcoholic whose children mostly ended up on welfare, and so in the modern environment, he's doing great. The welfare state provides for his offspring and so he is free to go and have another 40 if he likes. In an environment without a welfare state of course you could see how this same strategy could backfire, and how women might be less likely to want to sleep with this kind of person. Yet we have amongst our population of 7 billion plenty of different sexual and reproductive strategies. Some will work better now, some better tomorrow.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:05 AM)dies irae Wrote:
Many tenets of game are in line with the theory of evolution's survival of the fittest, and these tenets absolutely apply to modern human beings:
-Women prefer masculine and strong (in terms of status and muscular strength) men.
-Men prefer thin women.
-Preselection.
These are the first things coming to my mind. I'm sure there are many more.
Additionally, Schopenhauer's work was published before the work of Darwin, and Darwin's findings were substantially in line with Schopenhauer's observations. That means, you don't have to look at millions of years to see evolution at work. Schopenhauer diagnosed it with his two eyes within the span of a human lifetime.
All that means is that those things are socially constructed.
The muscle "bonus" doesn't exist everywhere.
Same with preferences for fat distribution. (ass vs tits, svelte/lithe vs curvy)
That might be a lot for gamesmen to take, because so many of us believe that we are in control of what we like and don't like, and have elaborate justifications for such.
WIA
Great article, much to chew on.
^And certainly you see some men actually are into fat women, or are at least more than content with getting them pregnant.
If someone can have kids and those kids can live and have kids of their own, that's all that matters. If they weigh 300 pounds, smell like onions, breathe through their mouths and walk around in stained clothing all day, it does not matter. It doesn't matter if they don't have sculpted abs or svelte waistlines. It just matters that they reproduce, and fatties have no problem doing that.
Some people prefer what we think of as the traditional ideal physique, and so they can look for people like that too. Of course these people exist yet it does seem that those who strive for near-perfection from themselves and seek out near-perfection in others in terms of physical beauty are currently reproducing less than the fatties out there. That doesn't mean they won't continue to exist. And the environment in the future could possibly change in any number of directions that favor or disfavor certain phenotypes.
If someone can have kids and those kids can live and have kids of their own, that's all that matters. If they weigh 300 pounds, smell like onions, breathe through their mouths and walk around in stained clothing all day, it does not matter. It doesn't matter if they don't have sculpted abs or svelte waistlines. It just matters that they reproduce, and fatties have no problem doing that.
Some people prefer what we think of as the traditional ideal physique, and so they can look for people like that too. Of course these people exist yet it does seem that those who strive for near-perfection from themselves and seek out near-perfection in others in terms of physical beauty are currently reproducing less than the fatties out there. That doesn't mean they won't continue to exist. And the environment in the future could possibly change in any number of directions that favor or disfavor certain phenotypes.
Quote: (06-03-2015 08:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:
It's interesting how Roosh points out that man has an innate sense of altruism, an innate desire for communication (fellowship), and an innate predilection for honesty. These certainly do not seem like the sort of traits that man would innately possess if he were a Darwinian savage, the product of million of years of brutal, winner-takes-all competition for survival. Rather, these traits speak to an inner nature of man that, paradoxically, seems greater than what man himself is capable of, especially if man is nothing more than just another animal trying to survive. These traits, which represent the best of humanity, indeed seem positively inhuman if man is nothing more than a product of evolution. Of course, there is another explanation for how and why man possesses such inborn traits: man was created in the image of God, and these traits are simply a reflection of the creator himself.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1: 26-27
In contemporary evolutionary thought it is not the organism (lion, tree, human etc) that is "selfish", it is each individual gene (certain length of DNA). It is an important, actually critical, distinction. Evolution doesn't work if you look at it at the level of individuals because almost no reproduction in the world results in simply a clone of the original. Another way of putting it is that organisms, including humans, function as temporary storage and filing containers for genes.
As humans we obviously observe whole organisms either succeed or fail and tend to view evolutionary success or failure this way, but the real action is happening at the level of individual genes - the "units of replication". This is where most of the misunderstanding comes in. It is quite consistent with the selfish gene theory that a group of selfish genes build an organism that can display altruism (i.e. seem to be unselfish) This is more and more likely the higher you go up in the evolutionary chain. With social apes you can expect a fair degree of altruism.
Humans, after the development of language, have obviously taken things several orders of magnitude further. Many evolutionary thinkers believe that there now exists a second unit of replication (in addition to genes) which Dawkins has called "memes". Units of cultural replication made possible by human intelligence and , especially, language. But they are still beholden to genes. They are on "on a leash" in EO Wilson's words. Maybe a long leash, maybe a short leash, but never completely free. And they can and are reeled in every now and then.
Anyway, Dawkins explained these things in the 1970's, much better than I can, and I would strongly suggest that anyone truly interested in evolution read his first, and by far best, book - The Selfish Gene. I know he has a reputation now as a dick who is obsessed with atheism. Even as an atheist myself, I think he would have done better sticking to biology. Religious debate is just impossible and a non-stop circus. But "The Selfish Gene" doesn't deal with atheism, and is the best book by far you need to read if you want to understand what the modern view of evolution is, and why you need to look at it from the genes eye view and not at the level of whole organisms. Even if you don't agree with it, you'll have a better view of what you're disagreeing with.
The "genes eye view" does seem pretty harsh from our point of view, but in reality it is neither harsh nor agreeable. It just is. That's another thing about evolution. Because of the way the theory is set up, it pretty much can't be wrong. Because all the inputs are baked into genes. Add genes to sexual reproduction and the fact that outcomes are uneven and you have the evolutionary process.
PS: There seems to be a recent move to "move on" from the gene centered view of evolution to a sort of "atom centered" view. Some physicist from MIT, who is also an orthodox Jew and has been self-promoting recently, seems to believe that the view of what is live or not is wrong. He seems to take the almost New Age view that everything is "alive" and that the unit of replication is on the atomic level, rather than the gene. So a chuck of concrete is "alive", as is a lion. I think it sounds like a lot of pop quantum-mechanical mumbo jumbo, but will have to look into what he is saying in more detail before commenting further.
Quote: (06-04-2015 09:36 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:05 AM)dies irae Wrote:
Many tenets of game are in line with the theory of evolution's survival of the fittest, and these tenets absolutely apply to modern human beings:
-Women prefer masculine and strong (in terms of status and muscular strength) men.
-Men prefer thin women.
-Preselection.
These are the first things coming to my mind. I'm sure there are many more.
Additionally, Schopenhauer's work was published before the work of Darwin, and Darwin's findings were substantially in line with Schopenhauer's observations. That means, you don't have to look at millions of years to see evolution at work. Schopenhauer diagnosed it with his two eyes within the span of a human lifetime.
All that means is that those things are socially constructed.
The muscle "bonus" doesn't exist everywhere.
Same with preferences for fat distribution. (ass vs tits, svelte/lithe vs curvy)
That might be a lot for gamesmen to take, because so many of us believe that we are in control of what we like and don't like, and have elaborate justifications for such.
WIA
Those are observable among animals too. Are the animals also subject to the social construct?
He who inhabits the Country of the Mind takes ideas as his stock-in-trade. The inhabitant of this Country likes to read new works, to mull them over, to wrestle with their implications, and to gnaw on them in the same way that an eager puppy scrapes its growing teeth on a steakbone.
And, after a period of digestion, he is ready to test the efficacy of his knowledge in the sandy arena of mental combat. He bravely submits his findings to pubic review.
The active and inquisitive intellect does not overly concern itself with whether something is true or false, because it values ideas for their own sake, and draws creative inspiration from the stimulus that new ideas provide. It also knows that "truth" and "falsity" are relative concepts, and can shift position with startling speed. What was once true, may not be true tomorrow; and what was once false, can appear self-evident in another setting.
Scientific paradigms are like flowers, and young girls: they last while they last. And when they expire, they are replaced by other paradigms that are better suited to the times. Certainty in science is a dangerous thing, as it is in religion.
It has been said that hell hath no fury like an angry theologian; but the same could be said for a piqued scientist whose sacred cow has been gored.
So let us enjoy the process of argumentation and discussion, and not retreat into our dogmatic igloos. I have enjoyed watching a creative mind wrestle with new ideas, and wander new savannahs of the Country of the Mind.
And this is what really matters here. We have been privy to the thought of an active intellect. Who among us can find fault with this?
And, after a period of digestion, he is ready to test the efficacy of his knowledge in the sandy arena of mental combat. He bravely submits his findings to pubic review.
The active and inquisitive intellect does not overly concern itself with whether something is true or false, because it values ideas for their own sake, and draws creative inspiration from the stimulus that new ideas provide. It also knows that "truth" and "falsity" are relative concepts, and can shift position with startling speed. What was once true, may not be true tomorrow; and what was once false, can appear self-evident in another setting.
Scientific paradigms are like flowers, and young girls: they last while they last. And when they expire, they are replaced by other paradigms that are better suited to the times. Certainty in science is a dangerous thing, as it is in religion.
It has been said that hell hath no fury like an angry theologian; but the same could be said for a piqued scientist whose sacred cow has been gored.
So let us enjoy the process of argumentation and discussion, and not retreat into our dogmatic igloos. I have enjoyed watching a creative mind wrestle with new ideas, and wander new savannahs of the Country of the Mind.
And this is what really matters here. We have been privy to the thought of an active intellect. Who among us can find fault with this?
I thought it was a thought-provoking article, and did nothing to change my belief in evolution.
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA. And for the MGTOW losers or herbivores or whoever, those guys are jerking off. The overwhelming drive to have an orgasm seems to be a product of evolution.
The rebuttle shared by Zelcorpion has a good explanation for the lack of "struggle"
I think we have in our minds an image of "nature, red in tooth and claw" survival in nature, but in reality animals are lazy. They expend the least amount of energy necessary, and occasionally there are bursts of action for food or survival.
Anyway, I suspect evolution is operating in the West on some level. Contraceptives will produce some unforeseen consequences.
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA. And for the MGTOW losers or herbivores or whoever, those guys are jerking off. The overwhelming drive to have an orgasm seems to be a product of evolution.
The rebuttle shared by Zelcorpion has a good explanation for the lack of "struggle"
Quote:Quote:
The struggle for life is speaking poetically. Have you ever seen a lion on the savanna? They sleep at least 20 hours a day, hanging out in the shade. The women do most of the hunting and the male lions do the protecting. Generally they sit on their asses the vast majority of their life. Where’s the “struggle” there? And life on the African plains is about as ugly as life gets. As a lion you need to literally kill your dinner with your bare paws and/or jaws. Yet the majority of your life is spent in leisure, grooming, and sitting out the heat in the shade or screwing. The same can be said for higher primates. Most of the time they are eating, shitting, grooming, banging, or sleeping. They are not “struggling for life” every minute of every day. And even if they were, what would that look like?
I think we have in our minds an image of "nature, red in tooth and claw" survival in nature, but in reality animals are lazy. They expend the least amount of energy necessary, and occasionally there are bursts of action for food or survival.
Anyway, I suspect evolution is operating in the West on some level. Contraceptives will produce some unforeseen consequences.
Quote: (06-04-2015 07:55 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Everyone seems to have a personal definition of evolution, but the modern take is clear that the individual organism has evolved for the reason of gene replication. I don't buy the excuse that just because of birth control that means we haven't "adapted" to it yet.
No.
The individual organism has evolved as a result of gene replication. It has no god-given purpose that we could clearly discern. Every one of our ancestors has been succesful in replicating their genes; maybe you'll find a different, maybe even something better to pursue. But it's clear that all of tomorrow's children will again have parents who did procreate.
Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.
Quote:Quote:
Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.
How many more people are going to defend E.O. Wilson's brand of group evolution, which is [em]not[/em] modern evolutionary consensus and has little evidence to back it? The theory that we are like ants has little backing. You may want to catch up on what the popular flavors of evolution is saying these days before constructing a straw man.
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Quote: (06-04-2015 11:59 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
He who inhabits the Country of the Mind takes ideas as his stock-in-trade. The inhabitant of this Country likes to read new works, to mull them over, to wrestle with their implications, and to gnaw on them in the same way that an eager puppy scrapes its growing teeth on a steakbone.
And, after a period of digestion, he is ready to test the efficacy of his knowledge in the sandy arena of mental combat. He bravely submits his findings to pubic review.
The active and inquisitive intellect does not overly concern itself with whether something is true or false, because it values ideas for their own sake, and draws creative inspiration from the stimulus that new ideas provide. It also knows that "truth" and "falsity" are relative concepts, and can shift position with startling speed. What was once true, may not be true tomorrow; and what was once false, can appear self-evident in another setting.
Scientific paradigms are like flowers, and young girls: they last while they last. And when they expire, they are replaced by other paradigms that are better suited to the times. Certainty in science is a dangerous thing, as it is in religion.
It has been said that hell hath no fury like an angry theologian; but the same could be said for a piqued scientist whose sacred cow has been gored.
So let us enjoy the process of argumentation and discussion, and not retreat into our dogmatic igloos. I have enjoyed watching a creative mind wrestle with new ideas, and wander new savannahs of the Country of the Mind.
And this is what really matters here. We have been privy to the thought of an active intellect. Who among us can find fault with this?
Absolutely. Almost any scientific truth will be at least partially disproved, or at least altered, in the fullness of time. But it's not really fair to say that the old theory was wrong. It just doesn't work in certain specific circumstances. It's like people who claim that Einstein proved that Newtonian physics doesn't work in certain circumstances (or account for certain phenomena) therefore Newton was "wrong". It's a misleading way to interpret things.
As for the gene centered view. Perhaps some day a bio-physicist will come up with a good theory showing why we should consider some particle on the atomic level to be the real replicator, rather than the gene. But I don't think the gene centered view has been sufficiently exhausted. In my view it's only when this is exhausted that you will know where the cracks in the theory are. Bio-physicists now are approaching things from the opposite direction (top down or even from the future back to the present) so can't know where the cracks are. It would be more productive to sequence as many genes as possible from the full taxonomy of living things and analyse the relationships.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
I like your assertion, Roosh, but AnonymousBosch and I had a discussion that teased out the Millennial females non-desire to work. She prefers instead to be broken, rather than acquire happiness through her own hard work and struggle.
So are we (the men) the evolutionary accident that needs to be weeded out of the gene pool? Or is it the women?
My initial post to Bosch is here.
And Bosch's excellent reply is here.
If you can stomach Demi Lovato, she has an excellent song that illustrates this Millennial avoidant phenomenon, named Heart Attack.
Lyrics: Never put my love out on the line
Never said yes to the right guy
Never had trouble getting what I want
But when it comes to you, I'm never good enough
When I don't care, I can play 'em like a Ken doll
Won't wash my hair, then make 'em bounce like a basketball
But you make me wanna act like a girl
Paint my nails and wear high heels, yes you
Make me so nervous, that I just can't hold your hand
You make me glow,
But I cover up, won't let it show,
So I'm puttin' my defenses up
'Cause I don't wanna fall in love
If I ever did that, I think I'd have a heart attack
I think I'd have a heart attack
I think I'd have a heart attack
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:40 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.
How many more people are going to defend E.O. Wilson's brand of group evolution, which is [em]not[/em] modern evolutionary consensus and has little evidence to back it? The theory that we are like ants has little backing. You may want to catch up on what the popular flavors of evolution is saying these days before constructing a straw man.
It's a simple statement, a truism pretty much (or would you argue your writings and lifestyle leave the reproductive choices of all your relatives, readers, partners, etc. completely unaffected?).
To take that as a sign of me prescribing to a specific theory of group evolution, now that is an actual strawman.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:Replace "must" with "will" in that sentence. It's an important difference.
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
That's right. And in every sex act my aim was to have an orgasm, which is linked to sharing DNA. We aren't consciously driven to have sex with thoughts like "I must reproduce, and therefore must have sex." It's more like "orgasms feel good, so I will pursue them."
Similar to food-- we don't decide to eat by thinking "if I don't eat I'm going to die" but rather something like "I feel hungry, so I will eat to diminish this feeling."
Getting weeded out of the gene pool is not unusual.
-Only 40% of men have ever reproduced
-4,000-8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women
Great article with lots of thought provoking points.
I would argue that the guy willing to blast out 40 kids *is* more fit to flourish under the current system. The women didn't die because they couldn't work while pregnant (as would be the case otherwise), if he can't support them or the kids, they'll still survive (as wouldn't be the case otherwise). There's frankly nothing for him to lose by having another 40, compared with most everyone here. Now it may not be evolution by means of natural selection, but much akin to a dog breeder breeding for specific characteristics, you could argue that the system has set up evolution by artificial selection.
When you say 'fittest' I feel it's not a gradual curve (ie: I'm more fit than you because I'm richer or have a bigger house), but more of a 1 or a 0. If resources becomes more scarce the bar simply gets raised. Right now anyone with an 80 IQ and a pulse is evolutionary fit in the sense they're still here. Evolution is primarily a biological response to external stresses. Right now you see stresses that favour child rearing by guys like the above, meanwhile whom are all indirectly paid for you and me. If a lot of the social safety nets were removed, the survival of these people would be a lot more in question, and the resource rich wouldn't have such disincentives for having kids.
As was touched on with the smaller brains, I would almost expect to see humans in some sense de-evolve. Everything that is attractive is for a million year old reason, and modern technology has made a lot of it redundant. That is evolution looks rearward, while survival looks forward A predilection for big hips isn't nearly as important as it once was to ensure your kids get birthed properly. Maybe someone who likes skinnier asses will have more success, since the girls aren't getting as much attention, and there is no longer a potential issue having babies, and that line (and preference for small hips) will flourish.
I would argue that the guy willing to blast out 40 kids *is* more fit to flourish under the current system. The women didn't die because they couldn't work while pregnant (as would be the case otherwise), if he can't support them or the kids, they'll still survive (as wouldn't be the case otherwise). There's frankly nothing for him to lose by having another 40, compared with most everyone here. Now it may not be evolution by means of natural selection, but much akin to a dog breeder breeding for specific characteristics, you could argue that the system has set up evolution by artificial selection.
When you say 'fittest' I feel it's not a gradual curve (ie: I'm more fit than you because I'm richer or have a bigger house), but more of a 1 or a 0. If resources becomes more scarce the bar simply gets raised. Right now anyone with an 80 IQ and a pulse is evolutionary fit in the sense they're still here. Evolution is primarily a biological response to external stresses. Right now you see stresses that favour child rearing by guys like the above, meanwhile whom are all indirectly paid for you and me. If a lot of the social safety nets were removed, the survival of these people would be a lot more in question, and the resource rich wouldn't have such disincentives for having kids.
As was touched on with the smaller brains, I would almost expect to see humans in some sense de-evolve. Everything that is attractive is for a million year old reason, and modern technology has made a lot of it redundant. That is evolution looks rearward, while survival looks forward A predilection for big hips isn't nearly as important as it once was to ensure your kids get birthed properly. Maybe someone who likes skinnier asses will have more success, since the girls aren't getting as much attention, and there is no longer a potential issue having babies, and that line (and preference for small hips) will flourish.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
In the modern evolutionary view it's not "you" who is either weeded out of the gene pool or carries forward to future generations, only your genes. And nearly all of them will be carried forward whether you reproduce or not. Of course that's not the way we naturally see things. The stakes for the genes are high so they "create" organisms that want to reproduce. Or rather want to take the actions that will lead to this - sex, orgasm.
It's pretty much impossible to live ones life from the core evolutionary level, that of genes. Inevitably we will view things from the viewpoint of individuals. That's OK. More than OK. But it's not the level that will allow us to understand what is happening in evolution.
The theory of group selection is aggressively NOT part of the mainstream Evolutionary Biology consensus, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are definitely some evolutionary biologists who believe in group selection - in fact, Roosh recently wrote a separate RoK article about one - but they are excluded from the mainstream. IMO, group selection is very plausible, and can be modeled if we assume some ability to identify and punish defectors from the optimal group strategy.
Nobody would deny that evolution has occurred, and is occurring.
Few would deny that EvPsych is a useful tool for analyzing behaviour of organisms, humans included.
But is the strictly materialist interpretation of humanity 100% correct? I don't think so. I think evolution is like Newtonian Physics: true and extremely useful, but incomplete in certain extreme cases. Outside of ignorant megachurchians, not many people are willing to say this, because whenever you do, midwits will seize the opportunity to pronounce themselves smarter than the hurrr durrr anti-science creationist. Roosh is taking flak from a lot of mediocre minds, and there are plenty of nits I could pick about his post, but ultimately he's asking good questions and writing about topics that haven't been done to death 1000 times.
Nobody would deny that evolution has occurred, and is occurring.
Few would deny that EvPsych is a useful tool for analyzing behaviour of organisms, humans included.
But is the strictly materialist interpretation of humanity 100% correct? I don't think so. I think evolution is like Newtonian Physics: true and extremely useful, but incomplete in certain extreme cases. Outside of ignorant megachurchians, not many people are willing to say this, because whenever you do, midwits will seize the opportunity to pronounce themselves smarter than the hurrr durrr anti-science creationist. Roosh is taking flak from a lot of mediocre minds, and there are plenty of nits I could pick about his post, but ultimately he's asking good questions and writing about topics that haven't been done to death 1000 times.
Quote: (06-03-2015 04:36 PM)SunW Wrote:
I see many human behaviors that make little sense in the light of evolution, such asAlso, we aren't the first culture to experience some of these. For instance, towards Romes' end, Juvenal also describes some odd behaviors that seem counter to what we'd expect from evolution, like a many who refuses to defile himself sexually, so he requires that his slave sleep with his wife and presents the offspring as his own, even though, they aren't.
- homosexuality
- transexuality (why would a man want to become a woman and vice versa)
- some practices of avoiding sexual release
As a contrast, religions - like Christianity - tend to attribute this counter behavior to man's rejection of God (Romans 1 comes to mind). As man rejects God, he begins to behave in ways that are contradictory to the way God made things, and at a certain threshold, God gives man into this counter behavior (implying that God no longer cares about this person destroying themself).
All of this is fascinating because we see cultures rise to great power, like the Greeks, Romans, Chinese (have been a world power before now), and yet we see declines. The United States was once a great culture (defeated the Soviet Union), yet Russia and China now seem to be taking its place and over the next hundred years, we could see Western societies decline.
What I don't understand, and I can see why Roosh wrote what he wrote, is why this happens. We have history in front of us and most of us have learned it, so why do we keep making the same mistake? At some point, shouldn't we learn and stop this? Also, if we are here to reproduce and that is the highest level of our being, why do we engage in behaviors that don't lead to this? And not only that, but then encourage others to do the same (at least, if we decide not to reproduce, we should know the importance of others doing so).
It was a good read and I've had some of those same questions that don't make sense. Like many religions, people who subscribe to evolution love to rationalize it away, even when their rationalizations make little sense (or are predicated on the assumption that evolution is true, thus leading to tautological problems).
I've argued this before and it's enlightening to see someone else post this. The bible talks about "sin" leading to death. I've debated with a pastor before on this, sin and evolution go hand in hand. I'd love to write up an article comparing these two points.
When the bible says sin leads to death, it means a few things:
1. A spiritual death. This is a rut where you keep trying the same behaviors over and over again expecting different results. Think the gay dude who keeps cruising and the woman riding the cock carousel.
2. You died, death. Self explanatory.
3. Death of a bloodline.
The last one is the most important. Sin is nature's way of culling humanity. A person who is spiritually dead doesn't want to have children for various reasons. This leads to that person's genetics not being passed on.
When a person is gay, trans, LGBBQ, etc. by pure chance when they were born the DNA order that was assembled from his/her parent's genes was assembled in such a way that has dictated an attraction for the same sex.
This is nature's way of removing unfit genes from the gene pool. The same applies to women.
I've always wanted to post to my facebook saying that homosexuality is dysgenic in that an attraction to the same sex leads to no children being born between the two partners. Without their genetic lineage being passed on, homosexuality and the genes that help express that behavior get removed from the gene pool.
The same behavior can be said of women who chose to wait until their mid 30s to have children. If they're not fertile at that point, the "selective" pressures of in this case society have now determined that this woman's genes is unfit to be passed onto the next generation.
The effect of survival of the fittest and evolution not only includes pressures relating to raw resources (food,water,etc) but also to occurrences where there is a bounty beyond all imaginable means (near unlimited food, shelter,etc). In this case, we saw how at the end of the Roman Empire there were all sorts of weird behaviors being exhibited. Those behaviors lead to a malaise where people didn't want to re-produce, leading to a demographic breakdown. The cultural breakdown lead people to look out for themselves instead of their community. This is what leads to the rise and fall of empires.
Liberalism as a whole is dysgenic.
Where does this behavior come from? Well, that's a good question. Modern science I don't believe has the wherewithal to figure this out, but I'll take a stab.
If you study gnostic texts and the bible, they speak of "spirits" that lead people. There's obviously the "holy spirit" but also a false spirit. This false spirit leads people astray from redemption.
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
Until we have children, if we die in some freak accident our genes have been permanently weeded out of nature.
Your article was thoughtful, but I always thought survival of the fittest was best applied to simple organisms or animals without much cognitive ability and who still live in a state of nature.
Humans were smart enough to become masters of the wild for whom the base concerns of safety, eating, and fucking are no longer the only ones. Because of smarter members of our species surviving through our darker primitive periods we enjoy the comfort of the lifestyles we have today. We were not as physically strong as the beasts that used to imperil our lives on a widespread scale, but we were smart enough to band together, devise weapons, tactics, and strategies to defeat them and extirpate them if necessary. A level of altruism toward our fellow man was necessary for us to accomplish this and our intelligence was the reason why scientists think we beat out the neanderthals who were physically stronger than us. So that makes us the "fittest."
The irony is our intelligence has led to the development of things like nuclear weapons which, while useful against human enemies, could also lead to the destruction of our species.
You, or anyone else here, deciding not to have kids is not a failure of evolution. It is the result of an advanced human brain that exists precisely due to smart motherfuckers surviving and reproducing generation after generation. Whether you do have kids or you don't doesn't matter one wit to nature. It simply means you were smart enough to pursue the kind of life you wanted to live rather than just behave like an instinctual beast beholden only to its base instincts.
Evolution and the survival of the fittest explains all that pretty well, I think. The things it can't explain well are our origins, how to survive in a human society, and how we should live. I'm not sure that it was ever meant to.
Humans were smart enough to become masters of the wild for whom the base concerns of safety, eating, and fucking are no longer the only ones. Because of smarter members of our species surviving through our darker primitive periods we enjoy the comfort of the lifestyles we have today. We were not as physically strong as the beasts that used to imperil our lives on a widespread scale, but we were smart enough to band together, devise weapons, tactics, and strategies to defeat them and extirpate them if necessary. A level of altruism toward our fellow man was necessary for us to accomplish this and our intelligence was the reason why scientists think we beat out the neanderthals who were physically stronger than us. So that makes us the "fittest."
The irony is our intelligence has led to the development of things like nuclear weapons which, while useful against human enemies, could also lead to the destruction of our species.
You, or anyone else here, deciding not to have kids is not a failure of evolution. It is the result of an advanced human brain that exists precisely due to smart motherfuckers surviving and reproducing generation after generation. Whether you do have kids or you don't doesn't matter one wit to nature. It simply means you were smart enough to pursue the kind of life you wanted to live rather than just behave like an instinctual beast beholden only to its base instincts.
Evolution and the survival of the fittest explains all that pretty well, I think. The things it can't explain well are our origins, how to survive in a human society, and how we should live. I'm not sure that it was ever meant to.
"Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18
Quote: (06-04-2015 12:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.
Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?
I think I know the answer: zero.
You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.
Don't forget all of the 'ooops, the bitch is pregnant' threads.
Quote: (06-04-2015 01:24 PM)Frost Wrote:
The theory of group selection is aggressively NOT part of the mainstream Evolutionary Biology consensus, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are definitely some evolutionary biologists who believe in group selection - in fact, Roosh recently wrote a separate RoK article about one - but they are excluded from the mainstream. IMO, group selection is very plausible, and can be modeled if we assume some ability to identify and punish defectors from the optimal group strategy.
Nobody would deny that evolution has occurred, and is occurring.
Few would deny that EvPsych is a useful tool for analyzing behaviour of organisms, humans included.
But is the strictly materialist interpretation of humanity 100% correct? I don't think so. I think evolution is like Newtonian Physics: true and extremely useful, but incomplete in certain extreme cases. Outside of ignorant megachurchians, not many people are willing to say this, because whenever you do, midwits will seize the opportunity to pronounce themselves smarter than the hurrr durrr anti-science creationist. Roosh is taking flak from a lot of mediocre minds, and there are plenty of nits I could pick about his post, but ultimately he's asking good questions and writing about topics that haven't been done to death 1000 times.
The current gene centered view of evolution will absolutely have it's Newton moment someday. I suppose it's possible that this is reached by going "back" to group selection. But I think it's much more likely that the unit of selection will get smaller, rather than bigger, in future revisions. Small as in on the atomic scale. Like I mentioned in a post above there is at least one (MIT) Bio-Physicist who is developing theories along these lines. Still much too early in my opinion to produce a firm theory since we aren't close to having exhausted our study of genes. But it's obviously a free world and he may well have something interesting to say.
I think people misunderstand the "group selection" vs "gene centered view" of evolution. It's partially a matter of which perspective gives you the most understanding. In a process where it is genes which are the units of selection this will still pretty obviously have EFFECTS which look a bit like group selection. The genes inside one lion survive (genes) - the lion survives (individual organism) - it mates and protects its mate and offspring (group...well sort of) so that....the genes in the offspring have a chance of replicating.
When evolutionary biologists say they disagree with group selection, it is the "selection" bit they are disagreeing with. Not that there are no groups. Or that groups don't co-operate and so on. It's just that, biologically, it is the genes that actually replicate themselves (and are therefore what is subject to selection), not the individual or group.
I should add that I detected frustration with internet atheists (who are mostly just anti-theists), who worship guys like Dawkins) in your article. I understand it quite well. They've bought into a movement that believes since there's no scientific proof of the divine and no heaven, we should strive to create one on Earth through embracing their utopian political ideas about how society should be set up and men should be ruled. Science, to them, is merely used as a political cudgel since traditionally religious societies stand in the way of their idea of "progress."
It is no coincidence that the "four horsemen" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris) are/were leftists.
I do believe it's possible (but increasingly rare) to be an atheist and at the same time, not an anti-theist. I imagine there are a few who evaluate the various major religions independently and weighs their pros and cons rather than categorically saying all religion is evil superstitious nonsense that leads to millions of deaths (while simultaneously ignoring that the highest body count belongs to the secular atheistic religion of communism because it is a cousin to their own ideologies).
Anyway, I don't want to derail the scientific discussion in this thread but I thought it worthwhile to comment on what I felt was expressed in parts of the article.
It is no coincidence that the "four horsemen" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris) are/were leftists.
I do believe it's possible (but increasingly rare) to be an atheist and at the same time, not an anti-theist. I imagine there are a few who evaluate the various major religions independently and weighs their pros and cons rather than categorically saying all religion is evil superstitious nonsense that leads to millions of deaths (while simultaneously ignoring that the highest body count belongs to the secular atheistic religion of communism because it is a cousin to their own ideologies).
Anyway, I don't want to derail the scientific discussion in this thread but I thought it worthwhile to comment on what I felt was expressed in parts of the article.
"Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18
Quote: (06-04-2015 01:40 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:
Your article was thoughtful, but I always thought survival of the fittest was best applied to simple organisms or animals without much cognitive ability and who still live in a state of nature.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" brings up the notion of an animalistic hunter gatherer using his brains, wit, speed and strength to make it in the world. But all it only matters if he reproduces. Just surviving means nothing evolutionarily, you could kill a thousand lions with your bear hands, fell trees with a stone axe and build a village like a boss, if you don't have kids, you may as well have never been born from an evolutionary perspective.
As long as some humans have 7 kids, some only have 1, and some have 0, humans are still reproducing at different rates and some traits are passed on more frequently, while others less frequently or not at all. Whether the cause of not reproducing is being killed by a wild animal or just spending your life on the computer, the impact is the same. We are not beyond evolution, we are not beyond selection, it is just a whole different set of factors now that go into who reproduces and who does not.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)