Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
why do we always end up here
Like high IQ rewards are higher than ever currently. In the past very often you were better off selecting a healthy but stupid sexual partner. Nowadays because of various reasons, high IQ low health and low physical dexterity/strength individuals can be very successful (resource wise).
lol, it's never been easier for low-IQ chuds like yourself to reproduce and survive, this take makes zero sense.
Seriously, can we move the social darwinism claptrap to the science subforum? What is any of this doing in this thread?
Evolutionary pressure doesn't disappear just because an organism is well-adapted to its environment. How humans will evolve in the future, I have nfi, but I'm sure Kelhus has all kind of exciting theories about that.
It seems very likely to reduce evolutionary pressure by a lot when an organism can change its environment to meet its needs, rather than needing to change to adapt to environmental changes.
Yes yes a living relative can be pro fitness for approximate genetic relatives true I was trying to simplify the thing (because it can also be a cost, think the drunk addict uncle and the mother struggling to help him AND her children)
Sure. I never specified what sort of influence. Personally I wouldn't consider a good influence to be one that lined up with high evolutionary fitness. Human genes made the horrible evolutionary mistake of letting us think.
It seems very likely to reduce evolutionary pressure by a lot when an organism can change its environment to meet its needs, rather than needing to change to adapt to environmental changes.
You don't REDUCE evolutionary pressures, you CHANGE them.
You still end up with, in every generation, some people reproducing a lot, some a little, some not reproducing at all.
That's evolution, whatever makes you reproduce more will become more widespread and vicerversa.
Keep in mind that the totality of behavioral attitudes are inheritable at least some.
Nope social darwinism is thinking "it is good" if the current societal arrangement selects against some specific genes.Evolution isn't arrested in highly successful population. What is arrested is fitness improvement because they are already close to the current environmental asymptote.You happen to describe mutations as the core of evolution. They are relevant, and very occasi
While higher IQ individuals may be more desirable as sexual partners, a very complicating factor is that we now understand how offspring is created and can control that nearly perfectly (at least among higher IQ members of an advanced society).
I think this is leading to higher IQ people having fewer offspring than others. The beginning of Idiocracy seems real to me.
What's going on with lagtight?
lol, it's never been easier for low-IQ chuds like yourself to reproduce and survive, this take makes zero sense.
Seriously, can we move the social darwinism claptrap to the science subforum? What is any of this doing in this thread?
What a ridiculous post. Regardless of how you feel about Luciom, he's clearly not low-IQ.
There has also been no current discussion here of who deserves to reproduce except by our lone female.
She's also the one who got this topic going.
Wb washoe, where you been?
You don't REDUCE evolutionary pressures, you CHANGE them.
You still end up with, in every generation, some people reproducing a lot, some a little, some not reproducing at all.
That's evolution, whatever makes you reproduce more will become more widespread and vicerversa.
Keep in mind that the totality of behavioral attitudes are inheritable at least some.
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure. But maybe I should have said environmental pressures.
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure. But maybe I should have said environmental pressures.
It actually is semantically and definitionally.
and sexual selection is always a major part of the environment if not the most important part of the environment at all times for mammals
Maybe it's just a terminology difference, but I don't think of evolution due to sexual selection as being an evolutionary pressure.
What? Why wouldn't it be?
There has also been no current discussion here of who deserves to reproduce except by our lone female.
She's also the one who got this topic going.
Wrong and wrong.
Darwin himself differentiated between natural selection and sexual selection. I've read a lot about evolution, and I've never heard the term "evolutionary pressure" applied to sexual selection. It's just a terminology difference though.
Who has talked about who "deserves" to reproduce other than Crossnerd?
It actually is semantically and definitionally.
and sexual selection is always a major part of the environment if not the most important part of the environment at all times for mammals
I find it more useful to think of the actions of individual organisms differently than the environment they live in.
Darwin himself differentiated between natural selection and sexual selection. I've read a lot about evolution, and I've never heard the term "evolutionary pressure" applied to sexual selection. It's just a terminology difference though.
This might help ya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...
Who has talked about who "deserves" to reproduce other than Crossnerd?
Where did she say anything about who "deserves" to reproduce? XN stated that incels aren't going to be in the gene pool long, which seems true by definition. But that's not a moral judgement, just an obvious consequence of not being able to have sex.
Life, uh, finds a way
I find it more useful to think of the actions of individual organisms differently than the environment they live in.
yes? but OTHER individuals ARE the environment especially for social species.
you aren't going to thrive as an individual of a social species if other individuals all hate you for example
This might help ya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...
Where did she say anything about who "deserves" to reproduce? XN stated that incels aren't going to be in the gene pool long, which seems true by definition. But that's not a moral judgement, just an obvious consequence of not being able to have sex.
Thanks for the link. It says "Evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure is exerted by factors that reduce or increase reproductive success in a portion of a population, driving natural selection [as opposed to sexual selection] "
If you truly can't tell that everything Crossnerd says about men contains moral judgment than your reading skills could use some work. Of course I know you are just trying to justify your prior bad faith statements, as always.
