Evolution - Is it down to Us?

WindSock

I'm just going to put this up here for a discussion. Is it ultimately up to us Women to choose what sort of people the future should have? If all men are bastards* is it not our fault for having children with the bastard ones, ensuring their genetic material gets passed on?

Should we not be a bit more picky with whom we choose to mate with?







*Not my general view, just using a well used line...

DarkJager

Without what us men have, nothing evolves. Women are not a-sexual.

Nuravictus

Fairly sure its 50/50 :P. Sex at birth is normally to do with the ammount of Stress the woman was under during the term. More Stress = Woman. Less Stress = Men :P.

WindSock

DarkJager wrote: »

Without what us men have, nothing evolves. Women are not a-sexual.

I don't mean that we don't mate at all. But perhaps we should not approach the violent criminal types and others with less desirable qualities to be that Fathers of our chidren.

WindSock

Oh dear, I think I am taken up wrongly. I am not looking to make the world a place that has just Women in it. Might be some peoples idea of heaven, but sounds like hell to me :P

brianthebard

Eugenics? Srsly?

MarkR

Takes two to tango. And it's not like the ladies get the ultimate decision about who becomes a couple. If that was the case there's be no single fat chicks.

Humans in general are ultimately responsible.

DarkJager

WindSock wrote: »

Oh dear, I think I am taken up wrongly. I am not looking to make the world a place that has just Women in it. Might be some peoples idea of heaven, but sounds like hell to me :P

Sounds like the 7th level of Hades to me

Women seem to be naturally attracted to the edgier specimens of the male species, if anything its a behavioural fault than anything dodgy with evolution.

Gary ITR

WindSock wrote: »

I'm just going to put this up here for a discussion. Is it ultimately up to us Women to choose what sort of people the future should have? If all men are bastards* is it not our fault for having children with the bastard ones, ensuring their genetic material gets passed on?

Should we not be a bit more picky with whom we choose to mate with?







*Not my general view, just using a well used line...

Thats very profound for TLL... But men turn out to be bastards cos their mothers molly coddle them and they expect all women to treat them the same way.

Galvasean

Richard Dawkins has a chapter in one of his books (forget precisely which one - fool that I am) titled 'Nice Guys Finish First'.
Highly recommend it.

WindSock

brianthebard wrote: »

Eugenics? Srsly?

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

Nuravictus

WindSock wrote: »

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.

MarkR wrote: »

Takes two to tango. And it's not like the ladies get the ultimate decision about who becomes a couple. If that was the case there's be no single fat chicks.

Humans in general are ultimately responsible.

Thats why there is paki men

A Primal Nut

You could argue that who men choose is just as important - however there are two important differences -

1) Men choose mostly on looks, so that just increases the health of the population. Women choose a lot more based on morals, bad boy attitude, job, success, intelligence etc. Of course this has changed a lot in the last century; since women are more independant they might be less likely to choose a man just because he has a secure job, but can now afford to choose based on looks, sense of humour, confidence, etc - although of course lots of girls still love going out with the "bad boys".

2) I believe women today have more choice than men, who tend to just get lucky and/or will sleep with a vaster amount of women, whereas women tend to be choosier.

But suppose if, for example, everyone with a violent criminal history was automatically wiped out of the gene pool (whether by force from the authorities or by the choice of women) then its logical people would become less violent. Of course its not just by genes that men pass on violence to their sons; obviously culture plays just as large a part, if not larger.

So, I would say who men choose has a greater impact on the health of future populations whereas who women choose impacts not only health but also the type of people that can thrive in the future. This has both positive and negative effects - "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac" which means power-seekers will continue to thrive, of course power-seekers can be good or bad.

I guess with the increase in IVF, artificial selection is also much more inspired by women and this could have an interesting impact too - although probably more based on looks. IVF may also allow genes to survive which would ordinarily die out.

WindSock

DarkJager wrote: »

Women seem to be naturally attracted to the edgier specimens of the male species, if anything its a behavioural fault than anything dodgy with evolution.

Female chimps are attracted to violent male chimps because they are seen as alpha and good protectors for their young, and female Gorillas often have their babies killed by a male gorilla, whom they will then go off to mate with. Just seeing if many women like the idea of their partners to be dominant and tough.

A Primal Nut

Nuravictus wrote: »

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.



Thats why there is paki men

No its not. Eugenics is artificial selection. Windsock is talking about natural selection completely different.

Artificial selection would be if you took out all disabled people and killed them. Natural selection would be women not choosing to mate with them because they're not attracted to them (obviously most people don't consciously think of the good of the genes when choosing a mate, natural selection is subconscious).

WindSock

Nuravictus wrote: »

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.

Everyone wants a healthy child. I am not saying to get rid of those who are born unhealthy though.

Thats why there is paki men

Careful now.

Slow Motion

I understand what you mean Ms Sock! And you make an interesting point, the problem is that a lot of women (mostly younger) do seem to go for bastards, I have seen it time and again, I have often wondered what it is they see in them, and have pondered acting like one on occasion to see what would happen, I couldn't however force myself to do it. I have known a few guys who actively acted like this and they always seemed to have a woman (or several) on the go! I don't think this is really ever going to change until women do to, is that likely to happen, probably not really I'm afraid!

Nuravictus

WindSock wrote: »

Female chimps are attracted to violent male chimps because they are seen as alpha and good protectors for their young, and female Gorillas often have their babies killed by a male gorilla, whom they will then go off to mate with. Just seeing if many women like the idea of their partners to be dominant and tough.

So if we apply this to humans, a man killed your kids you would want to have his babies ?. Were no Chimps & were no Monkies. Were more developed with higher social structure. Then old traits are different now. The judge of a man is a woman, the judge of a woman in life is material things :P. Dave Chapelle said it best.

"Men dont buy nice things because they like nice things they buy nice things because woman like nice things, if a man could **** a woman in a cardboard box he would never buy a house."

brianthebard

WindSock wrote: »

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

No natural selection is what happens right now. You are talking about breeding the bad out of society. Its a completely messed up idea. And survival of the fittest is an economics/social darwinism term and argument is that really where you want to go with this? I would report this thread but you are a mod of this forum so you are already aware of its existence. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The "self-direction of human evolution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

WindSock

Nuravictus wrote: »

So if we apply this to humans, a man killed your kids you would want to have his babies ?. Were no Chimps & were no Monkies. Were more developed with higher social structure. Then old traits are different now. The judge of a man is a woman, the judge of a woman in life is material things :P. Dave Chapelle said it best.

We were chimps 5 million years ago though. We are actually closer to chimps then they are to gorillas.

The interesting apes are bonobos, they have no violence in them like chimps have. Some say its because they do a lot of humping, but there are no dominant males, only dominant pairs.

"Men dont buy nice things because they like nice things they buy nice things because woman like nice things, if a man could **** a woman in a cardboard box he would never buy a house."

And people always say men invented great things by themselves

WindSock

brianthebard wrote: »

No natural selection is what happens right now. You are talking about breeding the bad out of society. Its a completely messed up idea. And survival of the fittest is an economics/social darwinism term and argument is that really where you want to go with this? I would report this thread but you are a mod of this forum so you are already aware of its existence. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The "self-direction of human evolution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Right, what is your problem with the topic exactly? Have I used some terms incorrectly or is it completly inhumane to have this discussion? If you have a problem then open up a thread in feedback and don't take it off topic. I don't want an argument for arguments sake, I am interested to see what others think.

Slow Motion

WTF! Are people reading differend words to me?

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

We were chimps 5 million years ago though.

No were weren't. Jeebus.

Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Hyoooooooge difference.

brianthebard is bringing up some excellent points btw, he's debating, I don't think advising him to take his disagreement with your argument to Feedback will do much for the nature of debate.

What you are proposing is not evolution or natural selection, it is discussing the socio-ecological factors that women should bear in mind when deciding on a mate.

WindSock

Thats the discussion I want. I mean if he has a problem with me starting this thread then discuss it in feedback, not here.

LolaDub

I think you've made an assumption in your idea-that women can tell if they're with losers or not. I would argue that very few people go with someone knowing they are bad people and will never change. People have hope for others to become good people or can be blind to their faults.

I would also are not what makes people "bast*rds" as it were, i think different factors in life make people bad or less good as it were.

People make bad choices, until they stop doing so this is never going to be a possibilty.

brianthebard

WindSock wrote: »

Right, what is your problem with the topic exactly? Have I used some terms incorrectly or is it completly inhumane to have this discussion? If you have a problem then open up a thread in feedback and don't take it off topic. I don't want an argument for arguments sake, I am interested to see what others think.

I have many problems with the topic.
You are advocating eugenics.
It is completely inhuman to consider such things.
You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.
You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

I'll come back if I think of more.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

Thats the discussion I want. I mean if he has a problem with me starting this thread then discuss it in feedback, not here.

Ah, ok. Well if it's socio-ecological issues you want to discuss it's probably better to leave the chimps out of it - comparing human reproductive patterns to those of our close living relatives, the great apes - this is dangerous and easily misconstrued. It's true that certain members of the monkey and ape family engage in highly complex societies, but we can't draw parallels between them and us. Humans and apes, while close genetically, are worlds apart sociologically.

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.

Only if you choose to see it that way. We do, effectively breed. We make conscious decisions when choosing our mates. We take responsibility for it. I think it's perhaps a little naive to think that a person doesn't consider the genetic potential of their mate when deciding to procreate.

brianthebard wrote:

You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses - you can discuss the suitability of men (and women for that matter) in terms of breeding potential without having to assume that bad boys = criminals.

A Primal Nut

brianthebard wrote: »

I have many problems with the topic.
You are advocating eugenics.
It is completely inhuman to consider such things.
You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.
You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

I'll come back if I think of more.

Thats the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Nobody is advocating anything - windsock was simply inquiring if who women choose to mate with has a large impact on evolution and the future of the species. She didn't say they should choose based on that logic and besides its not going to happen. Its very unlikely Windsock is going to choose to be with a mate for the better of the species even if it makes her unhappy.

You may think that breeding doesn't occur among humans but the fact is it does - subconciously, people just choose mates for "survival of the fittest" purposes.

I believe criminal activity is part genetic, part cultural. Someone born to genetically violent parents who is adopted by parents in a peaceful home is still slightly more likely to be violent than the average person. Someone born to genetically calm parents who is adopted by a violent family is slightly more likely to be violent than the average person. Someone who is born genetically violent and brought up by those same parents has an even greater chance. This comes up in loads of court cases involving violence - where someone claims they are violent because of what happened when they were younger.

Of course there are loads of other factors for violence too - desperation, poverty, etc.

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses

I did say violent criminals in my OP. Was I was wrong to say that.
I was just coming from the perspective there of why are we attracted to those that are violent.

Slow Motion

g'em wrote: »

Only if you choose to see it that way. We do, effectively breed. We make conscious decisions when choosing our mates. We take responsibility for it. I think it's perhaps a little naive to think that a person doesn't consider the genetic potential of their mate when deciding to procreate.


Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses - you can discuss the suitability of men (and women for that matter) in terms of breeding potential without having to assume that bad boys = criminals.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Thats the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Nobody is advocating anything - windsock was simply inquiring if who women choose to mate with has a large impact on evolution and the future of the species. She didn't say they should choose based on that logic and besides its not going to happen. Its very unlikely Windsock is going to choose to be with a mate for the better of the species even if it makes her unhappy.

You may think that breeding doesn't occur among humans but the fact is it does - subconciously, people just choose mates for "survival of the fittest" purposes.

This is what I understood from windsocks post! And I think it is quite inflamatory to refer to it as eugenics and the connotations the term implies!