Are women doing sexual selection well?
Do they choose the best and brightest to mate with?
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Are women doing sexual selection well?
Do they choose the best and brightest to mate with?
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
One time I went to a strip club and got to suck on the breasts of a stripper who looked just like pic rel. Thank you for reminding me of that event in my life OP. 🙂
the fact that so many on this website fail to encoominate pussy on the regular suggests that they are indeed
Absolutely, society is getting more intelligent over time so they're doing a great job
then why is iq dropping?
How? The average IQ is always 100, that's a fundamental assumption of IQ.
Don't be a disingenuous moron.
It isn’t always 100, the tests are just renormed.
come on dude
that reversed a while ago actually. it's not really because of 'sexual selection' though it's mostly just that more educated people want less children (and more women are focusing on their education and career in their fertile years), and dumber people are not just able to but are incentivized by social welfare to have more
>Absolutely, society is getting more intelligent
Nah, it just looks like that because people got more used to taking tests over the 20th century. The real IQ in the West stopped growing in the 1920s-1930s, I believe. All because in an industrial/post-industrial society intelligent people tend to spend their most fertile years studying and wageslaving instead of raising large families.
Single mother hood is at an all time high. I would say no
system functioning as intended, literally every major religion warned you
No. "Liberated" women end up dating scumbags and race-mixing in dysgenic relationships.
nope
this
pic strongly related
If Denisovans and Neanderthals were so great, why'd they get cucked so hard by homosexual Sapiens?
same reason you being cucked by trannies and jamals - women
>you being cucked by trannies and jamals
projecting
have sex
ok lets have sex
nobody outside of muttland is getting cucked by trannies and jamals
well, everyone who's is getting cucked by trannies and jamals practically is a muttland so you're right
They had smooth brains though. Humans have folds which allow for more surface area
>Tigers had smooth brains though. cats have folds which allow for more surface area
Honestly. I haven't spent that much energy seeking companionship throughout my adult life. Where can you find one nowadays?
>Do they choose the best and brightest to mate with?
They are choosing traits that were the most beneficial hundreds of thousands of years ago. Biology just hasn't caught up with the conditions of a modern society yet. With that said there is a lot of overlap. Intelligence, health, sociability were both valued back then and now, though maybe with different weights.
The real problem isn't which men women reproduce with, it's that given the option, many women choose to have no children at all. This leads to demographic implosion in the long run, caused by population decline. This is currently happening in every wealthy nation that has strong feminist culture. The upshot is that it's a self-correcting problem and it's not the doom of humanity or even civilization. It's just going to result in short term difficulties of one kind or another. These "difficulties" could potentially include severe hardship and even violence, so I sincerely hope I'm not alive when this particular turd hits the fan.
I always thought women loved the idea of having babies and nurturing them, turns out they'd rather just take birth control pills and have cats or dogs or some other little fur baby instead
Many women still do want to have babies and raise families, it's just a growing segment of the female population does not. And feminist culture ensures that segment will only get larger with time, not smaller, hence the inevitability of this problem. There's so many different ways it could still shake out, it's just that most of them are bad. Bad for women in particular, but there's plenty of bad outcomes for people in general.
dunno mate, it's really starting to seem like most humans would rather not have kids if given the choice, the only reason people had so many kids before was because sex feels good and there was more of a lack of access to contraceptives
maybe some type of baby nurturing instinct kicks in after a kid is already born, but not so much prior to that
I disagree. Most people do want kids. They just want to get rid of the harder parts of the process.
If this was true then people would be flocking to adopt children instead of pets. Mothers could avoid the pain and risks of childbirth. People just don't want to deal with having kids.
People want kids, but kids nowadays are a luxury that don't pay off until 20 years or more in.
In the past making babies like rabbits made economic sense. They would be productive between 4-14 years in and by the old age they would take care of you.
Nowadays it takes about 20 before they become economically productive. They are a luxury and while people want luxuries, they can't afford many of them.
What makes you say people still want kids, if it was always just a matter of investment returns that are no longer there? I see tonnes of people saying they outright hate kids and would never want them regardless. That's a pretty normal mindset in the West.
The west is not a majority of people on this planet. The number of people willing to have lots of kids vastly outnumbers childless westerners. And when the west starts to really feel the pain of population decline, where are they going to get immigrants from to prop up their welfare sates and heedless economic growth? From the only nations that still have growing populations. These people will enter the west and supplant the feminist, anti-child culture with their own culture.
From there it's just a question of whether feminism can infect this new culture as it did the previous one, or if it dies off. Not to be too disparaging of the immigrant population, but I don't believe they are intellectually sophisticated enough to defeat feminism. It will undermine them the same way it undermined the west, and just like the west, by the time they realize the problem it will either be too late or too difficult to institute proper societal reform, so they'll opt for the easy solution: more immigrants.
the only places where people have lots of kids are places where contraceptives are not plentiful/affordable and/or there are no child labour laws so children can start contributing to the family's finances relatively early on
There is a direct negative correlation between HDI and fertility rate. The wealthier your country the worse its fertility is. However wealth alone doesn't cause this. What causes it is social engineering. For the west the poison pill was feminism. For china, the disastrous one child policy. Both have caused generational harm to their respective societies. China's demographic decline is actually worse than the west's. But unlike the west, China is ruled by a non-liberal government that cares nothing about taking away individual civil liberties, so they have all the necessary powers to fix their population issues.
I don't think the west can grapple with feminism in the same way. The problem is that feminism is simply too compatible with liberalism. That's how it was able to become so dominant despite initially being rejected strongly by western cultures. In the end, the compatibility of feminism and liberalism caused it to be widely accepted. You can't really reject feminism now without also rejecting core liberal principles. Since the west refuses to do this, it falls to outside factors to force change. China can at least remediate its problems from within.
nothing will stop feminism short of a complete societal collapse which teaches women the hard way about the ways in which they need to rely on men
The fertility related part of feminism is more a display to the difficulty of having kids while keeping a high living standard. The core of the problem is the parents become more stressed, less wealthy and the mother less healthy/attractive the more kids they have.
China cant fix their shit either, two child and now three child policies are made and official media literally guilt tripping people to have kids using both commie and tradition narrative but no one in the developed cities is buying it.
I think we're far past the population size our current society should support. Might be a good thing to chill out with our population anyway.
So, we go back to the times when the people outside cities breed while cities had negative demographics, with more deaths and natural births, and could only sustain their population thanks to the constant influx of farmers migrants attempting to make it big in the town.
Maybe in developing countries that still works, in developed countries the countryside usually doesn't have the population to even sustain itself due to agricultural consolidation/mechanization, deindustrialization etc.
>it's really starting to seem like most humans would rather not have kids if given the choice,
Choice being the operative word, here. I don't believe that the society that emerges from the population crisis will give people a choice. Pretty much the only way I see this problem being solved is if prior to the collapse enough leaps are made in technological progress to enable artificial wombs to carry children without any burden to the parents. But you'd also need a concurrent overhaul of society to no longer be based around the family unit. There's too many ifs and undeveloped technologies and pretty farfetched hopes wrapped up in this outcome for it to be anything but a fantasy at this point.
More likely we're going to see a series of cyclical "soft resets" where the neoliberal order keeps itself going with immigration. The immigrants will be increasingly divergent from the neoliberal feminist order so there will be periodic reactionary shifts away from feminism, but it will continually reassert itself for as long as neoliberalism remains the dominant political ideology.
Eventually either a major political revolution happens that causes most nations to abandon liberalism and feminism altogether, or else we get the "big one", the "hard reset". I hope I'm dead before hard reset, in all likelihood it will take several generations of soft resetting to reach it. The other existential issues of the world will exacerbate the problems caused by the constant tug-o-war between reactionary immigrants and neoliberal feminists which will further increase the chances of the next reset being the big one.
Women do have a maternal instinct, hence why empathy can come more naturally to them.
>The upshot is that it's a self-correcting problem and it's not the doom of humanity or even civilization.
yepp, when the world is 60% sub saharan african, 20% indian and 20% chink, it's still not the end of the world, haha 🙂
Sexual selection has nothing to do with civilisational morality.
Or we're in a revamped Fisherian runaway for pickiness and we'll go extinct.
Fertility rates are declining the world over.
>Or we're in a revamped Fisherian runaway for pickiness and we'll go extinct.
Nah. I find these kind of doomsaying predicts as ridiculous as the utopian visions of the future where automation and artificial wombs will solve everything. The most likely outcome is the one that requires the least dramatic changes or actions by the people in power, which mainly serves to prolong the status quo until it can no longer be maintained.
>Fertility rates are declining the world over.
No, just in places with high HDI. Fertility is fine in large swathes of Africa and Asia, which happens to be where most of the population of Earth lives. The west and East Asia are dragging down the global average fertility rate, but it's not a global issue, it's a cultural issue.
You can easily check that even Niger is falling from its 7.7 high.
The year is 2070 and a pregnant woman goes to a doctor to get an abortion.
"Doctor" She says, "This fetus inside me is using my body without my consent. It may be a human being, maybe even a person, but either way it's using my body against my will and I want it out."
"Okay" says the doctor, "It's your body, your choice, I will remove the fetus for you." So the woman goes into surgery and the fetus is removed from her body.
A while later the woman is ready to check out of the hospital. As she is signing out the doctors hands her a futuristic looking suitcase sized box. "What's this?" she asks.
"This is an artifical womb containg your child, the fetus we removed from your body. Congratulations, it's a girl."
"Oh frick, Doctor you don't understand, I didn't come here to solve the problem of pregnancy, I came here to solve the problem that comes afterwards, all that stuff I said earlier was just the convenient legal post-rationalization I was using to enable you to kill the thing for me."
looks like some post stolen from some amerimutt boomer's facebook page
By 2074 less than 30% of pregnancies will be natural.
Not all of them. Too many seem to be focusing on who's superficially beautiful and who'd be good for a date at a high end restaurant. Nobody thinks about who'd be good to live and raise a family with.
Since a significant part of the population is likely to cease being able to work fue automation, we may face a future were people are so bored that there only real project is rasing large families again while getting gifts from the state.
Humans are one of the few mammal species who do not instinctively know how to care for their offspring. Partly because it's a lot more complicated for us, what with the time they take to grow, but mostly because we are social animals that learn child care from our elders instead of having instinctive reactions. The former has the advantage of more flexible behavior that can quickly adapt to new situations while the latter does, of course, not require any parent or social group and no learning effort, which saves the animal time and resources.
Most of infant care is learned, but interestingly there are a few relevant instincts, like how parents are automatically upset by the baby's cry. Or how humans automatically think "aww" when they see something with babyish features.
Yes, that's why there are more and more incels. They are rightfully getting left behind.
Are MEN doing sexual selection well?
Do they choose the best and brightest to mate with?
Women do their part they mate with the best men. The problem is that men will mate with anyone. It's men who aren't choosing properly.
males are designed to impregnate as many females as possible
How does a graph restricted to only the United States in any way support the idea of a global decline in fertility?
Don't reply to the iphone schizo.
Nature doesn’t care who is the strongest, smartest, fastest, or prettiest
Survival goes to the animals that adapt the best
the best orgasm i ever had was with an art hoe in missionary right after i woke up who didnt move her body an inch during. I literally started drooling on her and she got mad
Where did you find her?
No because things like birth control frick with the selection mechanisms
Well you're still a virgin so the evidence is pointing towards, yes.