Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Printable View
Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The thing about babies is that they don't speak English and can't eat normal food like pizza and french fries and you have to change their diapers twice a week. But once you get past that phase, they can be pretty cool because you can put them to work, like grinding your WOW character for you.
But we are still no longer animals? Hm...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh well, I shan't digress with semantics. I shall not breed just yet either; despite knowing that tomorrow might be my last day as a psychopath on the run from a failing psychiatry decide to push me into the metro tracks right before the train. The solution to this overwhelming danger, is obviously to donate to a sperm bank; knowing that my genome is safe, and that I won't have to go through the process of bringing up any children myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yea, I read at like a 5th grade level.
Louis dont you in ten years time everyone will be Mexican and will all be speaking spainish. All becuase whites don't have babies
:mexico: VIVA LA RAZA :mexico:
I don't 'do' sigs from other members. But if I did, this would be it. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
:inquisitive: Vladimir beat you all in post 22.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
No, we are not. Animals aren't bright enough to care about anything other than survival and reproduction. Humans, on the other hand, are bright enough to enjoy life as it is, without needing to worry about petty things like reproduction, it's both irrelevant and unnecessary for us now, unless that is what we want to make our lives more fulfilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
What's a 'Vladimir'? ~:confused:Quote:
Vladimir beat you all
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You might not think of it, but naturally the millions of years of evolution that eventually lead to humanity has made it obsessed by reproduction and survival. What makes a human feel fulfilled is always linked to survival in one way or another; it be a good meal, a nice car or an attractive person of the opposite gender; the goal is to stay alive as well as passing genes on. Whether the latter is achieved or not is irrelevant; it's just what the drive and the instincts tend to end up with no matter what the personal motivation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I doubt having offspring is too much in the mind of animals in the mating season; it's not really like falling in love with another person makes your head go "kids kids kids", either.
Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Nah, humans clearly have a self-destructive streak that is in no way linked to survival. The balance is different in each individual, but it's there.
Go tell that to homosexuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
EDIT
By the way, haven't you heard of the theory that genes really use humans to pass themselves on, not the other way around? It's all the rage since 1976 and the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Well, I don't know. You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Homosexual's could play a role in society, looking after children who lost their parents, like adopting/fostering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
That contradicts Viking's statement that survival motivates every individual. You don't survive if you weed yourself out, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Some already do. But what counts is that apparently they don't give a hoot about their genes, and I strongly suspect that the same applies to all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I think it is Ants, which have a similar system. The instinct to protect the species is greater then the instinct to protect themselves. Many people would save the lives of children, even if they are not their own, over themselves. It is a social evolutionary trait, bringing survival to the species. Homosexuals can still have a role in this regard.
Group survival as motivation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?
For smoking? :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I do, I do. I just sent Richard an email and he is delighted.Quote:
You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?
Didn't one of the 3419 books you've read since 1976 mention sexual selection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Jared Diamond explains the phenomenon succinctly in his 'The Third Chimpansee' of 1992, in chapter eleven. One does not pass on traits that benefit survival, one passes on traits that make breeding more likely.
This is why peacocks have those clumsy, yet fantastically attractive tails. It may not be handy when dealing with a tiger with a taste for Bengali Fried Peacock, but it sure catches the eye of the females. This is why humans have similar destructive traits.
Smoking, recklessness, alcohol and drugs show that your genes are so superior, that you can afford to waste, and still function.
Alcohol also has the added benefit of reducing sexual inhibition, thus increasing the chance of pregnancy, which in turn passes on the genetic combination that likes alcohol.
These phenomena are well-recorded throughout the animal world. (Including the use of drugs). I shared the genetic advantages and the widespread occurance of homosexuality throughout the natural world in another thread.
Also, I remember you once praising Stephen Jay Gould's infinitely more refined mind over that of Dawkins? Or was that reserved for Dawkins the atheist activist, but not aimed at Dawkins the evolutionary theorist?
Anyway, breeding stupidity is not limited to the human world. Evolution does not 'better' a species, it increases the number of the individuals in a species, to breaking point. Wretched, hungry, miserable creatures, that is what the earth is inhabited with.
The reckless, stupid, beer guzzling and risk-taking trash is evolutionary programmed to outbreed the others, and will continue to do so as long as it doesn't tilt a breaking point for his group. It is the same for many species.
I didn't have to wait for Jared Diamond. One of the 5600 books I read since the age of 15 was Darwin's The Descent of Man, where the peacock's tail occurs already. Diamond merely copied it and extended it to man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Alas, science progresses:
The elaborate train of male Indian peafowl, Pavo cristatus, is thought to have evolved in response to female mate choice and may be an indicator of good genes. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of the male train in mate choice using male- and female-centred observations in a feral population of Indian peafowl in Japan over 7 years. We found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains (i.e. trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length), similar to other studies of galliforms showing that females disregard male plumage. Combined with previous results, our findings indicate that the peacock's train (1) is not the universal target of female choice, (2) shows small variance among males across populations and (3) based on current physiological knowledge, does not appear to reliably reflect the male condition. We also found that some behavioural characteristics of peacocks during displays were largely affected by female behaviours and were spuriously correlated with male mating success. Although the male train and its direct display towards females seem necessary for successful reproduction, we conclude that peahens in this population are likely to exercise active choice based on cues other than the peacock's train.
Source
P.S. And by the way, peacocks' tails are genetically encoded physical features, smoking and drinking are behaviours and they are not genetically encoded.
P.P.S. Gould and Dawkins differed on the issue of evolutionary scales. Dawkins (almost) uniquely emphasises the genetic level and is a gradualist, Gould recognized at least six levels from genes to clades (species groups comprising all descendants of a single ancestor) and argued that evolution progresses by leaps and bounds.. He also opposed the gradualist assumption that evolution results in smarter, more complex individuals. It can just as well work the other way and result in simplification and 'dumbing-down'. This might - tentatively - support your view about a possible 'degradation' of the human race.
Unfortunately, the weaker you are, the less self-destructive you are.... Generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Here is a gallery of your superbreeders, Louis. I can see the ladies lining up for their genes already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7148/drunkyu.jpghttps://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4209/drunk2.jpghttps://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6845/drunk3.jpg
Not really unfortunate, because those men are less likely to get themselves or their mates killed. There's more than one way to skin a cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It's true that many things are not related to survival or reproduction; but the point I was making is that things related to survival and reproduction consumes a lot of the time once you check the causes of the behaviour, the genetic roots. Drugs have a rewarding effect, that's why they are done; chemicals going straight to the brain. Being social also provides chemicals; because it is favourable for reproduction if done "right". Something that today is not favourable for reproduction, may not actually lead to any noticeable evolution because, for instance, the drive for a higher education could simply be one way a very basic drive is put at display; and that it thus will not weed itself out no matter how the birth rates go, since it is present in the entire populace anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The goal as in "whatever makes those genes stay on the Earth for the next X generations". If it is genetical, it is favoured over something, somewhere, somehow.Quote:
Go tell that to homosexuals.
No. I cannot really see the difference between the two, since the gene made the human in the first place..Quote:
EDIT
By the way, haven't you heard of the theory that genes really use humans to pass themselves on, not the other way around? It's all the rage since 1976 and the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.