Go forth and multiply

[Ice]

I had never heard of the movie before. I just read up on it on Wiki. It's already the greatest movie I've never seen!

So to the point. It perfectly portrays my dystopian nightmares. What's funny, is that Fox buried the movie, because of the movie's (accurate, methinks) portrayal of Fox in the dumbing down of America.

I'm so going to rent it on DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Viking]

Survival of the human race is what I was talking about of course, and you knew it

But we are still no longer animals? Hm...

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.

[Strike For The South]

Lemme guess: you are easily one of the brightest and highest educated in your family?


Edit: I thought that its religiosity made America more resitant to the phenomenon?

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

VIVA LA RAZA

[Adrian II]

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.

I don't 'do' sigs from other members. But if I did, this would be it.

[Vladimir]

Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.

Vladimir beat you all in post 22.

[HoreTore]

But we are still no longer animals? Hm...

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Vladimir beat you all

What's a 'Vladimir'?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oops, I missed your link the first time round. Didn't click on it.

[Viking]

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.

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.
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.

[Adrian II]

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 [..]

Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..

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.

the goal is to stay alive as well as passing genes on

Go tell that to homosexuals.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..

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.

Well, I don't know. You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.

[Beskar]

Go tell that to homosexuals.

Homosexual's could play a role in society, looking after children who lost their parents, like adopting/fostering.

[Adrian II]

You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.

That contradicts Viking's statement that survival motivates every individual. You don't survive if you weed yourself out, do you?

[Adrian II]

Homosexual's could play a role in society, looking after children who lost their parents, like adopting/fostering.

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That contradicts Viking's statement that survival motivates every individual. You don't survive if you weed yourself out, do you?

Group survival as motivation?

You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?

[Adrian II]

Group survival as motivation?

For smoking?

You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?

I do, I do. I just sent Richard an email and he is delighted.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..

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.

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.

Didn't one of the 3419 books you've read since 1976 mention sexual selection?

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.

[Adrian II]

One does not pass on traits that benefit survival, one passes on traits that make breeding more likely.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

Well, I don't know. You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.

Unfortunately, the weaker you are, the less self-destructive you are.... Generally.

[Adrian II]

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.

Here is a gallery of your superbreeders, Louis. I can see the ladies lining up for their genes already.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unfortunately, the weaker you are, the less self-destructive you are.... Generally.

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.

[Viking]

Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..

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.

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.

Go tell that to homosexuals.

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.

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.

No. I cannot really see the difference between the two, since the gene made the human in the first place..