Evolution and Natural Selection

exit_sandman · 2015-01-14T20:10:44+00:00

Great idea! Now that physical prowess isn't that much in demand anymore and muscles and height stopped serving any real purpose, women as a whole should get over themselves and start being genuinely attracted to short and skinny nerds since these are better suited for life in a modern society anyway. Full hair is also overvalued, and symmetrical faces, and other indicators of bodily health, since a great healthcare system can take care of those who aren't as fit as their more fortunate compatriots. Come on girls! Wouldn't the average-earning, non-celebrity version of Steve Buscemi or Danny DeVito be a real catch?!

(crickets...)

[deleted] · 2015-01-14T19:38:32+00:00

why is it that you think the same traits that were selected in our prehistoric times (men = strength & provider and women = chastity & child caregiver) would still be selected now?

Why are you asking the question? Our attraction switches are still mostly lizard brain behaviors and that's not going to change in just a couple of generations. Sure, maybe in a thousand years people will have no body hair whatsoever, continuing the trend, but that has no bearing on the here & now.

Scutter6otch · 2015-01-14T21:04:01+00:00

So in your understanding of evolution, weve rapidly evolved out of everything from the ancestral evolutionary environment since the sexual revolution about 50 years ago?

nicethingyoucanthave · 2015-01-14T20:02:30+00:00

From my understanding evolution has no direction or purpose.

correct.

It does not act on individuals but populations.

Evolution does not "act on" individuals, no. But individuals do have instincts and these are naturally evolved. Many of our human instincts manifest themselves as feelings. Some of the things that I, as an individual feel, are a result of the action of evolution.

I like boobs. I like boobs not (entirely) because my culture has told me that boobs are great, but rather because among my ancestors, some had a preference for boobs, and some didn't. Those who just happened to have that preference left more and healthier offspring that those who didn't.

it seems Red Pill has a different perspective.

I doubt that very seriously.

namae_nanka · 2015-01-14T19:30:23+00:00

what you think evolution is

That which survives, survives.

Screw Darwin, Galton uber alles. Though he made a mistake when he thought of eugenics for improving the race. If you're an elite, it's quite stupid of you to bring up contenders to your progeny, it's better if you allow the lower classes to harangue the competitors from the middle class and in the name of equality educate them into mediocrity. More slaves to work with, comrade!

The assortative mating in progress was pointed out in Bell Curve and expect the differences to grow sharper in the next decades.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/class-caste-and-genes/

During our prehistoric times, this made sense...men were hunters because you needed that strength and build, while women were gatherers because it also allowed them to take care of their children...but nowadays, jobs are less stratified in terms of required 'physical strength.'

So what?

And astonishingly, as late as 1964, the labor force participation rate for Swedish women remained steady at 30 percent, lower even than the American figure for that last baby-booming year. Only 25,000, or a mere three percent, of Swedish preschool children were in public day-care centers. As two feminist analysts would later admit, the “increasing attention extended to working women [in Sweden] did not result from an overwhelming constituency demand from women themselves.”[46]

The pressure came instead from governmental functionaries and familiar intellectual elites. Regarding the former, the Labor Market board began an advertising campaign in 1965 to lure mothers at home into employment. Two years later, the Board’s director general declared that women “must be regarded as every bit as valuable a part of the labor market as men.” A change in Swedish home traditions to encourage working mothers was “imperative.”

http://profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2104.htm

That's the problem with allowing women in these places, they'll never be content unless they've made more company for their misery.

edit: not that Darwin wouldn't have made for good company,

–poor slave. –you will be worse than a negro — And then horrid poverty, (without one’s wife was better than an angel & had money) — Never mind my boy — Cheer up — One cannot live this solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless & cold, & childless staring one in ones face, already beginning to wrinkle. — Never mind, trust to chance –keep a sharp look out — There is many a happy slave –

http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-and-cons-of-marriage/

[deleted] · 2015-01-14T21:24:44+00:00

my understanding of evolution

[deleted] · 2015-01-14T21:45:06+00:00

From my understanding evolution has no direction or purpose.

You are thinking of natural selection. TRP is based on sexual selection. It is possible for natural selection and sexual sexual selection to be antagonistic.

Petticoat_Rule · 2015-01-14T21:52:31+00:00

I have an evolution question and I'm too lazy to start a new discussion for it.

From what I see, traditional western women would like to have more babies than their husbands do. Husbands are usually the ones saying, 'no more kids' and limiting the children to two.

I do understand economic restraints etc. But the urge for western men to put more children out into the world and 'spread the seed' doesn't seem to be there, even when they could easily afford more kids.

Please don't respond with cries of divorce-rape or 'down with feminists'. I see this scenario all the time with happy couples. Men seem happy with two children and no more than that.

Arinly · 2015-01-14T19:11:16+00:00

Does 10,000 years of a new environment outweigh or negate the previous 200,000?

cock_pussy_up · 2015-01-14T22:40:07+00:00

The changes you're talking about are only 30, 40, 50 years old. That is only 2 or 3 generations at most.

Meanwhile there were 6 or 7 million years of pre-Homo sapiens hominids hunter gatherers

190,000 years of Homo sapien hunter gatherers

10,000 years of most people being farmers

Meanwhile reliable paternity testing only became available in the 1980s. As for most jobs not requiring physical strength, in North America that's a legacy of the loss of traditional blue collar industrial jobs in the 1970s.

In other words, these are recent changes, so you can't expect massive evolutionary changes in such as short period of time.

GreatZiggurat · 2015-01-15T04:43:56+00:00

Furthermore, if you hold the belief that Red Pill is founded on evolutionary principles, why is it that you think the same traits that were selected in our prehistoric times (men = strength & provider and women = chastity & child caregiver) would still be selected now?

Prehistoric times? I would argue that a gender-based division of labor (which is one of the key sources of traditional gender roles, in my estimation) provided enormous utility in the First World as recently as last (20th) century, and continues to provide enormous utility in the Third World as of today (2015).

Even today, very few First World women are interested in being construction workers, mechanics, garbage men, etc even as these occupations increasingly require less and less physical strength as a result of mechanization. The gendered division of labor remains in place.

The idea that these traditional roles/traits are obsolete is only tenable if you're a First World upper-middle class Millennial who has very little direct experience with the other 95% of humanity, which is a demographic that I suspect a lot of Blue Pillers fall into.

During our prehistoric times, chastity was paramount of importance because women couldn't control when/who they had children with. In addition, chastity ensured that the children you had with her, were yours (or so you hoped). But now with technology, we can determine paternity during pregnancy and women can use birth control to family plan.

Yet, according to The Atlantic, presently:

In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/

And in France, it is illegal to use a DNA test to determine paternity. The legal doctrine there holds that the child's interest in having someone to financially provide for it trumps the man's interest in not raising a child that is not biologically his.

What do you think is being selected for? Keep in mind, survival of the fittest is actually fitness, which is reproductive fitness.

I'm not exactly certain what you mean by this, but I think social dominance is an immensely important part of "what is being selected for" in human mating.

pyr666 · 2015-01-15T16:42:50+00:00

the truth is that using evolution to try and explain differences in gender and race, or social phenomenon has been tried before. it consistently produces scientifically unsound and usually bigoted garbage.

[deleted] · 2015-01-19T11:00:56+00:00

During our prehistoric times, chastity was paramount of importance because women couldn't control when/who they had children with. In addition, chastity ensured that the children you had with her, were yours (or so you hoped).

I don't think this mattered. Before the invention of the nuclear family, there was a whole tribe to assist every woman in raising their kids. The biological father did not necessarily have to care about his biological kids.

Marxist theory says, I think correctly, that jealousy, possessiveness, the female chastity bullshit was invented in historic, not prehistoric times, when private property was invented and inheritance became important. In prehistoric times you would just inherit an axe like Gimli so the biological father is not so important.

l_____o_____l · 2015-01-14T22:48:12+00:00

If our desires are based on hardwired vestigal evolutionary factors, why has the conception of beauty changed so much over the last 2000 years?

Title	Evolution and Natural Selection
Author	pandorarosie
Upvotes	5
Comments	83
Date	January 14, 2015 7:07 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2sfger/evolution_and_natural_selection/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/evolution-and-natural-selection.283802 https://theredarchive.com/post/283802

Comments