~ archived since 2018 ~

modern dating through the lens of Darwinism

April 17, 2022
2 upvotes

So I had an idea cross my mind today that I wanted to share.

There have essentially been two problems with modern civilization from the standpoint of survival of our species.

  1. Enforced monogamy over the centuries and dependence of women on men for resources has allowed for people with less than desirable genes to procreate.

  2. Modern society has allowed for people to become soft and yet still survive and procreate. The safety and medical advances of our society has extended life and saved people that may otherwise never have had a chance in hunter-gatherer days. This in turn has caused a population explosion to the point that it threatens our planet and the resources out society needs to survive.

Think about what seems to be happening over the last 10 to 20 years. Women seem to be much more selective than they ever have been before in terms of picking a mate. Now that women no longer require a man to provide food and shelter they can be more selective. A lot of it is based on superficial physical characteristics. However the attractiveness and physical fitness of a potential mate generally means they are healthier and will have stronger offspring. I wonder if this will strengthen our gene pool over sufficient generations?

You'll also notice that women seem to be less concerned with having children. In fact many men are not as interested in having children and men in general seem to be having a harder time finding partners. This is being shown in the data that birth rates are dropping. I consider this good news because there are too many people on this planet.

So given the fact that we may have a strengthening of the gene pool and a downward pressure on population growth it seems to me we may be strengthening the human species as a whole and its ability to survive.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

Removed. Please properly format your CMV post and write the view that you wish to be challenged in the title of your post.

[–]AConcernedParent 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no. Stupid people still fuck like rabbits, urban professionals not so much.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]TryLambdaRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Darwin's theory is outdated and incorrect.... he married his cousin remember that..so he was not practicing what he preached...

1 - enforced monogamy no longer exists in modern western world, unless you go to a traditional cultured country....modern western countries are more skewed to providing all the advantages to women when a divorce occurs... hence why divorce is so prevalent

2 -not sure what your point is in that one, yep technology helped, but it also hindered in reproduction, i.e. OLD social media, was the best form of birth control, women's expectations are so so high now that 95% women are fighting over the top 1% to 10% that they will never get to settle down with, and then consider the remaining men invisible. So they will become lonely cat ladies when the wall hits them.

If the 1% male is able to support a harem of 1 milion women... this is not healthy for the gene pool, as you get a bottleneck in genes and the population would get wiped out in a generation due to a so called pandemic etc

Modern women are less concerned with having kids is due to a number of things, 1st is feminist lies that have been fed to them that having a career is more worthwhile than children... most older women have admitted to regret following this path.... 2n is the cost to raise children is enormous and current cost of living in most western countries does not support healthy family structures as overall wages have been suppressed for over 50yrs now by greedy capitalists, due to women entering the workforce.. remember back in the 50s/60s a regular man with just one job was paid sufficiently to feed a family of four... that doesn't exist now.. hence why people are opting not to have children.

Don't agree with your last statement as well, a strong gene pool is where there is a huge variety of gene types, and a huge population diversity, to be able to adapt to changes in environment.. Its got nothing to do with being a 7 foot giant with muscles and having a billion dollars in the bank account...

[–]The_Meep_Lord 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The issue with your argument is that you are assuming evolution has an agenda and cherry picking what is “natural” and not.

“Survival of the fittest” is not the goal, it is an explanation of what happens as a result of evolutions “goal.” Evolution is completely random, raw chaos.

The best genes do not survive, the luckiest do. Which, in our universe of scarcity frequently means the genes that get more and overpower others have better odds of winning. But that is only when you look at the entire picture over a millennium.

During that millennium you will find less fit creatures succeeding while the most fit fail all the time.

In matter of fact, many if species die out because the “wrong” creatures win the mating game. The idea that women are goddesses who know who have the best genes is just ludicrous.

In matter of fact, people here will argue women’s standards can very well lead them to picking very unfit men to procreate with.

Usually with some form of the good old “that is why criminal, too dumb to handle McDonald Chad has six baby mommas” joke.

Many of whom are not fit at all, in any capacity. Missing teeth, fat, the works.

The only thing women’s sexual selection criteria will select for is for men to be worthless peacocks. Men will have zero incentive to do anything but peacock in the mating game, so that is all they will do.

Women will find less and less “real men” and more and more fuckboys.

Also, there are not too many people on the planet. There are not enough people being born in rich countries and too many being born in poor countries.

That is the real problem.

[–]caption291 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If every guy is a 6'3 mega chad, and a virus shows up that kills 6'3 mega chads...humanity is over.

You need a decent amount of diversity, and women basically selecting the same kinds of men will lead to the specie being weaker in the grand scheme of things even if they are all 6'3 mega chads.

Now that women no longer require a man to provide food and shelter they can be more selective.

I think you accidentally point out a massive problem. Women don't have to select based on men's ability to actually do stuff anymore so what they will select for isn't necessarily going to strengthen the specie.

I'll give you a common example : height.

Height is generally bad, it increases how much food you need, reduces your life expectancy and increases your capacity for violence. Those are the relevant things in this day and age/the future and none of them are good imo.(I know some people think height = intelligence, but I don't think it's causal)

They will also select for muscle mass that isn't healthy, levels of aggression that aren't good for society and so on.

You'll also notice that women seem to be less concerned with having children.

We're talking about biology not blue pill weekly. Having sex = wanting children.

Anyways, None of this really matters because we are talking about pretty long timeframes...the odds that we don't wipe ourselves out with AI or figure out how to genetically modify ourselves(this includes potential uses of eugenics) or men put their foot down and treat women the same way women treat them are pretty much 0.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter