~ archived since 2018 ~

modern dating through the lens of Darwinism

April 17, 2022
3 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 have we somehow passed through a paradigm that is increasing the likelihood and fitness of our species 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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.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 (1 child) | Copy Link

Removed. No "critique my theory" posts. You need to either ask a neutral question, or to create a CMV post if you want to express your views.

[–]Hoopy223No Pill 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So the unemployed guy who lives on his brothers couch and has three baby mamas chasing after him for unpaid child support is evolutionarily advantageous? And the guy who is gainfully employed, responsible, etc and striking out on Tinder is evolutionarily disadvantageous?

Honestly, I think you are right. Its Idiocracy.

[–]Fit-Faithlessness149[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well Darwinism only cares about the ability of a gene line being propagated. Your ability to earn money or be a nice guy or have a great personality has nothing to do with your genes being put into a womb.

[–]Hoopy223No Pill 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the reason we have computers to type this stuff on is that society was based on stability/marriage/invention etc. Basing it on whomever can screw most will move things backwards.

[–]ScrimmyBingusTwoElectric Boogaloo 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

but he’s soooooo hot teehee!

[–]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.

[–]gate18 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is just a rant because I really hate seeing our society through darwinism/evolution.

I do not believe in this type of Darwinism.

You are doing the same thing previous generations did: using Darwinism to just explain the norms we live in

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

And those "less desirable genes" are not defined by anything natural but by our norms. Ask the rich, ask the poor, as Puttin, ask Obama, ask Hitler and they will nod at that statement but all would have a different reason in mind.

Survival of the fittest, selfish gene, evolution as an escalator, all bullshit metaphors to justify our social construction of exploiting the weak.

This in turn has caused a population explosion to the point that it threatens our planet and the resources out society needs to survive.

Others might say that the fact that just a handful of us own most of our resources is the cause of the threat but...

However the attractiveness and physical fitness of a potential mate generally means they are healthier and will have stronger offspring

What does attractiveness have to do with the strength of the offspring? Our social conditioning of valuing good-looking people (even if they achieved it threw surgery).

I wonder if this will strengthen our gene pool over sufficient generations?

Even that doesn't mean anything. What would strength mean in this context? A population that doesn't need medication? (no chance). A population that ... what.

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.

With that, I agree.

ps to answer r/Hoopy223. From an evolutionary pov, yes "the unemployed guy who lives on his brothers couch and has three baby mamas chasing after him for unpaid child support is evolutionarily advantageous" as evolution just means passing on the genes

Hence, using evolution to construct our society does not work.

I would love it if we start thinking "since women need to have other priorities, but since some couples like kids, let's make adopting abandoned kids cool"

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

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