Evolution - Is it down to Us?

WindSock

I'm just going to put this up here for a discussion. Is it ultimately up to us Women to choose what sort of people the future should have? If all men are bastards* is it not our fault for having children with the bastard ones, ensuring their genetic material gets passed on?

Should we not be a bit more picky with whom we choose to mate with?







*Not my general view, just using a well used line...

DarkJager

Without what us men have, nothing evolves. Women are not a-sexual.

Nuravictus

Fairly sure its 50/50 :P. Sex at birth is normally to do with the ammount of Stress the woman was under during the term. More Stress = Woman. Less Stress = Men :P.

WindSock

DarkJager wrote: »

Without what us men have, nothing evolves. Women are not a-sexual.

I don't mean that we don't mate at all. But perhaps we should not approach the violent criminal types and others with less desirable qualities to be that Fathers of our chidren.

WindSock

Oh dear, I think I am taken up wrongly. I am not looking to make the world a place that has just Women in it. Might be some peoples idea of heaven, but sounds like hell to me :P

brianthebard

Eugenics? Srsly?

MarkR

Takes two to tango. And it's not like the ladies get the ultimate decision about who becomes a couple. If that was the case there's be no single fat chicks.

Humans in general are ultimately responsible.

DarkJager

WindSock wrote: »

Oh dear, I think I am taken up wrongly. I am not looking to make the world a place that has just Women in it. Might be some peoples idea of heaven, but sounds like hell to me :P

Sounds like the 7th level of Hades to me

Women seem to be naturally attracted to the edgier specimens of the male species, if anything its a behavioural fault than anything dodgy with evolution.

Gary ITR

WindSock wrote: »

I'm just going to put this up here for a discussion. Is it ultimately up to us Women to choose what sort of people the future should have? If all men are bastards* is it not our fault for having children with the bastard ones, ensuring their genetic material gets passed on?

Should we not be a bit more picky with whom we choose to mate with?







*Not my general view, just using a well used line...

Thats very profound for TLL... But men turn out to be bastards cos their mothers molly coddle them and they expect all women to treat them the same way.

Galvasean

Richard Dawkins has a chapter in one of his books (forget precisely which one - fool that I am) titled 'Nice Guys Finish First'.
Highly recommend it.

WindSock

brianthebard wrote: »

Eugenics? Srsly?

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

Nuravictus

WindSock wrote: »

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.

MarkR wrote: »

Takes two to tango. And it's not like the ladies get the ultimate decision about who becomes a couple. If that was the case there's be no single fat chicks.

Humans in general are ultimately responsible.

Thats why there is paki men

A Primal Nut

You could argue that who men choose is just as important - however there are two important differences -

1) Men choose mostly on looks, so that just increases the health of the population. Women choose a lot more based on morals, bad boy attitude, job, success, intelligence etc. Of course this has changed a lot in the last century; since women are more independant they might be less likely to choose a man just because he has a secure job, but can now afford to choose based on looks, sense of humour, confidence, etc - although of course lots of girls still love going out with the "bad boys".

2) I believe women today have more choice than men, who tend to just get lucky and/or will sleep with a vaster amount of women, whereas women tend to be choosier.

But suppose if, for example, everyone with a violent criminal history was automatically wiped out of the gene pool (whether by force from the authorities or by the choice of women) then its logical people would become less violent. Of course its not just by genes that men pass on violence to their sons; obviously culture plays just as large a part, if not larger.

So, I would say who men choose has a greater impact on the health of future populations whereas who women choose impacts not only health but also the type of people that can thrive in the future. This has both positive and negative effects - "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac" which means power-seekers will continue to thrive, of course power-seekers can be good or bad.

I guess with the increase in IVF, artificial selection is also much more inspired by women and this could have an interesting impact too - although probably more based on looks. IVF may also allow genes to survive which would ordinarily die out.

WindSock

DarkJager wrote: »

Women seem to be naturally attracted to the edgier specimens of the male species, if anything its a behavioural fault than anything dodgy with evolution.

Female chimps are attracted to violent male chimps because they are seen as alpha and good protectors for their young, and female Gorillas often have their babies killed by a male gorilla, whom they will then go off to mate with. Just seeing if many women like the idea of their partners to be dominant and tough.

A Primal Nut

Nuravictus wrote: »

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.



Thats why there is paki men

No its not. Eugenics is artificial selection. Windsock is talking about natural selection completely different.

Artificial selection would be if you took out all disabled people and killed them. Natural selection would be women not choosing to mate with them because they're not attracted to them (obviously most people don't consciously think of the good of the genes when choosing a mate, natural selection is subconscious).

WindSock

Nuravictus wrote: »

Thats what Eugenics is. Removing Humans who wouldnt of survived in Nature. Like Disabled/Disformed people & so forth.

Everyone wants a healthy child. I am not saying to get rid of those who are born unhealthy though.

Thats why there is paki men

Careful now.

Slow Motion

I understand what you mean Ms Sock! And you make an interesting point, the problem is that a lot of women (mostly younger) do seem to go for bastards, I have seen it time and again, I have often wondered what it is they see in them, and have pondered acting like one on occasion to see what would happen, I couldn't however force myself to do it. I have known a few guys who actively acted like this and they always seemed to have a woman (or several) on the go! I don't think this is really ever going to change until women do to, is that likely to happen, probably not really I'm afraid!

Nuravictus

WindSock wrote: »

Female chimps are attracted to violent male chimps because they are seen as alpha and good protectors for their young, and female Gorillas often have their babies killed by a male gorilla, whom they will then go off to mate with. Just seeing if many women like the idea of their partners to be dominant and tough.

So if we apply this to humans, a man killed your kids you would want to have his babies ?. Were no Chimps & were no Monkies. Were more developed with higher social structure. Then old traits are different now. The judge of a man is a woman, the judge of a woman in life is material things :P. Dave Chapelle said it best.

"Men dont buy nice things because they like nice things they buy nice things because woman like nice things, if a man could **** a woman in a cardboard box he would never buy a house."

brianthebard

WindSock wrote: »

I just mean a natural selection process, not so much a heavy handed intervention by society. I am just wondering what ever happened to the survival of the fittest thing. I am reading a book at the moment about it and want to see what other peoples views are on the type of men we choose to procreate with.

No natural selection is what happens right now. You are talking about breeding the bad out of society. Its a completely messed up idea. And survival of the fittest is an economics/social darwinism term and argument is that really where you want to go with this? I would report this thread but you are a mod of this forum so you are already aware of its existence. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The "self-direction of human evolution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

WindSock

Nuravictus wrote: »

So if we apply this to humans, a man killed your kids you would want to have his babies ?. Were no Chimps & were no Monkies. Were more developed with higher social structure. Then old traits are different now. The judge of a man is a woman, the judge of a woman in life is material things :P. Dave Chapelle said it best.

We were chimps 5 million years ago though. We are actually closer to chimps then they are to gorillas.

The interesting apes are bonobos, they have no violence in them like chimps have. Some say its because they do a lot of humping, but there are no dominant males, only dominant pairs.

"Men dont buy nice things because they like nice things they buy nice things because woman like nice things, if a man could **** a woman in a cardboard box he would never buy a house."

And people always say men invented great things by themselves

WindSock

brianthebard wrote: »

No natural selection is what happens right now. You are talking about breeding the bad out of society. Its a completely messed up idea. And survival of the fittest is an economics/social darwinism term and argument is that really where you want to go with this? I would report this thread but you are a mod of this forum so you are already aware of its existence. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The "self-direction of human evolution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Right, what is your problem with the topic exactly? Have I used some terms incorrectly or is it completly inhumane to have this discussion? If you have a problem then open up a thread in feedback and don't take it off topic. I don't want an argument for arguments sake, I am interested to see what others think.

Slow Motion

WTF! Are people reading differend words to me?

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

We were chimps 5 million years ago though.

No were weren't. Jeebus.

Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Hyoooooooge difference.

brianthebard is bringing up some excellent points btw, he's debating, I don't think advising him to take his disagreement with your argument to Feedback will do much for the nature of debate.

What you are proposing is not evolution or natural selection, it is discussing the socio-ecological factors that women should bear in mind when deciding on a mate.

WindSock

Thats the discussion I want. I mean if he has a problem with me starting this thread then discuss it in feedback, not here.

LolaDub

I think you've made an assumption in your idea-that women can tell if they're with losers or not. I would argue that very few people go with someone knowing they are bad people and will never change. People have hope for others to become good people or can be blind to their faults.

I would also are not what makes people "bast*rds" as it were, i think different factors in life make people bad or less good as it were.

People make bad choices, until they stop doing so this is never going to be a possibilty.

brianthebard

WindSock wrote: »

Right, what is your problem with the topic exactly? Have I used some terms incorrectly or is it completly inhumane to have this discussion? If you have a problem then open up a thread in feedback and don't take it off topic. I don't want an argument for arguments sake, I am interested to see what others think.

I have many problems with the topic.
You are advocating eugenics.
It is completely inhuman to consider such things.
You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.
You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

I'll come back if I think of more.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

Thats the discussion I want. I mean if he has a problem with me starting this thread then discuss it in feedback, not here.

Ah, ok. Well if it's socio-ecological issues you want to discuss it's probably better to leave the chimps out of it - comparing human reproductive patterns to those of our close living relatives, the great apes - this is dangerous and easily misconstrued. It's true that certain members of the monkey and ape family engage in highly complex societies, but we can't draw parallels between them and us. Humans and apes, while close genetically, are worlds apart sociologically.

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.

Only if you choose to see it that way. We do, effectively breed. We make conscious decisions when choosing our mates. We take responsibility for it. I think it's perhaps a little naive to think that a person doesn't consider the genetic potential of their mate when deciding to procreate.

brianthebard wrote:

You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses - you can discuss the suitability of men (and women for that matter) in terms of breeding potential without having to assume that bad boys = criminals.

A Primal Nut

brianthebard wrote: »

I have many problems with the topic.
You are advocating eugenics.
It is completely inhuman to consider such things.
You are talking about breeding-that's something we do with dogs, not humans.
You are talking as if there is such a thing as a criminal underclass. I reject this and I reject such Victorian ideals in general (such as eugenics).
You are claiming that this criminal underclass is genetics based and is therefore a deviation that hasn't worked and needs to be gotten rid of.

I'll come back if I think of more.

Thats the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Nobody is advocating anything - windsock was simply inquiring if who women choose to mate with has a large impact on evolution and the future of the species. She didn't say they should choose based on that logic and besides its not going to happen. Its very unlikely Windsock is going to choose to be with a mate for the better of the species even if it makes her unhappy.

You may think that breeding doesn't occur among humans but the fact is it does - subconciously, people just choose mates for "survival of the fittest" purposes.

I believe criminal activity is part genetic, part cultural. Someone born to genetically violent parents who is adopted by parents in a peaceful home is still slightly more likely to be violent than the average person. Someone born to genetically calm parents who is adopted by a violent family is slightly more likely to be violent than the average person. Someone who is born genetically violent and brought up by those same parents has an even greater chance. This comes up in loads of court cases involving violence - where someone claims they are violent because of what happened when they were younger.

Of course there are loads of other factors for violence too - desperation, poverty, etc.

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses

I did say violent criminals in my OP. Was I was wrong to say that.
I was just coming from the perspective there of why are we attracted to those that are violent.

Slow Motion

g'em wrote: »

Only if you choose to see it that way. We do, effectively breed. We make conscious decisions when choosing our mates. We take responsibility for it. I think it's perhaps a little naive to think that a person doesn't consider the genetic potential of their mate when deciding to procreate.


Ah here brian, that's quite a leap and a jump that you've made. No-one mentioned criminal underclasses - you can discuss the suitability of men (and women for that matter) in terms of breeding potential without having to assume that bad boys = criminals.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Thats the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Nobody is advocating anything - windsock was simply inquiring if who women choose to mate with has a large impact on evolution and the future of the species. She didn't say they should choose based on that logic and besides its not going to happen. Its very unlikely Windsock is going to choose to be with a mate for the better of the species even if it makes her unhappy.

You may think that breeding doesn't occur among humans but the fact is it does - subconciously, people just choose mates for "survival of the fittest" purposes.

This is what I understood from windsocks post! And I think it is quite inflamatory to refer to it as eugenics and the connotations the term implies!

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

Ah, ok. Well if it's socio-ecological issues you want to discuss it's probably better to leave the chimps out of it - comparing human reproductive patterns to those of our close living relatives, the great apes - this is dangerous and easily misconstrued. It's true that certain members of the monkey and ape family engage in highly complex societies, but we can't draw parallels between them and us. Humans and apes, while close genetically, are worlds apart sociologically.

I don't know what some of these terms mean yet, and I won't pretend that I do. I think it is interesting to see how chimps and other apes behave, just to draw parallels between them and us. What works for them may not work for us but to see where it stems from helps, I think.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

I did say violent criminals in my OP. Was I was wrong to say that.

So you did - brian, my apologies too.

WindSock wrote:

I was just coming from the perspective there of why are we attracted to those that are violent.

Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

metrovelvet

Its all part of nature's sinister plot windsock. However, a man can be a bastard and still read very well genetically.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

I don't know what some of these terms mean yet, and I won't pretend that I do. I think it is interesting to see how chimps and other apes behave, just to draw parallels between them and us. What works for them may not work for us but to see where it stems from helps, I think.

That's my point, you can't draw parallels. Sure we can view it as interesting reading, but to start making direct comparisons between apes and human reproductive behaviour is misleading and highly incorrect. I agree that it can broaden our mind to introduce ideas for behavioural patterns, but we can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from it about how humans act.

Nevyn

Thing is women are attracted to different types of men at different times in thier "cycle".

Also the type of man and how they behave towards a woman and why she is attracted to that is more then just looks and pheremoans it is based on the examples of men in her life as she grew up. So 'what' a man is and what is acceptable behaviour by a man in general and in a relationship parameters are based on the male role models in a child's life.

What ever that turns out to be then you have boys growing up thinking they have to be that way to be a man and girls thinking that is what they should be looking for in a man.

Also those patterns can be broken, if a person works on it and is aware.

Just cos someone does have a child with a person who turns out to be a complete waste of skin does not mean that thier child will grow up to be like that or to seek that out in a partner.

I think that is is more to do with what we consider acceptable behaviour in our socail groups and how we educate people as to what is acceptable behaviour generally in our society.

I would love to think that the Mammy's boy who can't use a washing machine is on the way out, it does the boy growing up a diservice as everyone should be able to do for themsleves.

So I think it is parenting and setting standards rather then just who you mix dna with.
Nurture rather then nature, but part of that is looking at what standards you are going to have in the family home and yes part of that is who you set up home with.

Karl Hungus

WindSock wrote: »

I don't mean that we don't mate at all. But perhaps we should not approach the violent criminal types and others with less desirable qualities to be that Fathers of our chidren.

I'd say there's plenty of young ladies who'll spread their legs for whichever scumbag can supply them with the most weed/dutch gold/sovereign rings/supermacs. I'm not going to be polite in saying it, but scumbags are breeding scumbags.

PS. I'm pro-eugenics.

Slow Motion

g'em wrote: »

So you did - brian, my apologies too.


Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

I tend to agree with you, but then I started thinkng about popular movie stars and many of the roles they play, James Bond, Jason Bourne etc. Huge hollywood sex symbols how often portray violent characters. If I had a penny for all the times I have heard a woman say the would in a heartbeat I'd have at least ten. I know most people can tell the difference between fiction and real life, but still it makes me wonder!

A Primal Nut

g'em wrote: »

So you did - brian, my apologies too.


Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

I'm not sure if women being attracted to bad boys is genetic (I think it might be to a small extent) however I think this thread is more to do with the effect of that attraction on the future of the species - obviously if women are attracted to violent men, the human race would get more violent.

I don't believe women are attracted to the violence itself - I think somehow some women think that a guy with a criminal record is somehow wild, fun, a rebel, or "a real man." Even though that couldn't be further from the truth. Of course there are many traits that bad boys which have which so-called "nice guys" don't have which women like.

Incidentally, I agree that apes and monkeys are largely irrelevant to this discussion. While there interesting in finding out how we may have developed certain traits and understanding what human traits are genetic, I think they are irrelevant in this case.

Slow Motion

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Of course there are many traits that bad boys which have which so-called "nice guys" don't have which women like.

Such as?

brianthebard

Slow Motion wrote: »

This is what I understood from windsocks post! And I think it is quite inflamatory to refer to it as eugenics and the connotations the term implies!

What does it imply? What does it mean? Did you read my link? Do you realise that it doesn't simply mean Nazism and sterilising people, but it also includes selective breeding to stop certain traits in future generations?

G'em, yes people choose who they breed with on an individual level, but that is due to individual choices, opinions, politics, etc. Its not a socially dictated thing (except in the case of say incest, which is taboo and illegal).

Nevyn

This thread reminded me of something I read a few years back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/13/colombia.sibyllabrodzinsky

Gang members in one of Colombia's most violent cities face an ultimatum: give up guns or give up sex. In what is being called a "strike of crossed legs", supported by the Pereira mayor's office, the wives and girlfriends of gang members have said they will not have sex with their partners until they vow to give up violence.

"We want them to know that violence is not sexy," said Jennifer Bayer, 18, the girlfriend of a gang member. She and at least two dozen other women have said the sex strike will continue until their men hand over their weapons to authorities and sign up for vocational training offered by the mayor's office.

The women yesterday launched a rap song that will become the strike's anthem. "As women we are worth a lot. We don't want to fall for violent men because with them we lose too much," Ms Bayer sang down the telephone to the Guardian.

She said the men had laughed about the strike but would soon see it was serious. The women were not worried that frustration would lead to violence against them by their partners. "They wouldn't do that to us," Ms Bayer said.

The city's security secretary, Julio César Gómez, said surveys of gang members showed that their favourite activity was having sex and their membership of gangs was more about power and sexual seduction than money.

Pereira, a city of 300,000 people, has Colombia's highest murder rate at 97 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Slow Motion

brianthebard wrote: »

What does it imply? What does it mean? Did you read my link? Do you realise that it doesn't simply mean Nazism and sterilising people, but it also includes selective breeding to stop certain traits in future generations?

Yes I do, but I believe a lot of people may not, and I think that using it was cheap shot, I didn't read your link, and I think you are being a little disengenious! The term certainly has uncomfortable overtones, wether it's warrented or not and you know that too!

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

G'em, yes people choose who they breed with on an individual level, but that is due to individual choices, opinions, politics, etc. Its not a socially dictated thing (except in the case of say incest, which is taboo and illegal).

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

brianthebard

Slow Motion wrote: »

Yes I do, but I believe a lot of people may not, and I think that using it was cheap shot, I didn't read your link, and I think you are being a little disengenious! The term certainly has uncomfortable overtones, wether it's warrented or not and you know that too!

Its not a cheap shot, its a word that describes what the op was about. If you can't deal with that...
I'm not being disingenuous in any way and think its a bit much for you to say that, its a pretty inflammatory issue, with a very inflammatory op (about criminals and violence) and you think that I'm trying to raise ****-well I'm not.
Further, why should it be my fault if people don't understand these terms? I'm sick of people throwing survival of the fittest out as some sort of argument, without knowing its origins, applications, and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

g'em wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

Well the op said that breeding was up to "us Women" which suggests very strongly to me a gender wide argument.

A Primal Nut

Slow Motion wrote: »

Such as?

Ask them!!:p

I knew of one girl who was attracted to bad guys (which in fairness, she admitted to, crazy girl). The same guys my father, a detective seargeant in a moderately-sized town would arrest. I guess she thought they were tough guys because they kept saying how they would protect her and beat up anyone who touched her, bla bla bla so she believed. She thought they were rebels because they were in and out of jail, like they'd provide excitement. Of course I knew that most of the people they beat up were guys way smaller than them (usually teenagers) and women. There crimes would be fairly pathetic as well. But when my father would arrest them, he'd go to the house and their mother would answer the door and say "don't arrest my son, bla bla". Complete mama's boys. He would walk in grab them by the ear and drag them out of the house and give them a good seeing too in the station, until it wasn't allowed anymore. I think most guys can recognise that the scumbags around the town are cowards. But women see their criminal record and all their talk of beating anyone who touches them and thinks "ooh, he can look after me." In addition, they probably see their arrogance as some kind of confidence.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

This thread reminded me of something I read a few years back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/13/colombia.sibyllabrodzinsky

Reminds me of Lysistrata.

ScumLord

I've heard of this before and I thought it was fairly well established, that throughout the living world that reproduces sexually it's the females that decide what male to reproduce with, what trates get passed on and are therefore in the driving seat when it comes to the future of any species. Just because we introduced marriage doesn't mean women will bare the child of the husband it just means they could possibly get the best of both worlds.

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

It is yes. You are far more betterer at articulating it than I am though :pac:

A Primal Nut

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm sick of people throwing survival of the fittest out as some sort of argument, without knowing its origins, applications, and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Survival of the fittest is natural selection and is not synonymous with eugenics. Eugenics is survival of the people whom other people decide should survive - its artificial.

Nobody in this thread is suggesting women should be forced mate with whomever society tells them - that would be eugenics. We are talking about personal choice. You clearly don't understand the purpose of this thread.

brianthebard

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Survival of the fittest is natural selection and is not synonymous with eugenics. Eugenics is survival of the people whom other people decide should survive - its artificial.

No survival of the fittest is not natural selection.

An interpretation of the phrase to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the "fittest" ones.

Nobody in this thread is suggesting women should be forced mate with whomever society tells them - that would be eugenics. We are talking about personal choice. You clearly don't understand the purpose of this thread.

Again an argument for ignorance is not an argument-eugenics doesn't necessarily involve forcing women to mate with someone. You haven't read any of the links I posted.