Natural Selection - Trim the herd!

Catsmokinpot

Sharza- wrote:

Ok, up until a few months ago, I would have been one of the most idealistic people you would have ever met. Very liberal minded, very politicaly correct and above all else very much the equalitarian.

However, a short stay in the real world (moved out of parents home) has taught me that the world, is so far from anything logical, that idealism is a waste of time.

I now consider myself more of a realist, and very much non-politically correct. For example, a few months ago I used to debate endlessly about the lies and deception of the Iraq war. Now I have to admit, I a) Partially don't give a monkeys and b) well maybe is this an evolved form of Natural Selection, Iraq is a threat to America and therefore will have to be removed.

Homosexuality for example. I have a friend who is gay, and I used to participate in protests and other things for equal rights and gay marriage rights. However now I have to "evil" view that really, homosexual people can't achieve the fundamental aim of the human race which is to breed.

Feminism and female rights also, I have to admit firstly that despite advocating it in the past I never actually helped the cause, more of the "armchair warrior" posistion. Now however I find it hard to believe in our country that women are discrimated anywhere. And I fear to say this, but actually believe women are best suited to the housewife role. Still I do not class myself as a Male Chauvinist because although these are my beliefs I would never force or even try to convert anyone to them, mainly because I don't care enough.

Anyway, yesterday I got into a joke conversation with a friend, and even though it was a joke I taught it was actually an interesting idea anyway. Some may find it disturbing and "Hitler" like, and I suppose it is.

We said it was time to "trim the herd" get rid of the kind that nature would have gotten rid of if it wasn't for our technological advances and political protection.

God, you guys are gonna shoot me for this :P

We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

One of the girls in the house heard us talking about this, and albeit a joke conversation, she got understandbly mad. But we managed to convince her that although it sounds cruel, it is infact *probably* what nature would do to us given the chance.

Some of you may find my thinking disturbing, or quite a common mind-set. If you do find it offensive, hate me if you want, but understand, that these are simply my toughts and I would never for a second consider forcing them on anyone.

Anyway, bleh anyone kind of thinking the same thing?

well i see someone has got it slightly wrong

homosexuality: hey its their choice theyre not detrimental to society,
ugly females: ugly people need love too,
as for womens rights, my mother is twice the man youll ever be and she doesnt even have a set of balls.
unhealthy people just need to be taught not slaughtered

and the survival of the fittest? well without medical treatment the average life expectancy used to be late 30s now its in the high 70s thank god for that! without some of these weak males and women who should be housewives our life expectancy wouldnt be that high

good looking means desease free? jesus i didnt know you could tell that by looking at someone and as far as i know you cant.

and iraq dont get me started on iraq. survival of the fittest? what?

realists can see the world as it is and deal with it weather its wrong or right

idealists have the balls to do something about it if its wrong so grow some balls dude for god sake

Zaphod

HarryD wrote:

There are countless species where the dominant male is the only one that gets to mate with the females.
To become the dominant male you have to have the strength to fight off other males.
A few examples: Lions, Apes, Impala, Chmips, N.American Wolves...

You've now shifted the ground onto dominance within a species, and specifically within those species which have a hierarchical structure. Even then, being the strongest or dominant does not guarantee that your genes are passed on. For one thing, the dominant male cannot control the behaviour of all the females, so if they sneak off for a quick shag behind the bushes, there isn't much he can do about it. Even when the dominant male does mate with a female, there are a number of species where the female can store the semen, and wait until she meets a preferable mate.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s722372.htm

HarryD wrote:

"I've got a gut feeling" is pure speculation.
"It's plain to see" is not speculation.

At various times in history it was "plain to see" that

- The Earth was flat.
- The Earth was at the centre of the Universe.
- The Universe was static.
- Blacks were genetically inferior and less evolved than whites.
- Women were genetically inferior to men.
- Time was absolute.
- Mary Harney was the ideal choice for Minister for Health.

HarryD wrote:

If you spend enough time with someone you can quite easily see how intelligent they are. The 'hard evidence' is there, when they repeatedly make the same mistakes, and get simple tasks, blatently wrong.
Species intelligence if often judged by giving them
simple tasks to perform, and see how successful they are at it,
and how they can remember how to complete them.

If you know that their behaviour is due to genetic factors only, you should have no problem listing 5 or more examples of behaviour which you have observed which clearly illustrate this, name the genes responsible and their corresponding phenotypes.

HarryD wrote:

So yer saying the environment one is reared in, can affect their intelligence?

I'm saying that you are observing behaviour in both the parent and offspring and assuming it is genetic, despite the fact that they are being reared in the same environment. I've yet to see any solid evidence from you to prove that their behaviour is determined solely by their inherited genes.

HarryD wrote:

That was the OP. I was just agreeing with him.

Unfortunately the original post was such a rancid mix of ignorance and personal prejudice that I'm not entirely sure what the point of it was. Maybe you could enlighten us on what point exactly in relation to homosexuality you were agreeing with?

Victor

Zaphod wrote:

At various times in history it was "plain to see" that

- The Earth was flat.
- The Earth was at the centre of the Universe.
- The Universe was static.
- Blacks were genetically inferior and less evolved than whites.
- Women were genetically inferior to men.
- Time was absolute.
- Mary Harney was the ideal choice for Minister for Health.

Now, Mary Harney is the centre of the Universe, having flattened the Earth

Redleslie2

HarryD wrote:

If you spend enough time with someone you can quite easily see how intelligent they are. The 'hard evidence' is there, when they repeatedly make the same mistakes, and get simple tasks, blatently wrong.

You should read this again and think about it carefully. Hint: You have failed the simple task of spelling the word 'blatantly'.

mycroft

However, a short stay in the real world (moved out of parents home) has taught me that the world, is so far from anything logical, that idealism is a waste of time.

Man can't wait to see how you're doing in 6 months time Mr Bickle.

The trick to ideals is to hold onto them, despite being confronted with the realities of the world.

simple tasks to perform, and see how successful they are at it,

And autistic people? Massively intelligent, creative and brilliant human beings have often been incapable of doing the most simplistic of tasks.

The Human race if doing brilliant, thanks to our intelligence.
We are misguided in some ways, but that majority of society is great.
I wouldn't call it a mess.

The first sentence of that reply is in serious danger of replacing spacedog in my sig.

We're destroying our natural resources at a staggering degree, we're doing an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment every day, we live in the most wasteful society this planet has know, we're destroying species at a mind boggling rate. We're dying in our thousands from preventable diseases and hunger every day, and we're killing each other over religious dogma, and petty excuses.

Christ if this is brilliant I'd hate to see us in an off day.

Mean_Mudda

mycroft wrote:

autistic people

there are a number of species where the female can store the semen

respire using sulphur instead of oxygen

At the last great extinction, it was the massively powerful dinosaurs who disappeared

Everyone seems determined to point out exceptions in an attempt to criticise.
There are exceptions to lots of things in life. We all know that.
General rules is what we're talking about here.

mycroft

Mean_Mudda wrote:

Everyone seems determined to point out exceptions in an attempt to criticise.
There are exceptions to lots of things in life. We all know that.
General rules is what we're talking about here.

Yeah and the point is, creating a general rule means we're going to lose a huge proportion of society who don't fit into general rules, but who's benefit to society can't be felt in any physical sense, but who's benefit to society as a whole through what they contribute offers a tangible contribution.

HarryD

The Human race is doing brilliant,

mycroft wrote:

We're destroying our natural resources at a staggering degree, we're doing an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment..

2 different points.
The Human race IS doing brilliant.
Our effect on the environment is another issue.

mycroft

HarryD wrote:

2 different points.
The Human race IS doing brilliant.
Our effect on the environment is another issue.

Um, whats your definition of brilliant?

And using our natural resources up at an unsustainable rate, means we may be doing doing brilliantly now, but how brilliant is it going to be when we've destroyed resources our children, or children's children need?

Some weird "we're fantastic" praise is all well and good, but if we're going to ensure we're not around in a few generations, we need to re-classify our denifition of brillance.

HarryD

mycroft wrote:

Um, whats your definition of brilliant?

Um, we have made ourselves the most sucessful animal on the planet.
We have increased our own life expecancy significantly.
We are more advanced than any other species on the planet.
From an evolutionary point of view this is brilliant, of any species.
The side-effects are another issue

Eoghan-psych

HarryD wrote:

Um, we have made ourselves the most sucessful animal on the planet.

More like we have *convinced* ourselves of that. But lets take a look at your criteria...

HarryD wrote:

We have increased our own life expecancy significantly.

Yes, for no biologically advantageous reason.

HarryD wrote:

We are more advanced than any other species on the planet.

Along what dimensions? We can be killed, outrun or eaten by *far* too many other organisms for me to buy that without qualification.

HarryD wrote:

From an evolutionary point of view this is brilliant, of any species.
The side-effects are another issue

No, not really. You see, our advancing life expectancy extends far beyond the ages at which we can successfully reproduce. That actually *violates* the best interest of our evolution.

mycroft

HarryD wrote:

Um, we have made ourselves the most sucessful animal on the planet.

Whats your definition of success? There are more insects than us.

We have increased our own life expecancy significantly.

What Eoghan said. How is ensuring that we live while drooling, and wearing incontinence pants, while being a drain on societies resources, a success?

We are more advanced than any other species on the planet.

Come some global apocaylpse cockroachs are in a better position to survive than us. You could argue using your rational that they are more advanced than us.

From an evolutionary point of view this is brilliant, of any species.
The side-effects are another issue

No, no, no. If your reasoning on why we are so "brilliant" means we're going to do ourselves out of a planet in a few generations, the side effects are the issue

We could be the only species on the planet who makes ourselves extinct, and takes more than a few others with us. How's that brilliant? Take a minute from patting yourself on the back to consider the ramifications of your logic.

HarryD

Reminder:

HarryD wrote:

The Human race IS doing brilliant.

This is the point I'm qualifying.

Come some global apocaylpse cockroachs are in a better position to survive than us.

Maybe true, but it's aside from the original point.
In other situations we're in a better position to survive than them.

in a few generations, the side effects are the issue

We could be the only species on the planet who makes ourselves extinct,

Also aside from the original point.
The Human race is currently doing brilliant.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Yes, for no biologically advantageous reason.

True

That actually *violates* the best interest of our evolution.

Yes, but in practive it doesn't affect our success.

mycroft

HarryD wrote:

Also aside from the original point.
The Human race is currently doing brilliant.

How's the sand ostrich boy?

Your POV reminds me of the joke. Guy's falling out of a building as he falls he passes by several floors, everyone looking out the window as he passes their floor, hear's the guy say "Doing okay, everythings fine"

We may be currently (and thats open to debate seeing as you focused on just one point about my objection to your statement that we're doing brillant) but if part of our brillance is ensuring that we may not have the natural resources to survive past a couple of generations. How is that brillant?

And while you're at it, answer these as well

We're dying in our thousands from preventable diseases and hunger every day, and we're killing each other over religious dogma, and petty excuses.

HarryD

mycroft wrote:

How's the sand ostrich boy?

Personal insults.. very professional..

mycroft wrote:

And while you're at it, answer these as well

Read the thread:

HarryD wrote:

The Human race.... are misguided in some ways,

Mean_Mudda

ressem wrote:

Bertie Ahern, the FF champion weightlifter

And there I was thinking my wife was faithful to me..
meanwhile she's getting it from our alpha male taoiseach..
Wait till I get my hands on her

Redleslie2

HarryD wrote:

The Human race is currently doing brilliant.

# Food: An estimated 1 in 6 people suffer from hunger and malnutrition while attempts to grow food are damaging swathes of productive land.

# Water: By 2025, two-thirds of the world's people are likely to be living in areas of acute water stress.

# Energy: Oil production could peak and supplies start to decline by 2010

# Climate change: The world's greatest environmental challenge, according to the UK prime minister Tony Blair, with increased storms, floods, drought and species losses predicted.

# Biodiversity: Many scientists think the Earth is now entering its sixth great extinction phase.

# Pollution: Hazardous chemicals are now found in the bodies of all new-born babies, and an estimated one in four people worldwide are exposed to unhealthy concentrations of air pollutants.

Ingenuity and technology continue to offer hope of a better world. But they can promise only so much.

You do not need ingenuity and technology to save the roughly 30,000 under-fives who die daily from hunger or easily preventable diseases.

If this is brilliant, I'd hate to see what bad looks like.

mycroft

HarryD wrote:

Personal insults.. very professional..

You're a professional? Wow, I'm just a gifted amateur around here.

Read the thread:

I have I can't find your defense on how we're doing brillantly, and how the enviromently impact of our brillance is not about to bite us in the ass.

Shabadu

The Human race if doing brilliant, thanks to our intelligence.

'Nuff said really.

pretty-in-pink

Actually by the extreme leaning of people towards machines and technology, we are losing our basic animal instints which are what we need to survive. They existed for thousands of years to protect us, and now that the bogie man is much more dangerous, we are running from these instincts?

Survival of the fittest-- well it has been left to us to try, we havn't done that. Now God(or if you prefer mother nature/allah etc) is coming after us, as was mentioned the aids epidemic, the tsunami, variuos other large scale disasters. Hey we are being culled.

No other species creates as much havoc and trouble for themselves as us.

Now the OPS points, from a purely biological, ignoring science, POV, hes not far wrong.

Gay people, while indulging in gay relationships cannot have children
People with fertility problems cannot-or at least find it very hard to- have children
The "weak"- unattractive males and females would be short of mates.

Yes, there can be arguments that sexy and beautiful have changed. But ugly is ugly. Its not restricted to size or lack thereof (although it doesnt help the matter).

There are reasons for our biological urges, and if we listened to our loins, our hearts and our stomachs, then I can pretty much garentee a lot of the "nice guys" would not have a girlfriend. Women are attracted to the dominant/alpha male, across all species. Men are atracted to the alpha female.

Allure doesn't change, and a sexy persona doesn't change. Its confidence that adds to sexiness. Anyway, I'm pretty shallow with regards to the men Id chose to be with, friends are different, but for me to find someone sexy they would need to meet some basic physical requirements, and also some smarts would be nice. However being able to look after oneself, and being able to be free with yourself (no repressed boys please!) are important.

Anyway, woman and the home? Natural drive to look after your brood, Men were the hunter/gatherers which was why they needed to be stronger then woman and thats why physical strength is important

How someone looks is far more important then anyone wants to admit.....

And with regards to things like downs etc, for them to procreate (with a person of normal mental capacity) is ilegal. Its actually ilegal to sleep with them at all. So for all the "everyone should have equal rights, all the time" argument, while its a nice theroy, pure survival instinct would have long ago gotten rid of the weak males (physically and menataly) would be weeded out though medium ability (as in a bit stupid, or perhaps slightly over or under weight) would probably make it. Smae would apply for females. It would be street smarts, people capabilites and sexual prowess that would be regarded as important,as well as being physicaly strong- well built (football,athletics,rugby etc). Apply the same ideal to women. Eh, nobodys going to likereading that, but its pure biology and physchology.

HarryD

mycroft wrote:

You're a professional?

You wanted to be taken seriously.
Someone who compares an entire animal class to a specific species within a different class.
Insults people as an argument tool.
As the great Eddie Wall once wrote:
"Never argue with a fool, you'll never win"
I see this from your sig alone.
I think I'll take Eddie's advice.

HarryD

Redleslie2 wrote:

Water: By 2025, two-thirds ...
Oil production could ....start to decline by 2010

"The Human Race IS doing brilliant" does not suggest anything about the future.
From a purely evolutionary point of view, as a speicies the Human race IS currently doing brilliant. FACT
Ask D Attenborough, or any evolutionist.

Points about OAP's, babys with traces of poison, apocaylpse cockroachs,
are irrelevant in repsect of this point.
I'm not going to argue this any further, check the world wide web if in doubt.

Eoghan-psych

HarryD wrote:

"The Human Race IS doing brilliant" does not suggest anything about the future.
From a purely evolutionary point of view, as a speicies the Human race IS currently doing brilliant. FACT
Ask D Attenborough, or any evolutionist.

One in particular please, if it's no trouble.

The simple fact of the matter is that the human population is outstripping the ability of our environment to sustain our population. That population is *growing* - particularly in those areas least able to support it.

Shabadu

HarryD wrote:

You wanted to be taken seriously.
Someone who compares an entire animal class to a specific species within a different class.
Insults people as an argument tool.
As the great Eddie Wall once wrote:
"Never argue with a fool, you'll never win"
I see this from your sig alone.
I think I'll take Eddie's advice.

Wow. Clutching at straws, much?

Also:

HarryD wrote:

Insults people as an argument tool.
As the great Eddie Wall once wrote:
"Never argue with a fool, you'll never win"

rofflefinity.

simu

naughty_girl wrote:

Now the OPS points, from a purely biological, ignoring science, POV, hes not far wrong.

wtf??? Is biology not a science anymore now?

The rest of your post is equally nonsensical - do you have a random nonsense generator somewhere?

GuanYin

simu wrote:

wtf??? Is biology not a science anymore now?

The rest of your post is equally nonsensical - do you have a random nonsense generator somewhere?

Ohhh, I like your nasty side

pretty-in-pink

What got you confused? Having the points broken up for you? THe complicated arena of physcology and development?

Anyway, in relation to the disasters befalling mankind- my point is God(or whatever you believe, I believe its God) is "trimming the herd".
We have been given plenty of opportunity to do it ourselves. By us as a whole ignoring this, and continuing to expand life expectancy- to the point where it is people who can't register their surrondings, and where they have lost all mobility- and by us trying to fix any disease we get, and by creating whole new problems (over the corse of time, not just recently),By cruely wiping out some species, and nearly- wiping out other species (you know extinction, or is that to big a word or concept for you?), we have left no choice but for a higher power to take over the "trimming of the herd".

Biology, is a science subject, however uber geeks see science and go "well technology, and machines, and bla bla bla" hence I specified that from a purely biological POV, the OP wasn't all that wrong....(you do know what OP and POV are....right?)

Now I'm going to guess that you fail to understand the points I made under that heading, so in summary (you know, the part where all your points are put into a short paragrah- or one-line points so that idiots can understand them and so at a glance people can go "ah right, so thats what its about")

1) Ugly has always been ugly. Attractive may have changed, ugly hasn't. And attractive people make better mates. Its like advertising...... So ugly people have less of a chance of breeding, as the more virile and desirable partners wouldn't want them. The same applies for weak people, as for the defination of weak, if we listened to our gut feelings- well you'd pick up the weak members of the "herd".
If someone is unfanciable, then they are weak. Women need a stronger male partner then them, and men need a weaker (but not to much so) woman then them for happy, successful procreation. Hence attractive to you might be weak to someone else.


2) Men are naturaly (going back to cave-times, you know ancient history?) the hunter-gatherers. They were they ones getting the food, and killing of the bad guys, protecting the home at night when more vicious predators were around.....
Women were naturaly (Yet again going back to cave-times, you know ancient history?) the care-takers. They kept the home tidy, and cooked food, they reared the young.

Modern day mans take on this was men had the jobs and got the money, and provided for the family. The woman cared for the family- they were housewifes. He has a point when he said woman are suited to it- it was our ancient job- look after the lair. The social side came in as many families lived together as a tribe.

3) This could have been put in with the above point, but seeing you had difficulties with the previous post, il put it here.
Women do have a ned to express more words and gestures (approx. twice of what men need to). This probably again stems from cave-man days (see above if you are confused), as men would have needed silence to have a successful hunt, and woman would have needed communication to run a successful cave.

4) Gay people cannot biologicaly reproduce, if they cannot biologicaly become aroused by a member of the opposite sex. Maybe this is because they aren't meant to have kids, and so the desire needed to procreate is missing. Maybe not, I'm not an expert. Anyway, left to mother nature they wouldn't have children, so facilitating them to have children is going againnst the plan.

5) People with disabilites- might not be passed on to children, however lack of survival skills by themselves would have meant death long ago. Also its illegal for mentally disabled people to engage in sex (definatley with a mentally abled person, I don't know the degree of disability that is required for the law to activate, but I do know its illegal, which would imply that child birth for them would be illegal) and so even today there are systems in place to prevent such weak people breeding
[if you find that complicated, then ask an adult to explain it to you]

6) People do not want to admit just how important attraction is, opting for claims that its personalit etc. Well for the initial pull to someone, it has to be sexual, how can you procreate with someone you don't find attractive? Personaility will come into it, but biologoy has a bigger say. Its not being shallow, or mean-its survival of the fittest, and that means best(strongest) genes. The signals that indicate this are picked up and interpreted as gut feelings, sexual desire etc. Its important to listen to them. They were our first, and I believe best way to ensure personal safety.

7) We need to listen to our gut feelings again, they are rarely wrong and exist to protect us. Nowadays, with everyone being so PC, and money-hungry, and well stupid (book-smarts don't count, its survival instinct I'm talking about), they are being ignored, and so there is a bad partner merry-go-round. Maybe if you listened to what your stomach is telling you, your body -does some one creep you out? Repulse you? Attract you? Excite you? Scare you? Your gut feeling won't lead you to far astray. Your social conscience probably will lead you astray. Be safe, be smart, listen to the messgaes your body is giving you.

8) I do not believe that because mother nature dictates something, that it should neccessarily follow though as planned, but I respect it. I'm not saying people who can't naturaly concieve should be forbidden to have kids (perhaps adoption should be pushed more thoguh, to keep the population down). I am saying that attacking the OP is ridicolous, he is stating the things he feels in his guts, and it took a lot of balls to openly admit the things he feels and thinks. Don't castigate him, because he is right, maybe not PC or likely to get a support crowd, but technicaly all his points are valid and correct.

If you can show me biological (not technological, thats interfering with mother nature) evidence to the contary, by all means do

And if this post cause confusion for you, maybe you should consider getting some help when involving yourself into a debate that will delve into grey areas like physcology

Eoghan-psych

Sorry deary, but that's just plain wrong.

Gay people have been having children for thousands of years. Have you never heard the term "in the closet"? *Huge* numbers of gay men and women are, in essence, forced to live as heterosexuals, complete with all the trimmings - the house, the picket fence and 2.4 children.

All sperm are heterosexual - as are all ova.
Eoghan

naughty_girl wrote:

4) Gay people cannot biologicaly reproduce, if they cannot biologicaly become aroused by a member of the opposite sex. Maybe this is because they aren't meant to have kids, and so the desire needed to procreate is missing. Maybe not, I'm not an expert. Anyway, left to mother nature they wouldn't have children, so facilitating them to have children is going againnst the plan.

Shabadu

@Naughty_Girl

Isn't the point about Human emotional development that we try to rid ourselves of some of our baser instincts?

Just because humans have done it for thousands of years does not mean we should proceed with it as a course of action- if we did this you wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't have been educated, wouldn't be able to express your opinion, blah blah.

Survival tactics that have worked before shouldn't be chosen purely because of that. It is our duty as cognitively aware creatures (some of us, anyway) to be ethical.

If you and the op chose not to be ethical, you are not fully evolved humans, and your opinions should be deservedly noted, then ignored.

Fysh

naughty_girl wrote:

What got you confused? Having the points broken up for you? THe complicated arena of physcology and development?

More likely the total lack of consistency, strewn merrily with typos, I should have thought, but anyway...onto what should be, out of niceness, referred to as your "points":

naughty_girl wrote:

Anyway, in relation to the disasters befalling mankind- my point is God(or whatever you believe, I believe its God) is "trimming the herd".
We have been given plenty of opportunity to do it ourselves. By us as a whole ignoring this, and continuing to expand life expectancy- to the point where it is people who can't register their surrondings, and where they have lost all mobility- and by us trying to fix any disease we get, and by creating whole new problems (over the corse of time, not just recently),By cruely wiping out some species, and nearly- wiping out other species (you know extinction, or is that to big a word or concept for you?), we have left no choice but for a higher power to take over the "trimming of the herd".

Um, what? You do realise there's over 6 billion of us on the planet, and that overall (ie excluding the western 1st world countries where we finally have some sort of control on birth rates) our population is still growing. Explain to me how that consists of someone, be it God or nature, "trimming the herd", please. Natural disasters? Yes, they've been astonishingly succesful at killing off people - outside of those occuring in third-world countries (where the death toll includes people of all sorts, not just those you call "weak"), natural disasters have tended over the last century to involve more and more structural damage and related financial cost, but less and less fatalities.

Looks to me like we're still holding onto our ability to manipulate our environment, at least in the short term. (And no, before you try and suggest it, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of our over-reliance on fossil fuels and environmental damage. I'm just pointing out we haven't yet irretrievably doomed ourselves by them).

naughty_girl wrote:

Biology, is a science subject, however uber geeks see science and go "well technology, and machines, and bla bla bla" hence I specified that from a purely biological POV, the OP wasn't all that wrong....(you do know what OP and POV are....right?)

I find it hysterical that you're projecting low intelligence onto someone else, when you can't spell psychology and think that science is equivalent to technology and machines. I have never, in four years of university studies (doing physics and computer science) met any scientist, be they a biologist or technologist, who thought that science was limited to technology. From a purely biological POV, the OP's assertions regarding evolution were, as psi has pointed out, utterly incorrect. If you think that regressing to a technically incapable and vastly more vulnerable state is anything remotely beneficial for the species as a whole, I can only assume you're an idiot. Sorry, there's just no convincing reason for it. Although if you want to try and change my mind, feel free.

naughty_girl wrote:

1) Ugly has always been ugly. Attractive may have changed, ugly hasn't. And attractive people make better mates. Its like advertising...... So ugly people have less of a chance of breeding, as the more virile and desirable partners wouldn't want them. The same applies for weak people, as for the defination of weak, if we listened to our gut feelings- well you'd pick up the weak members of the "herd".
If someone is unfanciable, then they are weak. Women need a stronger male partner then them, and men need a weaker (but not to much so) woman then them for happy, successful procreation. Hence attractive to you might be weak to someone else.

Spectacular logic there. Our definition of what attractiveness is may have changed, but our definition of what ugly is (which, you know, is just slightly dependent on what we consider attractive to be) has not changed. Well done.

As for "weakness"....you're insisting on sticking to this definition. Where, in our current world, does it matter? Woo, so you can bench press 200kg. Benefits? You can argue that it makes a difference in terms of attractiveness, but I've met many a girl who finds bodybuilders repulsive. I also find it very funny that you think men need a weaker partner than them for happy procreation - this says rather a lot about you, but I'd like a bit more evidence than your own unsubstantiated claims, if you don't mind.

naughty_girl wrote:

2) Men are naturaly (going back to cave-times, you know ancient history?) the hunter-gatherers. They were they ones getting the food, and killing of the bad guys, protecting the home at night when more vicious predators were around.....
Women were naturaly (Yet again going back to cave-times, you know ancient history?) the care-takers. They kept the home tidy, and cooked food, they reared the young.

Look, just because you live in a cave doesn't mean the rest of us have to or want to. When was the last time you went out and speared an ocelot, skinned it to make clothes, and roast it over a fire for dinner? You're posting this on the internet, ffs - hardly a sign of your caveman-like old-school-ness. If you honestly think that our evolution since the hunter-gatherer days has been negative, again I say that you are a fool. Prove me wrong. Point out the benefits of returning to a huntergatherer state, with all that this entails.

naughty_girl wrote:

Modern day mans take on this was men had the jobs and got the money, and provided for the family. The woman cared for the family- they were housewifes. He has a point when he said woman are suited to it- it was our ancient job- look after the lair. The social side came in as many families lived together as a tribe.

No. See, thousands of years ago when food-gatherer meant ramming a spear through a large animal capable of disembowelling you, physical prowess made a difference. Hence male "superiority". Today, where physical prowess tends to have no link whatsoever to your ability to fulfill a paid job and therefore earn money, thus enabling you to obtain food, this kind of thinking is utterly outdated. It's quite baffling that, as a woman, you appear to be endorsing a return to what is basically a worse state of affairs for you and yours, but hey - whatever you're into.

naughty_girl wrote:

Women do have a ned to express more words and gestures (approx. twice of what men need to). This probably again stems from cave-man days (see above if you are confused), as men would have needed silence to have a successful hunt, and woman would have needed communication to run a successful cave.

WHAT??? Show me some reputable biological journal that backs this up, please.

naughty_girl wrote:

4) Gay people cannot biologicaly reproduce, if they cannot biologicaly become aroused by a member of the opposite sex. Maybe this is because they aren't meant to have kids, and so the desire needed to procreate is missing. Maybe not, I'm not an expert. Anyway, left to mother nature they wouldn't have children, so facilitating them to have children is going againnst the plan.

Yes. Because Nature is sentient, and has "intentions". Quite aside from your entirely reductive assumption that people's contribution to our species is limited to reproducing. Aside from cultural contributions, what about gender- and sexuality-irrelevant things like inventions or scientific developments? For want of a less poncy example, one of the key characters involved in cracking the Enigma machine in WW2 was gay - he was later outed by a tabloid paper, treated like scum by the very country his work helped to save from military defeat, and eventually committed suicide. If you don't think that significantly helping influence the result of a World War is a contribution to the species, I don't know what is.

naughty_girl wrote:

5) People with disabilites- might not be passed on to children, however lack of survival skills by themselves would have meant death long ago. Also its illegal for mentally disabled people to engage in sex (definatley with a mentally abled person, I don't know the degree of disability that is required for the law to activate, but I do know its illegal, which would imply that child birth for them would be illegal) and so even today there are systems in place to prevent such weak people breeding
[if you find that complicated, then ask an adult to explain it to you]

Once again, for someone espousing such an inconsistent perspective it's hilarious that you're trying (and failing miserably, I should add) to be condescending. Once again, contributions to the species - Stephen Hawking would almost certainly have died at a young age without a lot of care, and yet here he is, redefining physics.

If you're honestly espousing the theory that someone has to be able to survive by themselves outside of all current social models, I'd first like to see you survive for a week up mount everest with only what materials you can forage for yourself on the climb up. Until then, your opinion doesn't really hold any weight.