/sci/ - Science & Math

The mix of r-k selection in the form of large superfecund females and small superathletic men is the ideal
The females will birth litters each pregnancy but the couple will also be great parents. It's like Lions

I'm a materialist, materialists stay winning

>>15165006
How?
The very fact that we are able to genetically modify organisms, and will genetically modify humans to express female-biased size dimorphism, wouldn't be possible if evolution weren't true.
What is it about evolution that you hate so much? Everything about it is intuitive AND we have enormous amounts of data and evidence to support it.

>>15147674
Nope. Female biased sexual size dimorphism is the future. This has nothing to do with pedophilia.
Pic related is a little exaggerated but you should be able to see why it is ideal, biologically and physically speaking.

The future of humanity is a genetically modified master race of giant superfecund women and small superathletic men

Notice how none of these come close to the giant women small men posts.
Just accept it, if you don't want to genetically modify women to be giant and men small, you aren't smart

>>15063785
It's not a fantasy. By the end of the decade there will only be small super athletic men and towering superfecund women in our species

>>15024216
Genetic modification isn't magic. It can't make people into dragon people.

Genetic engineering is going to be used to make men small, lean, and super athletic, and women tall, thick, and super fecund. This IS possible and also physically ideal

>>15012098
Let's imagine every single mention of the word "material" in every scientific paper is replaced with "the platonic form" or "the mathematical object" or whatever. Does this make any difference in the model or it's ability to describe phenomena or reproduce?

No. The model is exactly the same in terms of it's utility, but we would look at it as a description of a different ontological unit, or whatever, despite the difference in the linguistic description.

So the only reason the word "material" has privilege here is because of the culture and language at the time when science was getting off the ground. It's not because it necessarily has any greater descriptive power.

We're going to genetically modify humans to make men 4' tall and super athletic, and women 6'5" and super fecund. It starts in about a year

>>14947182
Oh cool, I didn't know women browsed /sci/
What do you think of the big female small male dimorphism that we're going to genetically engineer into the population in a few years?

>>14862026
Why would collapse of the wavefunction imply a God is collapsing it vs. It just being random?
The only thing you've proven is that you can't use quantum mechanics or physics in general to disprove God, not that God is necessary for physics.

>>14860206
It makes no sense to me to think that sexual preferences are not socialized, and informed by culture and the society one grows up in.
If we took a bunch of babies and raised them on an island with only tall women and small men, and the babies were selected specifically to be male babies who would grow to be short and female babies who would grow to be tall, all the children would develop preference for tall women and small men. We wouldn't have to change anything about the human genome. The girls would not all sort of become uncomfortable as they grew up, thinking "somethings off, the boys are too small" or whatever, and the boys would not grow up to feel their masculinity threatened or thinking that the girls should be shorter, etc.

I genuinely think anyone who disagrees with this is full of shit and lying to themselves.

>>14856311
Large or small breasts don't actually really matter for making breast milk.
I plan of genetically modifying women to all have big breasts and muscular tummies like you say, but that's aesthetic, its not actually needed.

>>14854449
Your future

>>14831047
I didn't lose my virginity until I was 24, but now at 27 I've slept with 21 women so far. About half were taller than me which is my fetish as is probably known lol. I like tall girls with wide hips and big butts

>>14826635
Physicalism has the most promise. The problem is how associated brain states to mental states are possible at all, not that we can find correlations between them. Finding associations doesn't solve the problem, we need a deeper theory for that.
It's as Witten says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

>>14825891
This is attractive

>>14800355
That's the future of humanity though, in a sense. Maybe the males will have certain features that differentiate them from children but men will be around ~3'10" forever and women will grow to be 6'5"+
What traits do you think the males should have to differentiate adults from kids (other than size because that isn't going to be made larger)?

>>14788637
>6'4" man
irrelevant and obsolete. There aren't going to be large "men" in our species in a few years. Large men are inferior to small ones in all relevant ways while also costing more resources to produce and maintain.

>>14788641
His point is that those traits are not relevant so there is no point for a woman to be attracted to them. It's part of the overall idea that current female sexual preferences are not optimal and not relevant and will need to be modified going forward.
Now it's certainly the case that sexual preferences are socialized so it's not like we're going to need to engineer the new preference into women, you'll just get used to being big and liking the small cute males by just living in the society. But still I understood his general point although it was not completely flushed out.

>>14788678
Nope. That's a useless dimorphism that's nothing but a weird race based cuck fetish thing. It doesn't matter what people look like in terms of skin or hair color or whatever, people will be an array of different skin colors and have the whole spectrum of "racial" phenotypes etc.
The dimorphism that I talk about is actually optimal in that giant thick women can be programmed to make litters of babies (their large body can easily support it) increasing their fecundity and fitness, while small (3'10") lean super athletic men are superior to larger ones in modern forms of combat and labor (small men are better at fighting with weapons and can perform all tasks at a sufficient rate) while costing a fraction of the resources.
Female-biased sexual size dimorphism, making women giant and super-fecund and men tiny and super quick and athletic, is the ideal dimorphism. A society of people designed in this way will expand exponentially faster than any other, while using fewer resources, and will have massive advantages in the modern and future economy etc.

>>14784642
There will only be small men and giant women by the end of the decade

It's happening anons we're all going to make it

>>14737246
>>14737249
This is your future femanon, please just accept it.
And no, those other demographics are not as intelligent as I am.

>>14736776
Firearms are part of the reason as to why large males have been rendered inefficient and obsolete and why were going to modify males to all be small and super athletic. Not the whole reason but part of it.