/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11048870
With genetic algorithms, selecting a smaller top percentage each generation results in faster training if the training space of the problem domain is not riddled with local minima. If it is, this will result in overtraining. For instance, elk with horns too big to carry. Women have a higher loss for mistakenly reproducing with a bad male unlikely to carry on their genetic line longterm so both males and females were shoehorned into this scenario. The failure of the genetically weak males doomed the genetic lines of women who reproduced with them just as much as the pickiness of the women who rejected men doomed the genetic lines of the men they rejected.

well look at the bright side. there has never been a better time in history to be a male that didn't make the top 20% cut. I'm a comfy neet that drinks cheap liquor and ears junk food all day.

bears dying in some war between two local chad strong men before.

>>11048953
over-fitting is guaranteed with this fitness landscape. and it already happened, it's called sexual selection. arbitrary traits that confer no real advantage other than being attractive to the opposite sex are selected for sometimes at the expense of ones that do.

>>11049050
This is commonly claimed but I've found that when I'm honest with myself and with the topic at hand, the traits which are sexually selected for do in fact confer material benefits outside the context of the mating game itself. Name me one which you think does not and I will show you otherwise

>>11049100
i'll give you two, height and bodymass. both negatively influence lifespan.

>>11049100
also facial symmetry has nothing to do with anything outside attraction. https://www.livescience.com/47322-facial-symmetry-sexy-health.html

>>11049115
so these are examples where sexual selection is actually detrimental. while this one is neutral >>11049119

>>11049115
Height gives leverage in hand-to-hand combat.
So does body mass, which in addition is correlated to muscle mass, and even if it's fat mass it gives fuel to fall back on during starvation periods

Facial symmetry doesn't hurt us if it's mildly off, but severe facial asymmetry correlates to genetic deficiencies in cellular differentiation, so it has to be kept in check since it's a slippery slope across generations

Come on anon

>>11049129
>Height gives leverage in hand-to-hand combat.
>So does body mass, which in addition is correlated to muscle mass, and even if it's fat mass it gives fuel to fall back on during starvation periods
what is running away or a gun? the mind is the greatest weapon. so this point is moot. also doesn't change the fact it reduces lifespan.

>correlates to genetic deficiencies in cellular differentiation
[citation really needed], it's just asymmetrical differentiation not deficient.

>>11049132
Height gives you longer legs which lets you run faster, look up all the world record holding African runners

Guns are not always present, and in close combat are not useful if you can't even get them from their holster

Reduced lifespan is not necessarily bad, long lifespan is not necessarily good. Is he who hooks himself to life support in a cryogenic chamber the fittest?

We are bilaterally symmetric organisms, if we don't meet that minimum requirement our organ systems will be off. As I said small initial asymmetry isn't harmful but it's the longterm effects if it's not kept in check. You want everyone to have droopy halves of their faces and eyeballs that don't line up? They wouldn't even see right. Symmetry is required for running too, and walking, and of course hunting, and everything else in life

>>11048870
>abiding by arbitrary social rules
lol not going to make it
good luck getting extinct whitey.

>>11049143
>Height gives you longer legs which lets you run faster, look up all the world record holding African runners
what is a car? again the mind is key, you can avoid combat altogether if you are smart about it. honestly when have you been in a fist fight? i've never been in one. the only time i was close i disarmed the situation through conversation. again mind.

>Guns are not always present, and in close combat are not useful if you can't even get them from their holster
carry it on you. don't get in close combat situations. easy. don't go to dangerous places and that's about it.

>educed lifespan is not necessarily bad, long lifespan is not necessarily good. Is he who hooks himself to life support in a cryogenic chamber the fittest?
no, it is he who doesn't age. and lifespan is good, life is great so more of it is even greater.

>We are bilaterally symmetric organisms
that is a model, it doesn't need to be fit as indicated by there being no correlation with health and symmetry.

>You want everyone to have droopy halves of their faces and eyeballs that don't line up? They wouldn't even see right.
do you have any evidence for this claim? wouldn't the brain just adapt to the positions?

>Symmetry is required for running too, and walking, and of course hunting, and everything else in life
body symmetry i can see an argument for but not facial. also there are tasks you don't need to be symmetrical for.

>>11049164
you assume technology is both ubiquitous and a new permanent appendage to our bodies. you assume wrong

>>11048870
>wah wah women won’t sleep with me
>better complain about it on my favourite anonymous message message board in the fucking science board
Pathetic

>>11049169
prosthesis will soon outperform real appendages. and some already have in some ways. technology > biology.

>>11049119
facial symmetry evolved more as a sensitivity to malnutrition and disease resistance than other factors.

>>11049143
the marathon runniing tribes of east africa? those guys are all under 6 foot there's an optimum for heat dissipation

>>11049183
and it's an incredibly poor predictive model. very prone to false negatives if positive is the healthy class.

>>11049197
historically we were under far higher disease stresses, I saw a study based on brasilian groups and how higher higher symmetry correlated with greater resilience to disease challenge
why are you so sensitive to this question? Is your nose three inches to the left?

>>11049202
what was the R^2? also very interested in the sensitivity and specificity of their model. and no i'm more angry with being born with this compulsion. because there is no rational reason i should be attracted to hot bitches in stead of sweet uggos. but my dick ends up in the hot bitch and it's always drama.

>>11049210
Don't recall the study it was years ago that I read it, they were comparing facial symmetry and other traits with I think mhc diversity or pehaps a group of disease related gene regions under a disease challenged environment.
those that reached adulthood with the least distortions from disease tended to have better resistance genes.

>>11049221
ah i see, yeah mhc diversity does control disease resistance. but in environments which aren't plagued by disease there won't be a correlation with mhc and symmetry. mhc isn't a hox gene or whatever. which bring up the cases where people have high mhc diversity but their hox genes make them asymmetric, hence the false negatives i was talking about.

>>11049228
I recall a study that looked into comparing cranial symmetry between the two elephant seal species since one of them was almost driven extinct from over hunting and lost a lot of its genetic diversity
they found the genetically bottlenecked species had much lower rates of cranial symmetry

>>11049236
interesting, and i'm guessing this wasn't an artifact of over hunting.

>>11049019
this

>>11049177
Look deeper, anons here are no different than twits on twitter in that they're being herded towards their opinions by an overarching societal manipulation structure. The ultimate truth is this: you will never not be a piece on someone else's game board. Your best course of action is to become /comfy/.

>>11049115
Extreme manlet cope.

>>11048870
Read the selfish gene

>>11049100
Women fuck niggers

>>11049019
>>11049271
Ahem.

HAIL THE STATUS QUO
AND PRAISE CHAD

Thank you.

>>11049301
Link me a mobi for my kindle.

One of the reasons males are trash compared to women these days is because males went through alot of bottlenecks and this reduces male gene pool diversity. The women also bottleneck males when they're allowed to.

>>11048870
men arent disposable because men hunt and earn money and create civilization and progress and innovation

>>11049528
Statistics say men are virgin at higher rates than women. Men will do all that you said and then go extinct. Such superiority.
I can think of no greater cuck than people like you.

>>11049177
Why would you even make a comment like this?

>>11048870
can you incels fuck off of 4chan already

>>11049129
>Body mass correlated with body mass
Tell me about it. I am a skeleton in flesh and can't grow muscles no matter what i do.

>>11049507
>BY DICK DAWKINS

>>11049129
A manlet with a spear will always beat a tall guy though. And spears are a part of humanity. They were the first weapon I believe.

>>11048870
you guys need to stop making these percantage-memes
how many do we have now?
>1%/99
>1.7%,
>13/52%
>40%
>20%/80%
and should also consider going back to /r9k/ instead of /g/ but sure

>>11048870
I don't like it, but it actually is efficient (or at least it was for our hunter gatherer ancestors). Women take nine months to gestate a baby. Since they're the limiting factor for reproduction, you don't want any of them to go to waste. So you lower the variability of their success rate. You do more of your variance/experimentation with men/

>>11049788
What if it gets rid of the pesky male gene pool diversity?
Women should be allowed to be diverse but men should be the same and look the same?

>>11049790
go outside instead of looking at selected pictures of couples in bait-threads, anon

>make 80% of the less disposable sex only breed with 20% of the disposable sex

nature didn't "make" this op, you did by being an incel and not going outside and being asocial. You get what you pay for when it comes to social relationships, being a loner who sits on 4chan every day leads to being a loner who sits on 4chan everyday

have sex etc there has never been a time in history where getting women is easier. You have to exit your comfort zone.

>>11049792
You missed my point.
By only allowing some of the males to reproduce with lots of women, women can retain their gene pool diversity. But the male gene pool gets very inbred. Males genes become concentrated and super inbred.
Eventually it could result in degenerated males.

>>11049790
>What if it gets rid of the pesky male gene pool diversity?
It doesn't, really. Also I don't think you understand, men are "supposed" to be more diverse, it's not pesky. It's selected for.

>Women should be allowed to be diverse but men should be the same and look the same?
No, it's the other way around, women are more homogeneous.
Also, if I were you I would avoid using the word "should" or similar implications of morality when talking about evolution. Thinking only descriptively (and not normatively) will help you more clearly understand it.

>>11049795
Wrong. According to my image 1989 was way easier than today because it had way less virgins.
If anything it's gotten way harder.

>>11049799
Maybe the reason women are less likely to be outliers is because they're more stable and didn't have to go through population bottlenecks.
Males are high risk high reward because only 20% could reproduce. That's why there's way more retarded unstable males and genius males because of recessive genes being concentrated and sometimes resulting in retards or geniuses. It's hit or miss, but with women it's always hit.
This doesn't mean women are more homogenous. Genetically women are more diverse and their variability is due to mutations while male variability is due to concentrations of recessive genes.
By promoting this bullshit we're saying that unlimited male inbreeding works.

>>11048870
>Why do 80% of males of every single organism have to be so biologically disposable?
Men can impregnate a new woman (potentially) every time they cum. Women, on the other hand, can only be impregnated once every 9 months, max.

>>11049783
Statistics are just info, not actual causation->consequence. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to think, debate or make hypothesis anon.

>>11049132
>what is running away or a gun?
not present on evolutionary significant timescales. Running away in hunter-gatherer societies was basically self-exile, thus removing yourself from the gene pool.

>>11049507
Selfish gene is a meme, read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley instead.
Here is a mobi: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B8BFB4B7092C0A37DAFCED38851B589E

>>11049798
>You missed my point.
you missed mine
your theory that the male gene pool is concentrated comes from a sample consisting of posts from bait/*ncel-threads

>>11049770
Not present on evolutionary timescales, or if they were, the alpha would likely get them first.

>>11049811
>unlimited male inbreeding works.
Obviously unlimited would be a problem. If, every generation, one man bred all women and the other men were sexless, that wouldn't work. But 20% is clearly doable, and leads to higher reproduction rate, due to women's longer gestation period.

>>11049819
No it comes from genetic analysis in which more women reproduced than men which means that the same men impregnated more than one woman.
The people who are born are forced to breed with their relatives due to their fathers having impregnated everyone. It leads to inbreeding. It also means male genepool diversity stays really low because only a few male genes are allowed to go on.

>>11049824
It's totally present on evolutionary timescales average human height is pretty short. Tall people are rare outside Holland and Scandinavia. And these are also places where there's alot of infidelity. It makes you think.

>>11048870
>this graph
What am I looking at? On one hand the graph claims to be about virgins, on the other it claims to be a representation of people who didn't have sex since they turned 18. So, assuming I had 20 sexual partners prior to turning 18 and none since, I'd be considered a virgin?

>>11049826
Still that's like 1 man impregnating 4 women every generation while the other 4 men fight for the remaining woman.
Looks pretty inbred to me.
Especially if that chad is really tall and huge, he won't live very long statistically and will ruin the human races longevity

>>11049818
both are good though? just read both

>>11049818
>>11049840
BTW guys I'm actually a biochemistry major so don't recommend me books that teach me how natural selection works. I don't need to learn the basics. I passed those classes OK? K thanks

>>11049839
Don't think of inbred in terms of the ratio of men to women. Think of it in terms of the size of the breeding pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
The minimum population needed to prevent inbreeding is 50. So if your population has more than 200 men, throwing away 150 of them still doesn't lead to an inbred population. Given the size of our current population we could actually be much much harsher on men's reproduction without leading to noticeable inbreeding. (I'm definitely not saying that we should- it would lead to social problems unrelated to inbreeding.)

>>11049856
There's genes exclusively activated by males. Those genes will get concentrated if most males are discarded.

>>11049865
Yes, that's why I said 50 instead of 25. As long as you have more than 50 breeding males every generation it shouldn't matter, even if the population of breeding women is much larger.

>>>/r9k/

>>11048870
3dpd

>>11048870
Hmm, i wonder why...?

>>11050254
He failed because he wasn't handsome enough.
poor guy.

>>11048870
>make 80% of the less disposable sex only breed with 20% of the disposable sex
>the disposable sex is meant to compete amongst themselves to get into the top 20% of their sex but the less disposable sex has to do no such thing
This is all bullshit. Virgin incels are more like the bottom 2 percent, not 80 percent.

the whole 80:20 thing only possibly works when women don't need a secure dependent income to live off and protection for their family

>>11048870
Humans evolution didn't account for online dating.

>be horny and lonely
>masterb8
>Woman? Mindless distractions bros

>>11048870
Evolution doesn't pick the most efficient thing it just picks the first thing that works and spams it until it stops working, then the thing either dies out or something more fit replaces it.

>>11049180
This turns me on

>>11049115
So you have to stay a virgin even longer before deaths sweet embrace takes you, meanwhile all those Stacy's are weeping over Chad's still beautiful corpse as he dicks down Valkyries in Valhalla

>80/20 “rule” bullshit
Weird how incels never post the chart with the data for women also. If we’re gonna go with that data then it’s ~70% of men having sex with ~80% of women. But I guess “the 70/80 rule” isn’t as doom and gloom as the crabs in the /r9k/ bucket would want to believe

>>11050710
All of those women are 300+ pounds.

>>11050710
You fucking retard

>>11050719
You fucking retard, that doesn’t even refute the chart that was posted. Girls have more sex than men THROUGH TINDER. Stop pretending that the tinder experience is even remotely applicable to the entirety of humanity.

>>11048870
It's not scientific, but Genesis got it right. Men suffer by the sweat of our brows in a world that gives up nothing but thorns and suffering without it until the day we die.
I'm all for women's rights and liberation. Some of the dearest people in my life have been women since day one. There are women in my life who have saved me more than once, and I admire a number of them. I've always had women and girls in my life who I considered role models.
But the feminists got it wrong when they assumed that a man's life, even a century ago, was something pampered and luxurious. It's thorn, toil, and death.

>>11050714
Yeah, you could just as easily name this "Fat women driving decline in sex". Fucking fatties.

>>11050722
Do you think this is because tinder selects for only a promiscuous subset of women?

>>11050738
Yes, which is why their behavior on tinder is not indicative to the behavior of all women

>>11048870
>>Is this actually efficient?

Why in the world would you expect efficiency?

Please look up the concept of evolutionary stability.

>>11051400
Because we control what it should be after we gained consciousness

>>11050741
Actually it is indicative of most women.

>>11049129
>and even if it's fat mass it gives fuel to fall back on during starvation periods
except a larger body also consumes more fuel.

>>11049524

Ironically, selection and evolution increase diversity. The lack of selection pressures decreases diversity.

It's why selection and evolution led to so many different species on the planet.

>>11049832

>existed for 500 years
>expect to be evolutionarily relevant

Stop.

>>11050477

Or bottom 30% now, looking at the new data for permavirgins.

Maybe take off the narrative glasses.

>Bottlenecks and selective sweeps during domestication have increased deleterious genetic variation in dogs
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/1/152.full.pdf
>Evolutionary History, Selective Sweeps, and Deleterious Variation in the Dog
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2016-wayne.pdf

>>11052650
>tfw this bullshit selection by females will give us disorders and diseases

>>11048870
> WHY IS MALE GENOCIDE A THING?
There are many more ways to fail at adaptation than to succeed.

Genocide is just nature's way of taking out the trash.

>>11052703
what about the wiminz

>>11049115
Both of those had real advantages in our evolutionary history anon

>>11052863
science says small light manlets are better

>>11052957
Better how?
Them living longer is pretty irrelevant
>>11049132
>the mind
Somewhat correlated with height, isn't it? Cognitive ability I mean. Not sure on this one though.
>reduces lifespan
Not relevant in this case, evolutionarily speaking

>>11052593
Yeah but selecting buff males doesn't increase diversity. It turns people more inbred though

>>11052963
lower calorie needs, more nimble, compact, built for ambush warfare, significantly lower incidence of rheumatism and chronic musculoskeletal diseases, more symmetrical, lower rates of autism, higher iq, better distribution of muscle mass, don’t require captive dairy producing livestock to support their fucked growth patterns, lower chance of pregnancy mortality
>>11053104
You don’t know what you’re talking about

>>11053114
Same 20% fathering all the kids for like 20 years or more in a row would result in many kids that are related and samey. Decreases diversity. Increases inbreeding

Stop being such a faggot and disregard your biological programming. Look at Isaac Newton, he'll be remembered as long as human civilization survives and he died a virgin (probably). There's much more to life than sex.

>>11053459
>There's much more to life than sex.

>>11053459
>rise above morty focus on science :))

>>11053463
>>11053464
You know it's true.

>>11050599
That's because digitigrade feet are objectively more attractive. That's why women wear high heels.
But our flat feet provided practical benefits greater than the "beauty" force in sexual selection, so flat feet is what we got.

>>11053675
It's not true. Imagine if Newton had passed on his genes. Then there would be a higher chance of producing another like him or at least a bunch of smart people who follow in his footsteps kind of.

>>11054384
intelligence has low priority in attractiveness of a mate

>>11048870
Wait till you take the chromosome pill.
Because men only get one X chromosome, they suffer from a large number of disorders that women's second X largely protects them from.
Color blindness of varying degrees affects 8% of men, but you never hear about it.

>>11054401
Wrong. I like smart males.

>>11054427
Hey there, Ms Outlier.

>is this actually efficient? What if they were equally disposable?
Fucking brainlet one of sexes must be responsible for the breeding process the disposability rises from this simple fact

>>11054401
facial symmetry is highly correlated with intelligence, which is a key factor in attractiveness

>>11054401
Intelligence is up there on the priority list, can't understand how you can build a relationship with nothing in common either.

>>11054401
Intelligence has high priority in the establishing of a solar system faring civilisation

>>11054409
Also this.

>>11054690
why do we suffer so much dam

>>11054692
We really do.
You should wish you were born female everyday, and hope to only have female children.

>>11049535
Literally the only people who care about and use the term virgin are virgins. Jesus christ that doesn't even make sense, non-virginz dont pass their genes all the time. Seriously this is only important to you because you're obsessed

>>11054819
I already wish I was born female every day.
I have that mental illness

>>11049132
>>11049164
>our ancient ancestors had guns and cars
Midgets have scientifically proven lower IQ than 6ft chads.Source: you.

>>11049770
a chad with a spear will always beat a manlet with a spear. chad has longer reach, greater throwing power and speed.

>>11054834
You should cut off your peepee and turn it inside out, anon
It's all very scientific and the best way to remove yourself from the gene pool

>>11054861
what about a chad with a gun?
Technically the manlet should win in that case because the hitbox is smaller.

>>11054882
then why don't we see an army of midgets? It's because they can't carry half their shit. They'd go out their with 3 mags and run out of bullets and then have to run back with their funny little waddle dodging bullets left and right to get some more.
Considering the fire rate and the amount of extra ammo a big dude could carry it's probably more efficient to be a chad.

>>11054887
>either you're 6'4 or you're a midget who can't hold a gun

>>11048870
how the fuck is it possible to remain virgin until your 30s without having intent?

had my first sex immediately after turning legal, and i am almost 30 now and i didn't had any more sex because i didn't want to

>>11054901
you'd be classified as virgin.

>>11049535
>Men will do all that you said and then go extinct.
why do you think so?

>>11049100
Intelligence has been selected against ever since 1975, which is roughly the beginning of the sexual revolution. Global IQ scores are falling, and given the current state of the dating market, I can only imagine to what depths they will reach in the next few years.

https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence

>>11049100
Look up sexy sons hypothesis.

Sometimes a trait is selected for just because other people select for it,and you become more likely to pass on genes that way. It's like the genetic equivalent of a Ponzi scheme or economic bubble.

>>11054905
nah i classify as forever single

i still vividly remember what it feels like to have my dick wrapped in someone i absolutely despise and i do not wish to experience that again

>>11048870
fuck roasties

>>11054960
Intelligence is less adaptive today because of policies which fundamentally do little other than to reallocate wealth from the middle and upper-middle class to low intelligence, low education, low socioeconomic status people, who live and reproduce because their existence is subsidised by the state.

Derogate these policies and the issue is mostly solved. The low-intellect can't generate wealth by themselves, and this will only become increasingly truer in an advanced, mechanised economy in which they have no useful skills.

>>11055041
This.
We need less taxes, less government, and less welfare.
We should privatize healthcare

>>11050719
looks legit

>>11055001
Yep

>>11054834
>I have that mental illness
It's not a mental illness to wish you'd been born female.
Thinking you ARE a female, or that you can become one given current tech, is.

Lets talk strategy. You need to be online. To make the most of it, hire a photographer. I see millennials all over my town having their pictures taken. So you have to try.

2nd, you have to take a relationship slow. Sex diseases are back.

>>11049115
>shorter men live longer
I wouldn't call that life...

what makes a female "not disposable"?

correct, the womb

>>11057288
I know. I'm waiting for better tech and more progressive societies

Hello /sci/
its funny how you guys boast about your extremely high IQ's, but you can not comprehend what benefits men get in life
First
look at the virginity graph. Note how it says males past the age of 18, and not 30
do you know
what happens with males past 30? they advance their careers. They should have 200 k salaries. They should be well pass law school
>oh no, not a beta provider promotion
no
hookers.
men will always be the major market for hookers, escorts, mail order brides, (and soon sex robots)
that is why men prosper
women have too much ego to ever use hookers (except weird ones) and will forever try to chase chad cock
women are dumb, and weak. They dont pick proper majors

in my college, 70% of the business majors are all men. And, surprise surprise, Womens study majors or shit like journalism are 95% female
what the fuck could those jobs possibly pay
If you were to compare the sec 40 year old males have with 20 year old Females to 40 year old females having sex with 20 year old males
you will find, men have the advantage
it is very easy for a rich dude to pick up a young hooker from the netherlands or japan
I am 21, myself, i have lots monies, and use hookers
most of their clients are older males. not females. not young males
This whole craze for robot sex dolls is a very old concept.
Older men have been resorting to hookers since the beginning of time
These chads that think 20s are their prime and happiest days ever, well, they are no better than women to be honest
that is why we call them Chads, and not Men, because they are no different from a lesbian

>>11057692
>paying for sex with a girl that took 1000+ cocks, is an absolute win
So this is the math genius I've heard so much about

>>11057709
hookers are proven to take less cocks in than the average roastie and have less chance of STD's because they are regulary tested.
plus, who honestly gives a fuck about the cock rate.

all that matters is how hot they are.

you could fuck a 27 year old landwhale virgin or you can fuck a 20 year old slut.
i would personally choose the slut.
but hey, if you dont want to swallow the hooker pill, not my problem

just trying to inform people

>>11057692
We’re also much stronger and bigger than women. If we all unite we can reinstate patriarchy and make a better future for men of all kind. Don’t let the weird discord trannies and radical feminists cuck you out of your masculinity, embrace what god gave you my brothers!

>>11057716
out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I won't take the hooker pill but fair enough you can push it if you want.
I see it as an absolute loss.

>>11057720
thats mgtow shit. i just spout logistics.
>>11057721
Women only have their 20s
Chads or decent males settle with their wife in their 30s and end up with divorce

Hooker pilled anons have hookers from 30 and until they die. And hookers are always young 20s piece of ass and loving escorts

coming from /biz/ i feel sorry for you engineers. Engineering isnt really that high paying in the long run unless youre some nuclear scientist with private power plant.
might as well have all the women take the low paying engineering jobs and try to become a high paying lawyer from T20 like me.

The biggest fuck you a man can do to a woman, is being 40, rich, and fucking girls half their age

>>11057741
oh well you weren't hikari poster anyway.
And you're just focused on hedonism. That doesn't sell on this board dude. It's not really what we want otherwise we'd be on /biz/ chasing a new high every day

>>11055041
>because of policies which fundamentally do little other than to reallocate wealth from the middle and upper-middle class to low intelligence, low education, low socioeconomic status people, who live and reproduce because their existence is subsidised by the state.

That's bullshit though.
Lower classes always have a lot of children, even when/where there is no redistribution.
What changed is that middle- and upper-class women stopped having children, partly because they started working.

>>11057873
these days nobody cares about reproducing

>>11048870
>did males evolve to suffer?
No, but males suffered to evolve. Deep.

>>11059690
But we're worse off now than ever

>>11053114
>this manlet cope

>>11048870
There is someone out there for everyone. Note that there hasn't been a single bit of math done to disprove this.
Those men just shoot for women who are way out of their league. If you're an average man with average achievements, you won't be dating a VS model anytime soon. It's really as simple as that. Know your place.

>>11057747
I want a 40k equivalent of a world where its constantly on the brink of annihilation. Not this luke warm semi bad and sometimes ok world which so much vagueness to it. Its almost as if death by bullets with comradely honor is better than living in this hedonistic sign language of a society.

>>11060684
epic and low iq

>>11060687
Female mate choice causes untold male suffering. We have the technology to phase women out so it shouldn't continue to be this way.

>>11054882
It also comes down to competence with a firearm.

>>11054887
I think submariners are preferred to be on the shorter side and I would say submarines are some of the deadliest war implements ever made.

>>11057378
>Meeting at bars
The worst way to meet people. Bars have slowly started to become all about the pickup scene instead of regular socialization.

>>11060734
No you don't kiddo

because males actually love to be disposable. the whole drive of a male is to be acknowledged as being useful
-being useful towards a woman is just giving her great sex and solving her little problems and a man is indeed always happy to be chosen by a woman to give sex FOR FREE
-being useful to other men is just paying taxes and trying to fulfill the moronic male idea of ''serving'' the clan, the group, the society, the kingdom, which is symbolized by acquiring lots of worthless medals (but spineless men like militaries love that crap)


men derive meaning and purposes from women and their retarded idea of progress of society. when men do not have this, they literally get depressed and commit suicide. It is a matter of life and death for a male to be seen as useful

Men value too much women and the big mistake of a man is that he think he is no longer dispoabled, he no longer competes with other man, once a woman has chosen him for casual entertainment. It turns out a woman always keep her orbiters in competition, even when she shacks up with one of her orbiters.
THen it gets even worse, because a woman lives for sex and only sex:
-when she is around other women, they talk about sex
-when she is with men, she has sex
-when she watches tv, read books and what bourgeois wanabes call ''culture'', which is a fancy word for entertainment, they are about sex

>>11061379
First no man can please sexually a woman day after. A woman gets bored sexually very quickly, especially once the novelty of the nonsexual entertainment wears off with her current official provider.

What women love the most is what they call ''summer loves'', ie casual sex with whatever chads they can get in the summer holiday. WOmen love that because women hate commitements on their parts, and by definition the casual shagging is set to last only the summer.

In the context of companies, the summer love happens at conferences, workshops and the like, where the women love to spread their legs before whatever strangers attend the workshops. Lots casual sex free of charge given by the beta cucks.


The major problem for women is that it is only a matter before they get pregnant, after spreading their legs.
THen it is time to find an official provider who will provider for the daily life and more or less secretly continue to have casual sex at the workshops or with some coworkers.

>>11054905
wait in what bizarro land is someone who's lost their virginity a virgin?
what am i missing here?

>>11049115
Keep telling yourself that little guy

>>11049100
Average IQ is actually dropping

>>11048870
It used to be men that were the selectors but men eventually willingly gave that up.

>>11057637
Kek.

>>11049832
Source?

>>11050484
Women would still only genuinely be attracted to a small percentage of men.

>>11050511
No but online dating reveals evolutionary behavior.

>>11048870
>Is this actually efficient?

Of course it's efficient. Letting virtually all men reproduce wouldn't filter out traits considered less "fit." Evolution has always been cruel and wasteful. 99.9% of animals that ever existed when extinct.

I'm single because never had any interests in relations. I'd rather learn more about the universe and systems programming than spending time with other poeple.

>>11054401
Transcendental cope

>>11064154
He's right.

>>11054447
Lol. You think that because attractive people have higher intelligence they were chosen because of their intelligence? Higher IQ than average just comes with the package. Attractive traits are usually physical not abstract.

>>11064099
But why should all women be allowed to pass on their genes?

>>11064341
I never said they should.

>>11049210
whats the fucking r^2 in ops study?

>>11049849
you seem to be a very unfriendly insecure cunt, ok? k

>>11054819
Not even joking. Being a male is hellish

>>11049849
>i know how genetics work
>only 20% of males procreating is male genocide
ok bro

>>11064113
Well, you can never desire what you've never known.

It's like a nigger living in a mudhut in central Africa, content with having a few cows. He doesn't know any better.

>>11064559
Indeed

>>11064559
Please get yourself to a real, genuine therapist that will help you discover the root cause(s) of your dysphoria and though introspection and guidance you will work through the hurt and pain and be gone with it forever. Don't you realize you're just a victim of a society that has sexualized every aspect of life, and you've fallen head over heels for it. Would you be transgender without social media? Think about it...

>>11066560
They called me a faggot before social media.

>>11048870
Why are there 2 sexes? Why couldn't nature make all of us futanari?

>>11050710
What the fuck is this fuckery? More men report not having sex. How the fuck is that "driving the decline"?

>>11048870
>make 80% of the less disposable sex only breed with 20% of the disposable sex
but your graph literally shows the opposite of this, only 27% of men shown are virgins. it's risible to imagine 53% being liars.

>>11068398
They are lying

>>11049115
Lifespan isn't a positive trait in the context of evolution, at least not beyond your 60's. Once your kids grow up and has kids of their own, you're largely relegated to an advisory role. Being able to protect your kids while you're in your prime is far more critical.

Also, having genes for height makes it to where even in a nutritionally poor environment you'll grow large enough to avoid being in the "at risk of being carried off by an owl" size range.

>>11057637
Based

>>11069002
To reach old age you need to be healthier for longer. This means more time to reproduce and protect said more offspring. Also brute strength isn't effective for humans, rather resource gathering and tool development are the ways to go about this which doesn't require much strength. This was true then and it's especially true now.

>>11048870
No, but psychopathy evolved to make every game closer to zero-sum the greater population pressure is. You'll find that that graph exactly tracks the economic ascendancy of the borg-like swarms of southeast Asia, as well as the sublime despotism of the insanely rich.

>>11069237
I don't know how you think tall people age, but they usually age pretty well into their 50's and 60's. 70's and later is when you start getting back problems and the like -- well past the time where you're raising any kids. But also keep in mind that these detrimental effects from height usually only happen in extremely tall people (6'4"+). Being in the 6' range presents no substantial quality of life difference.
You act like being tall stops you from gathering resources and making tools. This isn't true, in fact taller people are on average more intelligent, which suggest that they were particularly proficient tool-makers. Many tools are simply a multiplier for human strength. For instance, a strong lumberjack will be more effective at downing trees than a 5'4" lumberlet. A strong hunter will be able to more-reliably deliver a killing blow with a spear, or handle a bow with a higher draw length/weight and thus be able to kill game from longer distances or more effectively. A strong laborer will be able to carry more weight.

>>11070358
Except manlets have an easier time in the gym and can get sick gains quicker.

>>11054834
>I wish I was born into the privileged ez mode group.
That’s actually very rational.

>>11070358
>I don't know how you think tall people age, but they usually age pretty well into their 50's
Nope

>>11069237
It’s not a trade. A body builder can and often is really intelligent as well. Wanting to be weaker for no legitimate reason sounds like mental illness.

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=0FEF2BBF9F2EC80550DA20602C6940F6&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

Research has shown that anywhere between only 30-40% of men ever have managed to reproduce while upwards of 80% of women have.

We're just products of our environment. Men operate throughout the exterior world, and create a society wherein women operate. 1 on 1 monogamy is a modern creation, the most powerful men have always commanded 2 or more brides/concubines/breeding partners.

>>11069596
What?

>>11057893
Whites don't, trust me the rest of the world doesn't. Go in the pediatric service of any big western city if you don't believe me.

>>11049535
This chart is 18-30 year olds. Men can be fertile into their 50’s. You are hysterical.

Literally get in shape, wear clothes that fit you (no autism jeans), and have personal goals in life. The sex will come naturally after that.

>virginity means suffering
huh?

>>11070875
>trust me the rest of the world doesn't.

You mean does?

>>11049100
The peacock's tail

>>11048870
There are constant new mutations in our DNA. Some are beneficial but 90% are harmful. Evolution needs a mechanism to weed out those that are not fit to reproduce or the species goes extinct due to bad genetics.

>>11071086
So all females should reproduce to weed them out but men shouldn't

>>11057873
>Lower classes always have a lot of children, even when/where there is no redistribution.
It's true that they usually had more children than the higher socioeconomic classes, but their high mortality rate used to cut their numbers significantly, which caused higher socioeconomic families to have more children who actually made it to adulthood.

>What changed is that middle- and upper-class women stopped having children, partly because they started working.
Also true, but effectively funding the reproduction of low socioeconomic status people only exacerbates the problem.

>>11071100
No but females handle the majority of child rearing in most species and men with "beneficial" genetics usually have numerous offspring so it evens out, at least for men with "beneficial" genetics. Men who don't make the cut usually just die out or resort to gang rape like male ducks do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaW4F4cyZsE

>>11071086
>Some are beneficial but 90% are harmful

Why are so many mutations harmful?

>>11050719
> Anonymous research on some fucking blog website
Yeah that's legit anon, point proven

>>11049535
There will always be a 50/50 chance of a newborn being male or female. How can males go extinct

>>11050719
The absolute state of /sci/

>>11050719
Grow some abs get pussy, seems easy enough.

>>11053675
Genuine cope

>>11048870
>make two sexes, one which is disposable and one which isn't
what a bizarre assumption you've made.
both men and women are disposable.

humans are entirely disposable. they're the leftover thrown-out refuse of parts that don't work. they don't have souls like normal living things. humans are more similar to rocks and clay than any animal to have ever existed. It is more a horrifyingly chaotic than natural thing that a human even moves around, given rocks do not.

it was a sick, sad, and completely retarded mistake to breathe "life" into the human form. humans have no purpose, and they serve no purpose.

You know, I see every average and ugly fuck in real life married, with tons of kids, in a good career, and happy as hell. How fucking unattractive are you ugly fucks that you're having problems that irl uggos easily overcome? Something tells me you're whiny cunts that want 10/10s and won't settle for less, like those single old women who "know what they got".

>>11071583
those are boomers. They're not our age.
You think whatever happens to people over 30 is our problem?

>>11049795
What a load of bullshit lmao. I'm a 6'1 200 lb male lifting for 5 years who goes out on weekends and socialize. I'm a khv at 26 despite trying.
Another friend of mine is a ripped to the bone 180 lb natural bodybuilder who can bench 225 for 15 reps. He also goes out every weekend, he only had one gf who was a landwhale and had to go to Thailand to get poon.
Literally 9/10 males I know are constantly single, meanwhile 100% of all women have a new guy after a break up in a matter of a day to a week max. So this means a very small pool of men get all the women. I just wonder which men, I am big, strong, tall and have money yet women don't have sex with me.

>>11072914
You're not using tinder and okcupid

>>11048870
>Be me
>Visit science board on shake-and-bake
>macoroni breeding forum
>See graph
>"Incel up twenty percent since 2008,
>muh male genocide"
>Visit Wikipedia
>"Pornhub - Wikipedia
>Launched, 25 May 2007; 12 years ago
>(2007- 05-25)."
Cope harder, coom-baba.

>>11072921
I do and I get plenty of matches.
Use it since 3 years, zero hookups. At one point I had 120 matches in a matter of 4 months in a rural area and still didn't got laid. I messaged ALL of them.

Tinder made it even more impossible since now you have to compete against thousands of men looking as good as you or better.

>>11072949
wew

>>11049115
Living marginally longer isn't a real advantage to the species as a whole in the long run, especially if these extra years are just a couple more as a frail old man

>>11054442
>Ms Outlier.
you mean "gay male"

>>11073145
It's actually closet tranny but thanks for trying.

>>11049143
Audie Murphy the most decorated American soldier of all time was below 5'6.

>>11071195
He meant individually

>>11072949
>be attractive
>3 years
>zero hookups
Maybe women aren't as slutty as all of you think? Maybe it's just your way of living trying only to score?

>>11057716
>hookers are proven to take less cocks in than the average roastie
topkek

>>11071583
>ugly fuck in real life married, with tons of kids, in a good career, and happy as hell.
probably a beta provider

>>11048870
There are not only too many people, there are too many men. I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. It is very rare in mammal populations that you have a 50/50 ratio of male to female. In fact, it is well known that male infants are less robust than female infants, and the reason we have a 50/50 sexual ratio is because we artificially support males and withdraw resources from females. I suspect that in the high paleolithic the ratio was closer to two to one. My supposition, in thinking about this, is probably that the best ratio is three to one. This is the way to feminize the human race, if you are serious. This is the way to advance women, if you are serious… I have never heard anyone say that male birth should be limited, but it obviously should… we can steer ourselves towards a population with a predominance of females, and those females should have only one child, and 75% of those children should also be female. I don't consider myself a gung-ho feminist… As a humanist, I advocate a reduction in male births. It just seems obvious that it is the way to go. If it does not seem obvious to you, then let's have a public debate about it, and at least make it part of the rhetoric of the culture, that this is an option to think about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO7pHD3X9M

>>11048870
why? because it works best in the enviroment we evolved in as mammals

>>11074329
The problem with that idea is that females are weaker both physically and mentally, and are more emotionally unstable.

>>11074797
Well, replace women with artificially wombs and perfect sex dolls.

Trillons dollar incelnomics and lack moral china science will make it.

>>11074329
Even if there were less men there'd still be plenty of single men.

>>11048870
Well its just natural selection.
if you have shitty genes you should not get to breed.

>>11074329
You realize that you are advocating for MALE GENOCIDE?

>>11074780
It doesn't work for society.

>>11074329
Unironically support this, war was for a long time a way to get rid of undesirable men.
Now we have a excess of undesirable men who are aimless and depressed because they were basically born to be slaves.

>>11049115
Got the virgin chadtryhards seeeeething. Good post, anon.

>>11078016

Not him but have you considered that nearly every war humanity has had was predominantly MALE GENOCIDE! What makes his proposal any worse than the reality we have right now?

Hundreds of millions of men have died as nothing but fodder for war. Yet despite so many men lost we still keep doing it and putting men in harm's way. At what point does this shit stop?

>all these anons claiming they can't get a gf
Okay, post face then. I need some context on what women are rejecting. You could be ugly as fuck for all I know.

>>11080239
Most incels aren't ugly, it's mostly autism that scares away the women.

>>11050511
Human evolution didn't account for SOCIETY

>>11048870
women are universally dumb cunts and they prefer men who are either A) also dumb cunts, or B) willing to humor the retarded shit they say/do in order to get in their panties. Being retarded cunts, most cunts are never aware when B is happening.

>>11080403
>inb4 fuck you incel loser have sex
I've fucked like 50 chicks and the current mother of my children is actually a retarded cunt.

>>11080334
baste

>>11050725
>It's thorn, toil, and death.
Now it's, vidya, porn, junkfood then death

>>11053459
Nice cope. Isaac Newton failed to pass on his uberman genes though low T man-baby

>>11054692
>>11054819
Your mindset is fucked. You have to struggle to make something of yourself and BECOME a man. If either of you, or myself, were sent back in time 1000 years we would instantly die due to pathological weakness, pathological comfort addiction, pathological cowardliness, pathological low T, basically the weakest male in our village would kill us for being a little bitch. And then the village would make up a song about how this weird looking man-baby magically appeared out of fucking nowhere like Schwarzenegger's hideously ugly doppelgänger at the beginning of Terminator 1 and the village viewed us as something so weak and vile that they burned us at the stake and from then on all the weak males were burned at the stake and that village remained strong and virile to this day, producing 85% of the Tinder Chads banging every bitch in sight.

>>11054960
This is in fact happening and like all important issues the Left will deny it until it's too late.
IQ prolly peaked a few hundred years ago was the theory some academic wrote a book about, can't remember the name due to low IQ.

Globohomo = Diseugenic Welfare State

>>11055041
White people can be very easily manipulated by their empathy and the psychopaths know this. Change the policies and help support intelligent people and the psychopaths will plaster television, the internet, your podcast advertisements with pictures of helpless looking negro children eating bugs in a ditch

>>11080461
They wouldn't kill us for being. We could bring science to them.

>>11048870
How can you fail at basic shit like getting laid?
I guarantee that everyone itt that cant get laid is simply an ackward faggot that's to scared to talk to women and/or carry a normal conversation with them.

Failing to get laid is the social equivalent of failing calc 1.

>>11081145
This is the most retarded reply to any post I have ever made

>>11081145
Have you tried extreme penis stretching with 100% elongation time, meaning there is always a load for 24 hours straight pulling on your penis?

>>11081205
That pretty harsh towards calc 1, it's probably closer to failing algebra 2

>>11049121
sexual selection isnt detrimental, the next generation has a higher sexual advantage

>>11049132
nature cares about how much spawn you seed not whether you live to 90

I can't compete with all the big black cocks in my area.

Why is my white peepee so small!?

FUCK!!!

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!

>>11081329

No, nature doesn't "care" about anything. Nature is not some sort of conscious, individual or collective subject with a "grand plan" or telos. Rather, nature is simply a dumb, unconscious, objective, non-subjective state of affairs which disposes subjects to act in particular ways. You're anthropomorphizing a thing which is not a person, and therefore misunderstanding it. You're basically committing the same normie philosophical error which is common these days: "The meaning of life is to reproduce brah if you don't do that you're a loser!" This current atheist materialist meme is itself an update of pseudo-scientific "Social Darwinism" as expressed by wealthy magnates during the early 20th century. Ironically, the above normie meme is grounded in a certain materialist atheism and ignores the fact that 'the individual human subject himself dies', and under an atheistic, materialist view of things, becomes precisely nothing, and therefore personally gains precisely nothing by having reproduced.

>>11081344
In reality you are being oppressed by propaganda. Stop being driven by your fears and insecurities.

>>11081344
Stop thinking about animal penises anon. This is your first step

>>11048870
Yes, it makes perfect sense when you consider one man can impregnate multiple women but one woman can only be impregnated by one man at a time.

>>11081466
Then why isn't the gender balance something closer to 60/40% or 70/30% in the favor of women? 50/50 is a recipe for disaster

>>11081327
That's like saying you're a king.
Except you're a king in a shitty steam game.

>>11081472
Because nature wants meat for the meat grinder

bump

>>11082394
>pls join my pity party