/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15254995
You conflate nature and culture and there is a temporal distortion.
Nature is nessesary to have culture but culture is not supposed to be following nature's way of doing things, at least in the short term
For example
In Tzarist Russia there existed a sect of Christians that willingly castrated themselves. They were popular enough for the government to step in.

I have an incredibly based and effective mating strategy, but I think I will keep it to myself for now

>>15254995
Culture is just a meta mating strategy where the superior culture is able to mate and spread itself more.

>>15255288
does it involve duct tape?
Arranged marrige is THE must intelligent way of mating, and the least animalistic way

>>15255300
Nice try but I'm not revealing my secrets. Needless to say it's what the kids would call "next level"

>>15255293
Yeah the "superior" culture of feminist polyamory where the kids don't have a proper family unit are going to do wonders for their outward trajectory and mating success.

>>15255316
You completely misunderstood, retard. Culture doesn't need biological mating to propagate. It's subject to evolutionary selection but it exists on a different level from genetics.

>>15255320
>Culture doesn't need biological mating to propagate.
To what extent? Obviously if there were less people then it would propagate less, or even change less.

>>15255323
The most dankest maymays propagate, like this frog for instance

>>15254995
>If all people born* were the product of a mating strategy of some kind, then why do we surround sex in taboo and/or ideology?
Because it was evolutionarily advantageous for people to be this way. Rest of your post is irrelevant.

>>15255331
And they propagate and "mutate" more with more sharing from more people.
>>15255332
There was nothing taboo about sex in the vast majority of human existence before religion. No one thought women had to give "wilful active and constant consent" nor did they think we should stop having sex in pubescence.

>>15255334
>There was nothing taboo about sex in the vast majority of human existence before religion.
How do you know and why does it matter?

>>15255337
>How do you know?
Evident in reports by monotheists.
>Why does it matter?
It's bad for our species to allow the religions of feminism and monotheism to govern our fecundity. If you haven't noticed, most Gen Z are fucked up in genetics (high mental illness) and don't have sex.

>>15255343
>Evident in reports by monotheists.
You mean the ones who thought the extent of human history goes back a few thousand years?

>It's bad
No, I didn't ask you for ideological drivel. I asked why it matters for my destruction of your point.

>>15255344
You can even look at haplogroup spreads and find some pretty obvious evidence people were mixing a lot, which is now a taboo that is the focus of political foaming at the mouth. Archaeological evidence shows that many humans across the globe would have not just migrated and stayed within their own tiny clan. Take the Philippines as an example of great genetic diversity, or Africa for that matter. Most people would have had inbreeding in their line at some point. There seems to be no indication of limitations on what was acceptable.
>ideological drivel
Sorry, bro, it's what was "evolutionary advantageous" for my line.

>>15255345
>You can even look at haplogroup spreads and find some pretty obvious evidence people were mixing a lot
So? What does it have to do with anything?

>Sorry, bro, [incoherent seethe]
Don't care. Point still stands.

>>15255351
>So? What does it have to do with anything?
Racemixing is only a taboo in modernity. It wasn't before. You are really bad at following arguments.
>[incoherent seethe]
I was repeating what you said, so you think you're the incoherent seether? How precious.

>>15255355
>Racemixing is only a taboo in modernity. It wasn't before
How do you know and how is it relevant? You are really bad at being anything more than a meat GPT bot.

>I was repeating what you said
The way children do when they seethe.

>>15255360
Post major. I will reply once you convince me you have any merits as a student of science.

>>15255361
Notice how you are forced to deflect. I accept your full concession.

>>15255368
>t. neckbeard autodidact whose form of scientific literature is 4chan
Thanks for saving me time.

>>15255369
Anyone can claim to be a major in anything on the internet, but you're not running the show here and no one needs to prove anything to you, subhuman. I accept your concession.

>>15255375
>Muh deflection
You talk like a woman who took psychology 101 and reads Oliver Sacks.

>>15255303
I see... you must work at a sperm donation center and have the keys...

>>15255377
Notice how you're continually losing your mind with animal rage over my doing as little as asking about your reasoning. You lost.

>>15255387
You didn't ask anything with any purpose. If I said:
>So? Huh?
That isn't a question with any purpose. It's a nothing. You haven't refuted anything I said, woman.

>>15255218
>a sect that willingly castrated themselves
I sure hope tzar steps in any day now. These sect is getting violent.

>>15255393
>You didn't ask anything with any purpose
I guess I have to be more explicit with a dumb animal like you. How do you get from "people race-mixed at some points in history" to "race-mixing must've been the norm all throughout" to "people had no rules for sexual conduct up until recent times" to "modern humans have no evolutionary behavioral adaptations that affect sexual conduct"? These are all rhetorical questions, of course. Your position is completely unsalvagable. Even the first gap in reasoning kills it.

>>15255411
>at some points
It was nearly all points if the population is so high. Are you seriously going to suggest the same haplogroups would show up in such varied groups without common ancestry?
>all throughout
I didn't say that. I said until around the time religion (e.g., Jewish ethnocentrism) and modernity came.
>people had no rules for sexual conduct up until recent times
Prove they did. The onus is on you. If you think they did, that is pure projection from your own cultural bias.
>modern humans have no evolutionary behavioral adaptations that affect sexual conduct
If they do, it is usually overridden by an innate instinct to mate.

>>15255418
>It was nearly all points if the population is so high
Proof?

>I didn't say that.
So "nearly all points" but not "all throughout"? You sure are losing your mind from rage.

>Prove they did. The onus is on you.
You made the claim. You lost.

>>15255420
>Proof?
Many haplogroups shared across so many people.
>Nearly
Nearly all =/= all. Do you have a hard time grasping English, ESL woman?
>You made the claim. You lost.
If you have a counterclaim that boils down to, "So?" or feigned ignorance, I can dismiss you.

>>15255424
You lost.

>>15255427
A declaration without evidence nor reasoning cannot an argument make.

>>15255429
You lost and you are losing your mind with rage. See >>15255411

>>15255433
Stop projecting. I've been posting in various threads across many boards and yours is only mildly entertaining because you obviously suffer from rigid thinking (autism) and a self-centred need to win arguments that don't really matter. Don't have a tanty now.

>>15255437
You are losing your mind with rage. I am now hiding this thread. You will demonstrate my power over you by replying again, even though no one will read your post.